Yeah, it looks like there's something missing. Did Mr. O'Donnell add anything afterwards?

Anyway, I am glad that Mr. O'Donnell didn't refer to himself as a liberal, but merely said that Democrats shouldn't be afraid of calling themselves "liberal".

haha sorry he has discussed this in the past. And have it on my Facebook paage and am proud of that;-)

As I am and He is WE are Proud to be called Liberal. Liberals care about everyone. Germany huh

As I am and He is WE are Proud to be called Liberal.

Mr. O'Donnell called himself a socialist on Morning Joe. Socialists and liberals ain't the same.

Liberals care about everyone.

Nope. Socialists care about everyone.

Germany huh

Would you please do me a favour and rephrase that into a complete sentence?

he says socialist because of all the government we enjoy hahahaha. Because so many Republicans including morning Joe has or does call Our President "socialist." A reminder to Repubs to stop the rhetoric etc.. He is being "sarcastic"

Ex girlfriend found out when she was looking for her birth parents they were 1st generation Germans.

He is being "sarcastic"

I don't think so. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

@ ChicanoSurfer: Okay, one more attempt at convincing you.

On Morning Joe, Mr. O'Donnell said more than just that he's a socialist. He said to Mr. Greenwald, "Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left of you mere liberals." This statement clearly shows that Mr. O'Donnell doesn't consider himself a liberal and that he thinks liberals are too moderate.

okay you know. Do you live in and are a German citizen? Oh you know then;-)

Do you live in and are a German citizen?

Yup.

Oh you know then ;-)

We have Internet in Germany, too. And the MSNBC stuff can be watched online. So, I am totally in the know.

yea my mom and sister have gone. So have I and my other sister. Had Family that was Mormon and some friends. No comment;-) Even have a old friend who was the grandson of one of your elders. Again no comment.
Question is it true the Mormon Church owns Frito-Lay and I think it's Pepsi!

yea what about the financial/corporate empire directly owned by the Mormon Church?

Thank you for sharing that information. It's obvious the vast majority of Americans know very little about Mormonism. I'd be curious as to why the ban on blacks from 'sbeing in the church heirarchy lasted so long? And also what "event", religious or otherwise, triggered the elimination of multiple wives? Or has it been officially eliminated/banned?

yea I am a dark-skinned Mexican-American and... . Oh yea forgot "no comment"

The Boston Teal party was protesting "Taxiation with out representation"...You look it up

But when facts are irrelevant...

resize:+ - reset

Published on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt

by Thom Hartmann

CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" on Feb 19th in protesting President Obama's plan to help homeowners in trouble. Santelli's call was answered by the right-wing group FreedomWorks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests, and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was. FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Armey (former Republican House Majority leader & lobbyist); consolidated Citizens for a Sound Economy, funded by the Koch family; and Empower America, a lobbying firm, that had fought against healthcare and minimum-wage efforts while hailing deregulation.

Anti-tax "tea party" organizers are delivering one million tea bags to a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning - to promote protests across the country by people they say are fed up with high taxes and excess spending.

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.

On a cold November day in 1773, activists gathered in a coastal town. The corporation had gone too far, and the two thousand people who'd jammed into the meeting hall were torn as to what to do about it. Unemployment was exploding and the economic crisis was deepening; corporate crime, governmental corruption spawned by corporate cash, and an ethos of greed were blamed. "Why do we wait?" demanded one at the meeting, a fisherman named George Hewes. "The more we delay, the more strength is acquired" by the company and its puppets in the government. "Now is the time to prove our courage," he said. Soon, the moment came when the crowd decided for direct action and rushed into the streets.

That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.

I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company.

Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.

Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "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 ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."

After protesters had turned back the Company's ships in Philadelphia and New York, Hewes writes, "In Boston the general voice declared the time was come to face the storm."

The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.

The queen's corporation

The East India Company's influence had always been pervasive in the colonies. Indeed, it was not the Puritans but the East India Company that founded America. The Puritans traveled to America on ships owned by the East India Company, which had already established the first colony in North America, at Jamestown, in the Company-owned Commonwealth of Virginia, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi. The commonwealth was named after the "Virgin Queen," Elizabeth, who had chartered the corporation.

Elizabeth was trying to make England a player in the new global trade sparked by the European "discovery" of the Americas. The wealth Spain began extracting from the New World caught the attention of the European powers. In many European countries, particularly Holland and France, consortiums were put together to finance ships to sail the seas. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth became the largest shareholder in The Golden Hind, a ship owned by Sir Francis Drake.

The investment worked out well for Queen Elizabeth. There's no record of exactly how much she made when Drake paid her share of the Hind's dividends to her, but it was undoubtedly vast, since Drake himself and the other minor shareholders all received a 5000 percent return on their investment. Plus, because the queen placed a maximum loss to the initial investors of their investment amount only, it was a low-risk investment (for the investors at least-creditors, such as suppliers of provisions for the voyages or wood for the ships, or employees, for example, would be left unpaid if the venture failed, just as in a modern-day corporation). She was endorsing an investment model that led to the modern limited-liability corporation.

After making a fortune on Drake's expeditions, Elizabeth started looking for a more permanent arrangement. She authorized a group of 218 London merchants and noblemen to form a corporation. The East India Company was born on December 31, 1600.

By the 1760s, the East India Company's power had grown massive and worldwide. However, this rapid expansion, trying to keep ahead of the Dutch trading companies, was a mixed blessing, as the company went deep in debt to support its growth, and by 1770 found itself nearly bankrupt.

The company turned to a strategy that multinational corporations follow to this day: They lobbied for laws that would make it easy for them to put their small-business competitors out of business.

Most of the members of the British government and royalty (including the king) were stockholders in the East India Company, so it was easy to get laws passed in its interests. Among the Company's biggest and most vexing problems were American colonial entrepreneurs, who ran their own small ships to bring tea and other goods directly into America without routing them through Britain or through the Company. Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational corporation.

Boston's million-dollar tea party

And so, Hewes says, on a cold November evening of 1773, the first of the East India Company's ships of tax-free tea arrived. The next morning, a pamphlet was widely circulated calling on patriots to meet at Faneuil Hall to discuss resistance to the East India Company and its tea. "Things thus appeared to be hastening to a disastrous issue. The people of the country arrived in great numbers, the inhabitants of the town assembled. This assembly, on the 16th of December 1773, was the most numerous ever known, there being more than 2000 from the country present," said Hewes.

The group called for a vote on whether to oppose the landing of the tea. The vote was unanimously affirmative, and it is related by one historian of that scene "that a person disguised after the manner of the Indians, who was in the gallery, shouted at this juncture, the cry of war; and that the meeting dissolved in the twinkling of an eye, and the multitude rushed in a mass to Griffin's wharf."

That night, Hewes dressed as an Indian, blackening his face with coal dust, and joined crowds of other men in hacking apart the chests of tea and throwing them into the harbor. In all, the 342 chests of tea-over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24 million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659 Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.

In response, the British Parliament immediately passed the Boston Port Act stating that the port of Boston would be closed until the citizens of Boston reimbursed the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. The colonists refused. A year and a half later, the colonists would again state their defiance of the East India Company and Great Britain by taking on British troops in an armed conflict at Lexington and Concord (the "shots heard 'round the world") on April 19, 1775.

That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the colonies.

The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.

your comment has too many words

If you believe that US liberals are extremely left, then you've never met a real lefty. You must be a right-winger.

yes your correct. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal;-)

And republicans should go back to their roots, which is center right, not outer space right.

And actually, for the good of the country and EVERYBODY in it, both need to get back to the center. But we know when the "liberals" move right, the conservitive move farther right.

If the Republicans move to the center that means there will be more borrowing and spending..that is UNACCEPTABLE to us. Spending will be cut, entitlement programs will be redesigned and most importantly SELF RELIANCE will become the norm. The breeders will be paying for their own kids...............not me!!!!

wow the "breeders!"

I think Rachel and Ed wear the label with pride as well.

That's true.

I just wish President Obama would as well.... but I realize that is highly unlikely to happen until he's out of office or maybe in a lameduck session, but even then I doubt it.

"Liberal" and "progressive" ain't the same.

There's a good (albeit older) article about this topic on The Huffington Post:

"What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?" by David Sirota

ericmedic

Good post.........you're right on the money. In Ma. unemployed welfare recipients live as good as someone earning 55k a year. This will stop.

Yea you go there "David Dukes!" Woohooooo;-)

thank you your right. Don't understand why the constant fear-mongering by Repubs and the like. There is so much to be happy and thankful for.
We live in the United States of America.
Not Syria, Egypt, Libya, China, and other countries who restrict freedoms.
Or Greece, Spain, Ireland, and other Countries who have and are doing major austerity measures that are causing the losses of freedoms, the loss of happiness and the pursuing of liberty in there countries due to this Global meltdown.