Look at these fools...how primitive they look! I mean it's TEA for goodness sakes...and do they have dress like indians? These theatrics can't be good!






Clearly such irresponsible actions could lead to problems with the British (like this):







WHY are these women marching...can't they see how they are embarrassing themselves, their families and minimizing the efforts of others who care???







Why don't they listen to these guys...they know what they're doing...







Or does this group REALLY think it helps their cause to do this kind of inflammatory lunch counter sit-in?







They sould listen to the more resonable voices of those standing behind them:






Or just what does this woman think she is doing? It’s not the busdrivers fault for goodness sakes:







See how she got arrested. Now what did that stunt prove???







Do they really think this helps?







Couldn't they just wait it out until these guys are done with their term?







WHEN will people understand that they ought to just wait...and stop with all the disruptive protests. It just brings embarrassment to the cause...

Thank You!

K&R!

Yes and what about the fool who wants to hold Bush's corporate donors accountable for the lack of progressive action in America today?




Send this letter to the Republican party today!

Copy and paste the letter below and email it directly to info@gop.com the Republican Party and get 2 friends to send this letter and have those 2 friends get 2 friends to send it and so on. Thank you. Drop me a message to info@dmocrats.org with the subject Done after you have sent the email.


Hello

Get your Republican party to end the war in Iraq, with Bush and Cheney resigning, and until you do we stop buying televisions, refrigerators, stoves, ovens, dishwashers, dvd players, stereo equipment, light bulbs from one of your party's major contributors and War contractors General Electric Corporation ( 203 373 2211 ) who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care into law and repeal Medicare Part D and place the prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80 percent of all medication with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and completely remove the means test to Medicare Part B and until you do, we will not buy consumer products and prescription drugs from the biggest 3 pharmacy chains and GOP contributors in the country Eckerd, CVS, and Walgreens and we will not buy health insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, the 2 biggest health insurance companies that give money to the GOP as well, who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to enact a $10 an hour minimum wage, and until you do, we will not go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to enact into law Universal vote by mail with paper ballots counted by civil servants with civil servants registering voters and keeping track of registrations, and until you do, we will not buy any GOP contributor Dell computers or monitors or go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.

Get your Republican party to get congress to pass and enact a law legalizing abortions from conception to six months, and to nine months when the life of the mother appears threatened, and until you do we stop doing business with two of your biggest contributors Dominos Pizza and Curves for Women Health Clubs.

Signed,

but hasn't Cindy had way more than her 15 minute share of fame? I mean, she retired once from protesting and issued a diatribe saying how "progressives" were back-stabbers and self-interested, not really concerned about the cause they were supporting, but only intersted in attention. She said that about me. To tell you the truth, I was a bit offended (and not in a "nice" kind of way). Now she is "resurrected" and wants to march at the head of the pack again. Why does she think she deserves this? Just what does she bring to the table? She certianly isn't a dynamic speaker. She gives dictators a nice hug, but that can't count for much. Now she is pushing Conyers and Pelosi which is perceived by the general public to represent a split in the Democratic Party. Do we want to embrace "diversity" in this manner? Don't we just look foolish and divided to the public at a time when we need to look united and forceful? Chalenging our nation leader (Bush) is one thing, but now we are challenging the leaders of our own party! Doesn't this look....well....chatic.....even anarchic? Is this what "progressives" stand for? Anarchy? Squabbles? Partisanship? Civl disobedience? Resistance to authority? Individualists instead of team players? Whiners instead of problem solvers?

Just a thought I have been reflecting on while watching Cindy in her latest march to Capitol Hill. She has already led a sit-in outside Pelosi's office, and now she is at Conyers office. I hope Cindy does run for office, and then abides by the decision of her peers and voting constituents, whatever that may be (victory or defeat).

progressives citizens who spoke out and who made this country what it was, like the founding fathers, who do they think they are anyway?

Just what do you think progressives should stand for? Playing nice with the oppressors?

I think we give Cindy some latitude here. In my opinion she burnt out in Crawford Tx. and had to vent a little. I think she is coming to her knowledge of US imperalism late in life and was probably somewhat naive when she first joined the protest/peace movement. I respect her and give her the right to have a tantrum every once and again. It is her due and she is essentially right about a good portion of the "peace" movement. Many are in it for there own ends and are more than happy to have a "war" to protest.

I wonder exactly what "dictator" you are refering to? If it is Chavez, then "dictator" is the wrong term and using that language only serves to reinforce misleading US corporate propaganda. Chavez is the fairly elected president of Venezuala. He is much less a dictator than our King George.

Challenging everyone who has caved to Bushinc over the war
is a good and necessary thing.

They know that they won't win on their own. If the GOP punts the election (like they did in CT06) and it turns Pelosi v. Sheehan, the GOP will either support or oppose Pelosi. Perhaps they might support Cindy.
Actually I bet they will support Pelosi. It must be nice to have a Speaker of the House in the neighborhood.

Bravo!!!

:applause::kick::applause:

:toast:

k/r

By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
6:36 PM PDT, July 23, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The House Judiciary Committee said Monday that it would move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against President Bush's chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas pertaining to the investigation of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

The panel's chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said the committee would vote Wednesday on a resolution to hold Bolten and Miers in contempt for refusing to turn over documents and testimony sought by the panel.

The decision ratchets up a battle between Congress and the White House in which the Bush administration has sought to invoke executive privilege to keep documents about the firings under wraps. The resolution would go to the House floor for a vote if, as expected, the committee approves it.

Only twice since the Watergate investigations of the mid-1970s has the full House voted to hold an administration official in contempt of Congress. ~snip~

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-contempt24jul24,0,5425887.story?coll=la-home-center

:D

...because that of course would have been all the reason that he needed to have had to fold his tent and go home.


















For those who may not understand my post, this is :sarcasm:

to reach for -- maybe never to reach, but to reach for. :toast:

I think I am in the Washington DC reflecting pool protest picture.

:)

Dr. King taught us many things, but to me he will always be the personification of personal integrity and courage. To me the definition of courage is when a person chooses of their own free will to do the right thing even at great personal risk to themselves.

Some things are bigger than ourselves, and Dr. King knew that what he was fighting for was larger than himself or any single person. I wish that there were more of us (myself included) who would reach for the integrity and courage of Dr. King.

:toast:

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

I'm reading a lot of admonishments about this: don't embarrass the party, don't
step out of line, etc. Well, this diary shows us that a few people had to step
out of line, and we've all benefited from it.

May I add that in the 1930's when FDR was trying to get his New Deal enacted,
that a group of right wing business leaders (yes, Prescott Bush too) tried to
organize a coup against FDR, thinking that a fascist state was the answer to
the Depression. This is chronicled in a new BBC Radio 4 30 minute
program that was broadcast yesterday, and is available for listening here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document.shtml

Our country was founded and perpetuated (until now) by those who probably
embarrassed a lot of people, including the elite.

You have to ask, what do those who criticize these movements have invested
in the status quo?

attempt against FDR. That's fascinating. Thanks for the link.

...maybe someday all those people who feel that Sheehan in particular and protestors in general are embarrassments will finally realize they were wrong. Dissent is honorable, not embarrassing or counter-productive.

But not this one.

Recommended. I loved it.

they ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

Did those protestors spend alot of time protesting the elected officials who are on their side? If the quarterback doesn't throw a touchdown pass in the first quarter should the wide receivers try to sack him too?

why do they need to be protested?

Sheehan is protesting against the Democrats because they aren't doing anything to end the war, and not making any real attempt to impeach Dubya. I have a feeling that if Democrats hadn't been helping get any meaningful civil rights legislation passed, MLK might have spoken out against them also.

She would have led a sit in at Martin Luther King's office.

:)

Our quarterback has not thrown any meaningful touchdown passes. Obviously the wide receivers and offensive lineman should be trying to sack him, instead of working against the other team. Because the quarterback is more responsible for making us lose than the other team is. Sometimes, (see for example last years Chicago Bears) a change of quarterback is good for the team, but if the problem is still that their defense is too tough, stopping the run and putting pressure on the QB, then attacking members of our own team is not productive.

and lob the hail mary. When that fails, well there's always next season, right?

The power was in the fact that his protests TURNED the TIDE and got politicians on BOTH sides to vote for civil rights, IMO.

Peace.

Reid is hoping that over the break that Republican Senators will feel pressure from their constituents to end the war. Why not keep the pressure on the Republicans who continue to support the war? Why not pressure Republicans in Congress to support impeachment so it would be bi-partisan?

Committee, the person in the House who can start impeachment proceedings.

They could have gone to Tancredo's office but he has no pull on that committee. :)

I understand that people get protective of Mr. Conyers. But since the midterms, he is the go to guy. That's his job.

If it gets voted down 12-5 will that be helpful? If it passes by straight party-line vote, will that be helpful?

I think there are many, less helpful people who can be protested.

What good would it do to protest any Republican? We already know they despise America and will not do anything against their Party. We want someone to do something and so we go to the person in the position to do something. He has made the statement that he will not back Impeachment. Now how do you suggest we change his mind. Maybe a pretty please, will that work do you think? I mean come on get real.

I heard rumors........

Just last April they pushed legislation through with the Iraqi supplemental to require Iraq sign over control of their oil to the multinational oil companies.

If Iraq passes the law, as congress requires, we will be in Iraq for decades protecting the profits of the multinationals. We call it "national security." It's a euphemism for sending our children as cannon fodder to help steal Iraqi oil.

Aren't you paying attention?

And yes, I'm old enough to remember that some of those protesters spent quite a lot of time protesting elected officials. Which elected official was on Rosa Parks's side?

n/t

of 1968?

As a prostestor (who doesn't protest nearly as much as I wish I could) I have spent the last 5 years going to protests against Bush. It is amazing how little attention certain elected democrats paid to that. I say if there are conservative/DLC democrats that are unwilling to take a stand and do what is right they do more damage to the movement for impeaching Bush and getting out of the war than the republicans.

I believe MLK said something to the effect that it was not the hatred of his enemies but the great apathy and ignorance of people that ought to be sympathetic. (The actual qoute escapes me)

A protest isn't just to oust or attack. That It is to raise awareness and remind our officials of the will of the people. This is actually less likely to work on political advesaries and it ought to be more likely to lend courage to those who ought to be on our side on a given issue.

I have no idea why. Tonight I noticed it looks & sounds like a Coke advertisement.

Excellent post BTW.

I also noticed that Nixon and Agnew look kinder and more intelligent than Bush and Cheney. Wow.

Rest her soul.

Good grief. :( I'm sickened. Can't say I didn't see it coming. Cindy's diatribe on the horrors of John Conyers to follow. :puke:

...but fix the Tea Party linky, please!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They should just fucking shut up and do what they are told by people who are obviously more possessed of reason and critical thinking skills like myself.

(If you don't realize this is a parody, you probably don't read DU!) ;)

You're making us all look bad! Have some respect for your party! Disgusting!! Toe the fucking line you tinfoil hat nut! Get some therapy you loon! What are you, God of the Universe? Party of slavery.... get a grip you cheap famewhore!

:D

followed by the Milgram experiment otherwise we can never achieve
perfect groupthink.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

btw, I have the same reaction to "you've never lost a child in a war so you have no right to criticize anything Cindy does". Same answer. I may wildly disagree with folks, but they have a right to say what they say.

And who is this "we" anyway? You and the mouse in your pocket?

a sarcasm tag but I wasn't considering other viewers. I'm parodying the way DLC Dems argue.

Come on, SwampRat?

but inevitably someone takes you seriously. :)

Wow, some of us DO need the sarcasm tag. I thought it was strange coming from you.

Here is what I said about Swampy when I thought he needed defense...<g>:

He is one of The Truest Souls on this entire board.

He has more heart than most.

Lee

of my pitch-perfect parody. :evilgrin:

I am a little too good at sounding like someone else. Remember that program that read prose and figured out the gender of the writer? I fed in two parts of my novel, one with a male and one with a female narrator. The program was something like 90% sure the writer was the sex of the narrator in both cases...

perspective, eh?

They weren't weak-ass liars who went crying to DailyKos and QUIT when mean people called them names. :cry:

Sheehan is a QUITTER. She's not so much an attention whore as she is a disaster.

to each his own. :shrug:

who has never had a bad moment, a moment of despair.

Cindy got arrested today fighting for your effen Constitution.

What did you do?

Moses lost his temper and quit, too. Everybody has bad days.

:spray:

Jesus H. Fuck, now she's Moses!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

totally...

That. :rofl: Is. :rofl: Fucking. :rofl: Funny!

If you don't like her, just ignore her. Some of you seem to spend more time tracking the every move of a single protester than worrying about what bushco is doing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't compare Cindy Sheehan to Moses. Sheesh. Read my post. I wrote that claiming that somebody isn't "the real deal" (whatever that is) because they lost their temper would disqualify every other human on the planet. Moses came to mind as one example. There are several billion more.

I'm not even a fan of Cindy Sheehan's. I'm just sick and tired of threads criticizing her filling up DU's boards. It's you guys who keep the threads about her clogging up the boards. Just drop it. If you ignore her, you won't have to read about her.

It's just silly. All this petulant whining about a single protester is silly. If you don't like her, ignore her.

compared their situation, the righteousness of their cause, their perseverence, and their leadership styles.

My mistake. That's not a comparison at all...

:eyes:

Now you're just making things up.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:toast:

:kick:

:thumbsup: :loveya: :applause:

Or, the doing a sit in at a black restaurant. Talk about being an embarrassment to the cause. :eyes:

and if you don't think the dems are part of the problem, well...you don't know shit.

One of the most stead fast anti-war, anti-Bush men in the whole congress is the problem? :rofl:

anyone opposing impeachment IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. conyers especially because he is a gatekeeper. impeachment is LONG overdue and conyers bears as much responsibility for that as anyone.

almost everybody is guilty of everything.

because the people inhabiting suffragette headquarters were not in power. Not even close on the analogy.

and I've been extremely politically active ever since, yeah, I think I'm pretty informed. Do you understand that when one has a grievance with the government that one takes that grievance to those in power?

Conyers is not sacrosanct. Neither is Pelosi or Reid or any of the others currently in power. These people are accountable to US, We the People, and if We the People have a grievance with our government, we take those grievances TO our government. Says so right in the Constitution.

:thumbsup:

Thank you!

:applause:

We were there that day the park police on horses broke it up and pushed us in the pool.

That might be me to the left of him with my back to the camera.

I was just a few years too young to go to those protests. One of my old bosses who was at Princeton at the time used to talk of everyone getting tear gassed. I always think of these protests when I'm at the Reflecting Pool and wish I could have been there.

Thanks for doing it, those protests saved a lot of lives. Another movement that was widely criticized but accomplished a great deal. Perhaps it takes many years of historical perspective to finally realize how important civil disobedience really is.

If... the machine of government...
is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice
to another, then, I say, break the law.
~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849


You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality.
Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. ~Malcolm X


Human history begins with man's act of disobedience
which is at the very same time the beginning of his freedom and development of his reason.
~Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion


Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong,
which course is patriotic and which isn't.
You cannot shirk this and be a man.
To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor,
both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.
~Mark Twain


Integrity has no need of rules. ~Albert Camus

Thank you.

You were a part of history! :patriot:

I'm pretty damn sure that is my friend we were 17-18 then.

40 odd years ago.

Maybe you can email it to him.

Happy Birthday, IChing!!!:party:

But he lives on, he had a picture in Time magazine burning his draft card that same year.
He was a member of the SDS and was a representative for them at our High School

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/cognitivedissonancetheory.htm&h=288&w=636&sz=57&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=LGQNlc52oMdMQM:&tbnh=62&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcognitive%2Bdissonance%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DX

Voices that speak the Truth, voices that try to be brave. Those are the ones they try to marginalize and diminish.

This weekend I sat with my back to the flag at my kid's baseball game while other's were nearly genuflecting as they do at baseball games these days. A fellow father said to me "What? DOn't you believe in standing during that!?". I told him that this was a free country and I'm going to exercise my free speech and do you have a problem with that?"
It was an uncomfortably long national anthem. But fuck off to anyone who has a problem with it. I will NOT BE COERCED into symbolic and gushy displays of relegious reverence to a flag I would sooner spit on for what it represents now rather than genuflect to. AND THAT IS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN. I want that kind of country. I will fight for it.

The Bonus Army

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm

In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day
served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not
be made until 1945.


Members of the Bonus Army encamp within sight of the Capitol, 1932


However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression
and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.

In May of that year, some 15,000 veterans, many unemployed and destitute, descended on Washington, D.C.
to demand immediate payment of their bonus. They proclaimed themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force but
the public dubbed them the "Bonus Army." Raising ramshackle camps at various places around the city, they waited.

The veterans made their largest camp at Anacostia Flats across the river from the Capitol.

Approximately 10,000 veterans, women and children lived in the shelters built from materials dragged out
of a junk pile nearby - old lumber, packing boxes and scrap tin covered with roofs of thatched straw.


Troops prepare to evacuate the Bonus Army July 28, 1932

Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.

By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop.

Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp.

By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames.

Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties.

Eisenhower later wrote, "the whole scene was pitiful.

The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused.
To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity."

more.....


:kick: & Recommended!

Thank You!! :hug:

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

:hi:

This brings everything today's progressive movement is fighting for into clarity in the few seconds it takes to read.

Thank you for this outstanding post. Great job.

That is an excellent post that I have happy to recommend!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I keep writing and re-writing this post in order to express my deep displeasure with those who disagree with Sheehan's actions of today, and none of it seems right. I will say, nothing makes me more embarrassed than to see the alleged party of peace populated by those who choose to anonymously badmouth a woman who lost her son to a war for oil protesting to end that war. Nothing.

Yes, I am sure I want to recommend this thread.

Excellent post!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
:kick:
:yourock:

:yourock: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :yourock:

:kick:

Who the hell did these hostile homosexuals think they were, anyway?
How dare they march in public! They should have kept quiet for heaven's sake...

:sarcasm: of course

I wouldn't mind so much if they weren't always going around demanding rights! Why can't they just keep quiet about their preversions????

why do they have to draw attention to themselves like that?"

or

(Gosh, no one should be allowed to have that much fun.)
:think:

Every DUer should read it and when we lose patience with people because we don't agree with their timing or their tactics, we should read it again.

Brilliant! :applause:

edited to add ... K & R!!!

kicking and screaming about how it will be the end of the world, into the future. By we I mean the "extremists", the "loony left", the "hippies", the communists and anarchists, the populists, the "fringe elements",


the liberals.

about your girdle.

lol

:rofl:

was a bunch of guys who were smugglers out for their own interests and pocketbooks.

Don't believe me?

I read it in Boston at the historical museum

Sam Adams was basically little more than a pirate and out for making $$ for himself and his cronies.

The BTP was to get the Brits off his back and the public on his side.

Sad, ain't it?

lol

the founding of our great nation.

The tradition continues, eh?

They got that song wrong didn't they? It should be

"Money makes the world go round"


It came as a shock to me - as an adult - to learn that our "FOUNDING FATHERS" - that pivotal moment - was based on filthy lucre and nothing at all whatsoever to do with patriotism or freedom or anything so noble.

It was all about the money, honey.

But, it's also true that there are people who do stand up even when it's hard and unpopular and even dangerous.

You're talking to a habitual non-conformist so I know whereof you speak.

Choose your battles - and your words - and your actions - wisely, though.

Sometimes, there ARE no do-overs. And "symbolic acts" become merely that - and nothing more.

What do you call it when megacorps destroy Mom and Pops with unfair trade practices?

Or pay migrant workers pennies on the dollar to bust their asses in the sun? (Those bastards have the nerve to strike? I thought it was about something NOBLE, not just "filthy lucre"!) :eyes:

It was a protest by colonist small businessmen who weren't allowed to sell tea they imported. The British forced colonists to buy from the British East India Company who got an ancient form of corporate welfare from the Brits in the form of a waiver of taxes that other tea importers had to pay.

Many actually see it as the colonists first demonstration that only individual citizens had rights, not corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

:rofl:

You might want to check some sources other than wiki

Hint - it's wasn't in the American Colonies...

the British decreed that only one company could sell tea to the Colonies. They weren't smuggling, they were offering competition against a corporate monopoly.

Sorry to disagree, but I side with my ancestors!

plain and simple. And Sam Adams was making a pretty penny off of it. John didn't get the "franchise" from the governor as one of the merchants authorized to sell, so he patched up and joined up with Sam, et voila.

It was all about the $$. Nothing to do with "Patriotism".



Now - this is going to sound snarky - but I'm not trying to be. I'm trying to get you to really think here.

1) The victors write the history books.

2) Revisionist history to make us "look good" has been and still is rampant. (By ever nation under the sun since the beginning of time. POV has a bad habit of shading "facts".

3) So what do you think your great great grandchildren will say about Bush's invasion of Iraq? "Sorry to disagree, but I side with MY ancestors!" ?

I didn't think so.

What you said reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, by G. K. Chesterton, " "My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."



Again, I truly am not trying to be snarky, bitchy, what have you. . . :hi:


EDIT - and on second thought, if "they" were your ancestors - so were the BRITS! :P

Don't know who he is? Look him up.

"Hewes noted that many American colonists either boycotted the purchase of tea, or were smuggling or purchasing smuggled tea** to avoid supporting the East India Company’s profits and the British taxes on tea, which, according to Hewes’ account of 1773, “rendered the smuggling of an object and was frequently practiced, and their resolutions against using it, although observed by many with little fidelity, had greatly diminished the importation into the colonies of this commodity.

. . . As Hewes notes: “The Company, however, received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America…” allowing it to wipe out its small competitors and take over the tea business in all of America. “Hence,” he told his biographer, “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity, which by the aid of the public authority, might, as they supposed, easily be landed, and amassed in suitable magazines. Accordingly the Company sent its agents at Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, six hundred chests of tea, and a proportionate number to Charleston, and other maritime cities of the American continent. The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course…”

** And who was profiting off of these smuggling operations?

*** Ah - vast quantities of DUTY FREE tea. That would really put the kibosh on the smuggler's venture, wouldn't it?


Granted not wishing a monopoly is one thing. But don't kid yourself, the motives of the businessmen behind the BTP was $$$$$ for themselves.



I don't remember - and can't locate the book - where I also read that it appeared Mr. Hewes slightly - ah - inflated his role in the affair.




---------

The situation remained comparatively quiet until May 1773, when the faltering East India Company persuaded Parliament that the company's future and the empire's prosperity depended on the disposal of its tea surplus. Because the American tea market had nearly been captured by tea smuggled from Holland, Parliament gave the company a drawback (refund) of the entire shilling-per-pound duty, enabling the company to undersell the smugglers. It was expected that the Americans, faced with a choice between the cheaper company tea and the higher-priced smuggled tea, would buy the cheaper tea, despite the tax. The company would then be saved from bankruptcy, the smugglers would be ruined, and the principle of parliamentary taxation would be upheld. http://www.americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/TEAPARTY.HTM

... is that these, erm, entrepreneurs were standing up against the Wal-Mart of their day, the East India Company, whom the British government allowed to sell tea directly to the colonies without paying the usual duties in Britain, and smugglers couldn't match that price. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, "the wealthy smugglers resented this favored treatment of a major company, which employed lobbyists and wielded great influence in Parliament."

Hmm... Favored treatment...? Lots of lobbyists and influence...? Is this HISTORY or MODERN DAY?

The Boston Tea Party and the subsequent Tea Act of 1773 was the first move by our founding fathers to declare the rights of individuals to be above those of corporations. It was the early assertion by our founders that rejected the idea of corporate "personhood".

http://www.alternet.org/story/15178/

The American colonists were offended by the idea they should be vassals of a corporation and a kingdom that supported and profited from it. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly stated that humans were born into this world endowed by their Creator with certain rights, that governments were created by humans to insure only humans held those rights, and "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."

Stating flatly that "it is their right, it is their duty," to alter their government and thus claim their unique human rights, 56 men defied the East India Company and the government whose army supported it by placing their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, saying, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

....

In 1773, the East India Company had claimed the "right" to participate in the political processes of England and, with wealth and power greater than the average citizen, got passed for themselves a huge tax reduction on tea and an overall tax rebate so large they could undersell and wipe out their small Colonial competitors. The response of the entrepreneurial colonists to the Tea Act of 1773 was the Boston Tea Party revolt against that transnational corporation, setting the stage for the Declaration of Independence and the beginnings of what Lincoln called "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Make no mistake about it, if Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks were still alive and protesting today they would be ripped on just as often as Cindy Sheehan is being ripped on. To deny that would be to deny history, none of the protesters you showed in your OP were embraced with open arms at the time of their activism. The very best activists are usually hated by a large number of people, but as time goes on people realize the good that people like Martin Luther King did and they become national heroes. I predict that one day Cindy Sheehan will be looked at on the same level as Martin Luther King is and most of those who are attacking her will realize they were wrong.

I would think time would tell how history will treat her.

History generally is not viewed in a partisan fashion, those who are remembered in the activist community are those who fought against powerful interests which were propped up by not just one party but both parties. Sexism, racism, and militarism were not only practiced by Republicans. The women's suffrage movement had to fight against both parties, the civil rights movement had to fight against both parties, the movement to end the Vietnam War had to fight against both parties, and the movement to end the Iraq war will have to be fought against both parties.

When you watch her you are watching history in the making.

It's about how shocked I am to hear the sort of outcry that I have heard today against those brave citizens who protested in halls of Congress and in the office of the Head of the Judiciary Committee. This is not a slight against Conyers. Nor is it about putting Cindy on a pedestal. It is about PROTEST.

Most of us here at DU want the same thing. We abhor what Bush and Cheney have done to our country. We are ashamed of crimes committed against the Iraqi people. We are aghast at how this administration shreds our precious constitution, our voting rights, our laws.

Do you know how many people googled "bush, cheney, impeachment" today? Was that becasue of any action you or I took? No, it was not. I called several(albeit liberal) members of Congress today. They were all excited. They're phones were ringing off the hook. Discussions were going on all over the place about how to best go about impeachment, if they even should. Those "lunatic" protesters DID bring this discussion another step further, whether you want to admit it or not.

Now, you may be one who thinks it politically unwise to impeach this administration since the votes aren't there. Or you may think we must impeach, for the sake of all we hold dear, damn the torpedoes! I don't really care which side a person is on, there's argument for both. But when I see and hear the sort of disgraceful rhetoric that I have seen and heard against those brave souls who protested today, whose asses are sittin' in the slammer right now--it shocks me. That's all I can say.

God bless them. I sit here in my jammies with my margarita on ice and type in the comfort of my home office. Where are you? Did you go out on a limb today? Did you get so fed up with those in power in Washington that you decided to run for office? Did you sit in Conyer's office and wait for the police to drag you out? Did you endure the slander and hate that others threw at you from the anonymous comfort of their homes?

I love DU, but sometimes I hate the ugliness that the passion can bring out in a person.

You don't have to agree with Cindy's protest, or her choice to run for office as an independent. But think long and hard before you cast that stone. That's all I'm sayin'.

(BTW LittleClarkie, I just seriously got on my soapbox. Sorry. This post wasn't all aimed at you.:blush: Kinda' embarrassed here now.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Don't address my point just call me delusional and move on, what a great argumentative technique you have in name calling.

Apparently he's a Cindy hater, and since he is bereft of any cogent argument, he has no alternative but to hurl mindless invective.

Maybe he wants to find out just how far he can push the "DUmmies" before getting TS'd. :shrug:

Presidency or Democratic control congress? Never-mind Republican.
Does that really matter when our leaders are wrong?

:)

ANd welcome to DU, AnExtremist!:hi:

i needed a good laugh!
:rofl:

never got a grip!

don't you UNDERSTAND????? If we're too strident or confrontational, why, KKKarl Rove and Fox "news" might criticize us and call us names. By the way , if any of you haven't seen the series of graphics called "if fox news had been around through history", try to find it. One of those funny yet sad because its true situations. They're all like tv pictures of fox news covering history, and one of em is the tea party with the caption "terrorism in Boston Harbor" .

To worry about what Faux News or Karl Rove says?

it just seems so many Democratic politicians are afraid to be "real" Democrats, that I was sort of being facetious that they must be afraid of Rove or Faux. Just grasping at straws to explain the timidity of so many Democratic elected officials to fully confront the rightwing as forcefully as they (in my opinion only) should.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

...to the docks? They should've been kept a few blocks away, er, for their own protection.

:patriot:

This is puzzling me.

I've never read anywhere that Indians were thought to have been responsible for the tea-dumping activities... It always seemed to me that it was clear that colonists had done it. So I presume the Indian get-up was just so the men (members of the Sons of Liberty) would not be individually recognized.

They could have disguised themselves otherwise... why Indians?
Like if today some radical white protestors dressed up as poor mexicans, or as inner city gang members.
I wonder if it was a hint of things to come in our future government, ie a tendency to scapegoat and obscure.
Or maybe they just all got drunk, like a bunch of frat guys, and thought: hey this would be hilarious, let's throw all the tea in the harbor, and they'll think the Injuns did it!

:)

That would have been pretty subversive.
Something about them dressing as Indians just doesn't sit right with me.

Imho, dressing as Brit nobility would have been pretty confusing for their audience.

Dressing as Native Americans evokes a people not under the control of the crown.

They TRUTH hurts, goddammit, doesn't it?!

Thank-you from a grateful 60s/70s Radical.
YOU totally get it.

Lee

to petition their government for the redress of grievances? What are you, some kind of damn pinky, liberal, hippy, commie DEMOCRAT? Don't you know that people who disagree with what our LEADERS have decided should just SHUT UP! You need to read DU more closely. There are a dozen extremely active posters who will remind you that Moore-loving, Chavezista, peaceniks like you (and me) only weaken THE PARTY.

You should accept the fact that Our Leaders always know more than we do, and if the majority of Dem Senators supported the invasion and slaughter, we should accept the fact that they knew best, and if the House leadership believes that impeaching a mass murderer is a bad idea, they are surely wiser that us mere proles.

(edit - fix one typo, probably missed more)

acting as citizens and acting as slaves. Some want us to act a slaves.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams


:hi:

:rofl:

"democrats." With a small "d" even. Very few of them, as best I can tell, but very loud, demanding, disruptive, and online for two shifts per day. Good pay is my first guess, just wholly gullible fools is the second. Or maybe they just hate our freedoms. Who knows? But one thing is clear, there are very few of them, and they post dozens or hundreds of times per day, attempting to create an imaginary "consensus of opinion" through sheer repetition of their talking points.

(edit to fix punctuation error)

lol

If I was and I could police your posts I'd tell you to stop pretending you are being silenced by wicked DC insiders.

Thank you not only for the elegant point that you make, but for lifting my spirits after seeing some of the hateful posts that I have been seeing lately. I really needed this.

If they'd just be patient, time would take care of everything.

A lot of people have grandiose delusions of their place in history and a fetish for self congratulation.

feel that they are, historically speaking, just as important as civil rights leaders and the founding fathers.

Sickening

... or people that have been swept up into the Cindy Cult of Personality and pounce on any thread promoting CS with fawning approval. Either way, it is sad and people (especially DUers) should know better.

We complain about the "sheeple" and the "dittoheads" and we have a significant number of our own elevating certain persons to pedestals beyond criticism. Anyone who doesn't shower praise (or at least keep their mouth shut) is accused of being pro-right-wing, pro-war, pro-Cheney, of simply "hating" the newly throned deity, or of being too stupid to understand the actions of our hero/heroine. If we don't support every ideologically pure action and stance, we are somehow anti-democracy. It's sick.

ETA: we're also accused of being anti-impeachment (not necessarily the case) and of being pro-corporate America (almost never the case)

Oh, that's right you write blogs and participated in your own life.

it ought to be Ralph Nader.

go look in your own mirror and do something in your life.

I have no delusions on what I did
only the powerful like you count.

I don't have the proxy shares to change the vote in the corporate democracy
you expose.

What a bunch of condensing shit you expose about yourself

nevermind. you party loyalists are not worth arguing with. :puke:

K&R

not another anti-protest, anti-impeachment, all hail-corporate-America post.

Now, I'm glad I clicked on it and highly recommend it to all DU posters and readers.

It highlights the struggle for Democracy in the past 230+ years. What better way than through paintings and photographs.

We are at another crossroad in that struggle today. So many naysayers, even here on this liberal website, continue to bash those who prefer to protest publically that I wonder why they are a part of the Democratic Party. Or are they trolls who are here to try to pull us apart?

I'd say I am much more a part of the Democratic Party than Cindy Sheehan, who tells everybody to vote against Democrats.

Hail corporate America? Oh boy!

K&R!!!! Thank you Cindy!

And thank you whereismyparty for posting this.



on edit: I got so excited I couldn't even spell right. That's the excuse I'm going with...

the year Nixon was elected President.

the elections than any power.

...and probably angered a few comfortable elites, but gosh: how did they
manage to do this without blogs, radio and television? Without the ok from
the Fixed News Channel, CNN: The Mistrusted Name in News, and the New York
Times? And without the ok of Nancy Pelosi? Oh wait, this was BEFORE
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence when he was only 33,
and BEFORE we had a Constitution and before well, everything.

snark on:
Strange people back then, I must say, taking action like that. Quaint!
snark off

Thanks for this

Oh wait, he was smart enough to know the difference between his friends and his enemies and that things don't happen overnight.

That's great.