BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 10:36 AM

That's it, Kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 08:36 AM

LH, right again. Freedom my ass! We are in Iraq to protect our oil supply. The fact that all those Muslims are standing on our oil is just too damn bad for them.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:15 PM

Too bad George W. Bush wasn't around back then. They could have run as a team.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:06 PM

I remember when "normalcy" was used as a prime example of Harding's lack of education. He also used "generalcy" when referring to commanding officers in the Army.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 07:13 PM

The repeal of the Glass Steagal act was a major contributor, removing the glass wall between banking and investing. It enabled banks to make those rotten investment bundles out of their rotten mortgages instead of having to be responsible for their own lending practices.

The use of excessively liberal multipliers that banks were allowed to lend compared to the assets they actually have on hand, which is the core behind the magic creation of money in our credit system, is the other big foolishness. Both of these are invented by Hamiltonian-style Republicans in the badly mistaken belief they were being "friendly" to business, while actually building the seeds of depression into the economy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:59 PM

Jack, what mostly created our present financial mess is that the major banks were allowed to create a vast bubble of "magic" money out of thin air by making a tremendous number of high risk loans (so they could collect interest and get richer). Enough of those loans eventually defaulted that the whole system began to collapse, and the government stepped in to bail out the criminals who caused that! I suggest you read this book about how banks create money out of thin air to enrich themselves: "The Creature from Jeckyl Island"

It will make quite clear why we have these "boom and bust" scenarios over and over again and why the dollar is worth less and less with every passing year.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:52 PM

The advertising/lobbying firm of Dick Army coined the term tea baggers. Glen Beck was chosen to promote it and the 9 12 rally for 4 months. Barbara Bachman was the latest to go on FOX and plead for another tea bagger rally. When 6 Republican congress p[eople showed up they missed a vote to radicalize the Patriot Act again. As luck would have it the bill lost by 5 votes.

I guess it is not to be taken litterally.

I have yet to see people dress like Indians and dump high tariff goods into the water at any of of our container shipping ports.






btw over half of our container shipping ports are fun by United Arab Republic corporations since the big sale during the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:56 AM

Libertarianism is as dumb an idea as "the markets will regulate themselves." The second idea lead to our current recession and financial mess. Examples of the true libertarianism can be seen in northern Afghanistan, Somalia, and the wilderness of Columbia and Bolivia.

Drown your government in a bathtub and warlords of one kind or another will fill the vacuum.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:47 AM

Heh! (snickering in my sleeve here...)

It has become pretty clear to me on reading a number of interesting books about the American Revolutionary period that the primary motivations behind launching the American Revolution were mercantile concerns. Surprise, surprise.... ;-) Yes, it was mostly about money, not "freedom". The Yankee traders in New England were very concerned about their profit line, and they dressed that concern in all sorts of fiery rhetoric about "liberty", "freedom", etc...and about half the people in the 13 colonies were moved to fight against the crown by that fiery rhetoric (and by British arrogance, no doubt) while the other half were moved to support or defend the crown. So you had a revolution which was also a civil war...and the revolutionaries eventually won it due to a number of complex factors, not least the quite vital assistance they got from France (which was also fighting the British crown at the time).

Many of the Loyalists fled to Canada at the conclusion of the war. Interestingly enough, Canada has always had just as much liberty and freedom as the USA (in my opinion)...if not moreso. There has been no notable lack of social liberty and freedom north of the American border between 1779 and the present day. So I frankly do not believe that the American Revolution was essentially about either liberty or freedom. But that's not what you want to tell your school kids, right?

Likewise, the British did not go all over the world conquering and colonizing out of a deep desire to "better the lives of savages" and "take up the White Man's Burden". HA!!! They did it for money and imperial power.

And they also told their many generations of school children that they were doing it for all kinds of wonderfully idealistic reasons that would make the world a far better place.

What a bunch of liars! ;-) Britain and America both have done what they have done in the world for exactly the same reasons: money, power, and material gain. This is in fact true of all expansionist political powers.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:37 AM

none of your 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM post makes any sense at all.

That's no way to address The Simple Seaker After Truth and Fount of All Knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:01 AM

Warren Harding was credited with this word. Both appear in my dictionary but I just dont like the sound of normalcy.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: EBarnacle
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 03:00 AM

The argument anent taxation of the colonials as well as the argument against taxation of imports, such as tea.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:58 AM

Anyway, Ron, none of your 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM post makes any sense at all. Which tax are you referring to with this...

It was in fact in large part a protest against the idea that a tax in which American representatives had no say could be used to further isolate the UK-appointed colonial administration from pressure from American interests. And it was feared that this would be the start--again-- of further encroachments of the sort.


And here...

"Once Indian tea was accepted in America, the 3d duty would 'enter the bulwark of our sacred liberties' and would accomplish Parliament's purpose of taxation for revenue, nor would its authors desist 'til they have made a conquest of the whole'."

Which 3d tax are you talking about?


And with smugglers, shipowners, and merchants annoyed at Britain for their various reasons, the argument fell on willing ears.

What argument fell on willing ears?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:24 PM

Which Tuchman are you quoting in your 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM post, Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM

" It was not a protest against a tax."

Wrong.

It was in fact in large part a protest against the idea that a tax in which American representatives had no say could be used to further isolate the UK-appointed colonial administration from pressure from American interests. And it was feared that this would be the start--again-- of further encroachments of the sort.

Political agitators could and did use this argument: "Once Indian tea was accepted in America, the 3d duty would 'enter the bulwark of our sacred liberties' and would accomplish Parliament's purpose of taxation for revenue, nor would its authors desist 'til they have made a conquest of the whole'."   (Tuchman, p 195).

And with smugglers, shipowners, and merchants annoyed at Britain for their various reasons, the argument fell on willing ears.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 06:34 PM

"Normality" and "normalcy" both appear as words of common usage in the large dictionary I have here. "Normality" derives from Latin and French. I would think that "normalcy" is a more modern and recently used term than normality.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 05:00 PM

Ha! W wasn't as stupid as he looked!

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:31 PM

Main Entry: nor-mal-cy
Pronunciation: \ˈnȯr-məl-sē\
Function: noun
Date: 1857

: the state or fact of being normal


http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/normalcy


Most dictionaries don't seem to contain the word, "normality".

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:16 PM

Bush coined that term, did he? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:03 PM

LH, normality. a real word.(Thank you)
Normalcy. a non word made up by one of our dimmest presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:00 PM

As long as we have money and private ownership of land. Because the cost of the road is not just the road itself, but also access to the land that the road is on. There were toll roads long before there were cars and paved roads. The tolls were paid to the people who owned the land. In the world of that libertarian I was talking about, there would be no government owned land. This means that all roads would be on private land. So even if they were only dirt tracks, tolls would have to be paid to the owners of the land for the use of it (possibly not all landowners would do this, but enough would to make the process of getting around pretty much impossible). And yet, this is the kind of world that the teabaggers are trying to force on us, saying that they are trying to take back our freedoms.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 02:25 PM

Good point, Carol. ;-) There are a great variety of ideas out there about what "freedom" means and about what "moderation" means and what "extremism" means. I would regard that libertarian's view as an unrealistic one that is based on rigid dogma, not on an accurate understanding of the situation.

The way roads began was like this...

1. First you had trails through the wilderness. Trails were naturally created by animals and people just following the least difficult and clearest route to reach water, food, and whatever else they were after. Trails were free. The more they were used, the better they got, but they were still free.

2. With the advent of horseback riding trails became even better than before, but they were still free. No one owned them. Everyone used them.

3. With the advent of horsedrawn vehicles trails had to be improved upon considerably, specially when nation-states began needing to move large armies around on them. This resulted in funds being raised by various kings and emperors to hire workers (or buy slaves) and build genuine roads. All of a sudden trails weren't free anymore! Taxes needed to be raised to improve them into roads. It was the Romans who really put roads "on the map" and they raised a lot of tax money to do it. Their superbly paved roads made it possible for them to rapidly move huge armies long distances and to conquer many other nations and build an empire.

4. You've basically had a situation ever since where organized societies must raise funds to build and maintain their many roads. Those funds can either come from taxes...the usual method...or they can come from tolls if the road is built and run by a privately owned consortium.

Most of us would prefer, I think, not to drive on toll roads. ;-)

The libertarian longs for a world that simply isn't possible anymore...as long as we have money.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:56 PM

LH, how one considers the concept of "freedom" will determine how one decides who is a moderate and who isn't, if we use your definition. For instance, a libertarian will see any taxes at all as being an infringement on their freedom. But if we don't pay taxes for roads, that libertarian will not have the freedom to drive their car on any roads at all without paying a toll to the owner of the road. Would anyone other than the libertarian in question consider this position to be a "moderate" one?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:50 PM

The essential point remains. The protest was not against all government levied taxes, as we are so frequently led to believe. It was a protest against an arrangement that gave one corporation an unfair competitive advantage, and the political system that made such unfair practices possible. Which is what I have been saying all along, no matter how much people choose to quibble with the details.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:05 AM

McGrath, freedom is a natural condition. I think I would say that it is THE natural condition. It is extremism of one kind or another which takes away people's freedom. Therefore I submit that a moderate person would be in favor of freedom and would not be inclined to take it away from others.

As for democracy, that's a particular form of governance that may or may not occur under either a moderate or an extreme social system...so I don't think it's particularly relevant to a discussion of what moderation is.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:49 AM

"400,000 pounds"

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:48 AM

The "Boston Tea Party"    " was not a protest against a tax"..."King George being a principal shareholder"

These statements--and some others on this thread--are so simplistic as to be misleading.

Various sectors of the North American population were annoyed at the situation for various reasons.

Some were still bitter at the Townshend Act taxes, of which the tea tax was the last remaining.

And the British East India Company was not an all-powerful monopoly. In fact it was in serious financial trouble, partly due to the fact that in many ways it was for all practical purposes a branch of the British government. As such it had among other things, led armed forces in India.   And it was in debt to the British government for 400,00 pounds per year, money the regime depended on.

The Americans had tried to find other sources of tea, among other things "Labrador tea". Mostly they had been smuggling " Dutch tea into the colonies to evade the tea duty" Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly, p 193. This had reduced "sales of the East India Company in the North American colonies by almost 2/3."

The East India Company also did not have a monopoly to sell tea in the North American colonies until 1773. Up to that point, it was required to sell its tea only in London, with a sizable duty, which created the smuggling opportunity mentioned above.

Nor were the colonists all against the 1773 change. Among other people, Benjamin Franklin was one who suggested allowing the Company to export the tea directly to North America without paying the burdensome tax it was paying in London.   Up to then the the arrangement had been that British firms, not the Company itself, bought the tea and sold it in the colonies.

As a result of the 1773 change the British in Britain themselves in fact paid a far higher tax than the 3 pence Townshend tax paid in the colonies--and the British also regularly patronized smugglers.    Reason for this is that the change cut the tax the East
India Company paid for re-export but restored the taxes the British themselves paid which had been repealed in 1767.   So sales in Britain dropped sharply and the East India Co. had a huge surplus of unsaleable tea.

When the Tea Act passed Parliament American merchants--and smugglers-- were indeed outraged at the underselling the East India Company could do:    "Shipowners and builders, captains and crews whose livelihood was in smuggling also felt threatened" Tuchman p 195. The North government had been in fact warned against keeping the Townshend tea tax, but insisted on on it--it was in fact used to pay salaries of colonial officials.   This in itself was also controversial in the colonies, since that method of financing colonial administration would insulate Crown officials from colonial influence.   So, contrary to the assertions of some Mudcatters, the tax which remained was in fact a major issue.

But the "monopoly" argument was not just aimed at the British East India Company itself--which as noted above was in serious financial difficulties in the early 1770's-- but also at its role as an arm of the British government, and that government's continued insistence that it could tax the North Americans for revenue without their own representatives' participation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 04:25 PM

tending in the direction of freedom or democracy

Not the kind of thing that a moderate person would want, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 11:53 AM

East India Tea was attempt to monopolize the tea sales. Taxation was not part of this problem. They would have attempted to reduce taxation if they could have maintained
their preeminence.

Loyalists and non-loyalists abounded in those days. There were those who supported the King and his monopolistic practices.

It wasn't about taxation but about maintaining political power through the manipulation of sales of tea. Therefore, Carol is correct. Corporate power influences Parliament as it does Congress in the US today.

The fact that the Colonists had no tea of their own is false. They were able to develop private tea businesses that conflicted with Mother England's monopoly. Hence, The Boston Tea Party.

As to the notion of "centrist" as moderate, this concept is distorted. There are no centrists but those leaning in one direction or another. Moderation is a myth.
Witness the Blue Dog Dems and tell us that this is moderation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 09:30 PM

Little Hawk, Are you meaning to tell me, that we could be extreme moderates???

Grins...or just 'sane', to the extreme???

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:48 PM

Doug,

extremism = avoidance of moderation

(grin)

Extremism is usually pretty self-evident except that one person's extremism may be another person's idea of "normality".

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:35 PM

From MSNBC this evening...

One of them tea-baggers had a heart attack yesterday at the anti-government health-reform rally and was treated by...

... a government health worker???

Things are getting very strange, indeed...

But nevermind that... Me thinks too many folks are putting too much importance on this weeks elections... They really didn't prove anything one way or another... 2 Dem wins and 2 Repub wins... Where's the big story???

I mean, only a True Believer partisan would spin this thing into anything that favored one party or another... Face it... It's spin, folks... Nothing more and nothing less... Spin...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:16 PM

Anyone who believes that the end justifies the means.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 05:39 PM

L.H.: Define extremism please.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 05:26 PM

Frankly, the Teabaggers' use of the striped "don't tread on me" flag has removed a lot of the pleasure I have gotten in using it as a yacht ensign. The seven white and six red striped background indicates a privateer's flag, in contrast to the seven red and six white striped naval jack of the period.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 02:06 PM

"From: meself Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:37 PM

It was not a "stupid" choice of a name - it was an unfortunate choice. How on earth were they supposed to know - and why should they have known - about the alternate meaning? I think it speaks well of them that they did not know..........."

Yes it was a stupid choice of names. They were creating a "brand" for their organization and neglected to see if if that "brand" was already in use ore in any way tainted. The fact that Fox news people did not have their producers check on this term and that US congress people did not have their aides check on it before using it was, indeed, stupid.

You could quibble and call them lazy, ignorant, stubborn, pig headed or just bandwagon jumpers, but really, stupid is as valid as any descriptor for that choice of names.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:53 AM

I wonder if they ever found a psychic who read harbors?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 03:01 AM

The paragraph you quoted from the page you linked to makes no sense to me, Q. I don't know in what way it is supposed to be in support of the assertion that the crown corporations didn't influence the decision to not tax East India Company tea.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 12:44 AM

The Tea Tax and the Stamp Acts were among the notorious Navigation Acts which essentially both deprived the colonists of various rights and expected them to pay for such items as having the army quartered in their homes. One of the most infamous of these acts was that there was to be no manufacturing in the colonies, ie, they were to ship raw materials to the mother country in English bottoms and receive them back as manufactured goods. Since WW II, we have pretty much gone out of the shipping business and have farmed out most of our manufacturing. Go figure.

As one on the inside of the Corzine campaign, I began complaining sevral months before the loss that we were ignoring a major resource: We were not going into traditional Republicrat areas to encourage our own partisans. [nb, I was a team leader for a crew of canvassers in Somerset County.]

We focused on areas where we had significant majorities and encouraged them to vote. Many of them did but we lost in the marginal areas because we had not reached out to them. Had we done what Obama did and reached out to every single area, we would have won instead of being swamped by indifference.

All of the polls were based upon likely voters of both parties. Too many of the likelies stayed home. I knew for sure we were in trouble on Election Day when turnout was reported as light. In New Jersey, that usually means that the Republicans have turned out and the Democrats have not.

In the New York case, the Republican candidate was being beaten by the so-called independent candidate and would probably have won a three way race. The independent was supported by Palin, Beck, Cheney and others of that ilk. She pulled out and endorsed the Democrat so strongly that many of her voters switched to him. He won.

Passion makes for strong messages. It's lack and lack of clarity [on the issues] loses elections.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:44 PM

LH: 'Buddhism, for example, is a philosophy that encourages moderation in all things...'

Moderation in all things...including moderation!

True story: Going into town Wednesday, I stopped by the nearest convenience store/gas station, where before going into the store, near the door, there are a couple of newspaper stands. Usually I stop at them, and peruse the headlines. Leaning against the stands, was an older gentleman puffing on his smog(cigarette). I asked him, 'So, what did you think of the elections?'

He answered, 'Well hell, you know who wins elections, don't you?'

'Who?' I answered.

'The one who lies the best.'

I grinned, and was ready to start my day...

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:43 PM

Unless I'm mistaken, the final score was that the GOP gained 2 governors and lost two congressman. A famous victory for both sides!

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 07:24 PM

To be "moderate" simply means not to go to extremes.

Buddhism, for example, is a philosophy that encourages moderation in all things, and that's a wise way to go if you want to live a stable and healthy existence. It's called "the middle path".

Fanatics and extremists of all kinds (political/religious/etc) tend to detest moderation, probably because it subconsciously reminds them of the fact that they are out of control.... ;-) They interpret it as a weakness. It isn't a weakness, it's a strength. It arises out of self-discipline and respect for others.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:32 PM

Is teabagger the opposite of scumbagger?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:25 PM

More digression-
CarolC is correct in essence, except for her assertion that "large crown corporations influenced [in this case] decisions made in Parliament," which with regard to this Act is untrue.
The whole affair was complicated by the fact that East India consigned the tea to particular merchants, cutting others out. The ships that were carrying the tea were American, Nantucket the home port. How much this had to do with the eventual separation of citizens into loyalists and those wishing to separate, could be the subject for a long dissertation.

"Initially, the East India Company had suggested that the 3d per pound tax should be removed to encourage the colonists to buy the tea. [Lord North's ministry] could not do this on principle, since the Declaraory Act passed by Rockingham''s ministry did say that the British government could legislate for the colonies, and Britain needed (in his eyes) to maintain the right to legislate."
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/tea-act.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:19 PM

It wasn't a tax on the colonists that caused them to protest. The Tea Act of 1773, removed the export duty on tea only for the East India Company, and this is what the colonists were protesting because this exemption meant that they couldn't compete with the East India Company, and it was also a protest against the power that large crown corporations had in influencing the decisions made in parliament.

It was not a protest against a tax. It was a protest against a corporate tax break.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:14 PM

and most Republicans these days are picking a label that will get them re-elected, no matter what their actual beliefs are. Some are running with NO mention of their party on ads or posters.

I drove thru a yuppie area of Northern Virginia just before the election, and saw rows of McDonald signs (as in, 20-30 in the grassy divider near an intersection) with no indication he was a Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: DougR
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:02 PM

Greg, Greg, Greg, you are a sight. You are quite an incorrigible little lad. Very naughty.

meself: I don't know how one defines a moderate in U.S. politics. In the Republican Party, I suppose one could say the Rockefeller Wing is moderate and the Goldwater or Reagan Wing is Conservative. Though there are some who would probably define the Rockefeller Wing as Liberal. I would say that John McCain is a "moderate" though he defines himself as Conservative. Some might say a moderate just can't make up his/her mind so they try to ride the "middle."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:19 PM

The Boston Tea Party was the result of the British Tea Act; the colonists objected to the Act because it imposed a tax not enacted by their own representatives. The tea that was dumped belonged to the British East India Tea Company; the British demanded that the Company be compensated.
The colonists had no tea of their own; the action was against a tax not of their own making.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:13 PM

I just heard that the Virginia candidate for governor was running against Obama's platform, and that he campaigned against the public option, saying he would opt out of it if he was elected and it passed as law.

If the Democrats are smart, they will take that loss as a big warning about what will happen to them if a robust public option is not included in whatever health care reform bill gets passed.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:03 PM

Carol is right. The Boston Tea Party occurred because East India Tea, a big corporate organization with King George being a principal stockholder decided to corner the market in the Colonies. The Colonists wanted to drink their own tea that they created. They got mad at East India Tea and it was a much larger incident involving more than just one ship.

The "Teabaggers" don't have a clue about the incident. Their idea is that it is just a rebellion against government. This is brought about by a resurgence of Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas. They haven't studied American history and of course in the Colonies,
there were tins of loose tea but the teabag wasn't invented until later.