Added: 2 years ago
From: thomhartmann
Views: 4,930
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (62)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • This is a lie.

  • Hearing him mention the Koch brothers was eerie and prophetic for 2009.

  • Beware liberals quoting playboy journalists. What a joke! The Boston Tea party was and always will be a fight with the King of England - the Crown- for imposing usurious Tariffs on the people-- it was a Blow to the King, his money squeezers, as well as the trading company that was gladly going along with the Kings edict. This over-taxation is the same thing people in Liberal Big Govt want. Vote them out!

  • @seahorse1945 How ignorant. Have you never heard of the the British East India Tea company? A multinational corporation just like the ones that run the Tea Party. You can't counter Tom Hartmans with facts. You just like a 2 year old just say no it wasn't .

  • "No taxation without representation" is what we were taught in school. That's it. There was never any mention of abuses committed by multinational corporate giants, just British tea and taxes. This narrow interpretation of history is one of the major reasons why the modern Tea Party and many Americans are belligerently nationalistic and pro capitalist to the point where they defend Wall Street against any attempts to regulate their abuses. Hell, even Rand Paul practically defended BP.

  • @thrillrock86 They weren't necessarily against the East India Tea Company, but they were against the government imposing this company on the colonists. To say they were against the modern day WalMart would be true if the government mandated that WalMart be the only store you were allowed to shop at. To say that capitalism and corporatism are the same here is a perversion of history and economics.

  • I love the real Boston Tea Party. The modern equivalent should be a massive boycott of Wall Street banks, people closing their bank accounts and opening accounts with local credit unions as well as chartering state owned banks. This should be coupled with boycotting the chain stores and systematically forming new businesses and cooperatives to replace the low wage, bloated profits, service sector economy where the working class sells their labor power to oligarchic dictators.

  • @thrillrock86 Amen to that. I'm sure we

    re going to have to take a stand ifwe don't want our country totaly taken over by million $ corporations-we're very close to it now.

  • Hence, the current 'tea party' & conservative influence to urge demeanment of Jefferson in Texas history books. Jefferson, the anti-corporatist, anti-bankster is not allowed reverence. He only authored the Declaration of Independence & supported the Bill of Rights; minor contributions! Down is up.

  • Tea party - both parties of the alpha wolves take turns ripping you off. The tea party will fail. The sham of the two parties will continue unabated for this reason: parties require money, talent and organization and little mom and pop businesses don't have enough money, nor talent. People will continue to support popularity contests which mean nothing in the end. Our republic is a business and you folks aren't part of it and never will be.

  • Thom is retarded. WeeTODDid

  • No surprise Thom H.. The Tea Party crowd is shrill and ignorant.

  • Thank you Thom I should add ? the British East India Company were the Blackwater of the age,the "company" is described by Rusticus in his pamphlet quite clearly This was a call for solidarity to oppose an evil enemy of the colony"s ;Why the silence of the activists who stormed the ship in Boston Harbor ?agents of the company would have murdered them as they did all (domestic and foreign) enemy's of the crown! The brave souls who opposed them,Lest we forget did act to defend liberty and freedom!

  • thisis not at all about the boston tea party. piece of crap.

  • It's really astonishing to me that people with good intentions really believe that Obama does not represent the interests of Walmart or The East India Company. He was groomed to take the helm by the elites. Our "democracy" is just a pageant with no democratic substance.

  • Let's throw Republicans in a harbor.

  • so you reduce the tea party protests to ignorant because a s a symbol they have chosen a tea bag and you seeing the symbol and a closeness in the name decide oh its a copy of the boston tea party and seeing as they arent complaining about the same thing they are idiots not too sharp for a smart guy are you.

    its really simple the governments spending too much and the only way to pay for it is to tax everyone more im against spending more than there is to further anyones agenda yours or mine

  • And since Grey Davis was removed for being caught up in the ENRON scam and all the other scams...and was replaced by your current guv Ahnold who has bankrupted your state, when are you going to remove him?

  • At this point removing Arnold would be pointless and too costly. He doesn't have much longer anyway. Can't blame me for Arnold, I voted for Gary Coleman.

  • So according to "Rusticus?" the East India Co. set their goods at so high a price that the poor could not afford them? That doesn't sound like Wal-Mart. That sounds like a keith Olbermann view of......well....anything.

  • @ Rabbitttoz

    The way I am understanding it, the Mom & Pop teahouses here were going broke because they were more expensive than East India. E.I. paid no duty whatsoever, and Mom and Pop had to pay tax on their tea to England.

  • That sounds pretty good as I don't really know the history of it. But it sounds like typical English empire stuff all making the mother country wealthy

  • Actually, before this happened, the British Empire made it illegal to buy ANY tea other than from the East India Co, but there was so much pirated tea going on in those days that the British couldn't stop it. But you could be executed for selling tea that wasn't from the East India Co.

  • American history is damned interesting alva. I wish I knew it better but you know what they say. Never to late to learn. Thanks for the info dude.

  • The way I heard it the East India Co. and the British gov't were essentially one and the same. Far be it from me to question some dude who was there and only spoke up 60 years after everybody was dead.

  • actually, the participants took a 50 year vow of silence, and for good reason. At the time they made that vow the British were still running the show. They didn't want to get themselves killed.

  • So let me see......50 years after the Boston Tea Party was what year? Or 60 years or 61 actually. I don't know as I'm not good at math. But I think someone else was running the show over here by then. Like I said I don't really know so I'm just sayin'.

  • Yes, but the US STAYING AND REMAINING a free and independent state was most certainly NOT a sure thing. The Boston Tea Party happened in 1773. 50 years later was 1823. The Brits burned down the White House just a decade prior to that. The book that Thom mentions (I own a copy myself, paid $200 for it) was printed in 1834.

  • Per wiki. Battle of New Orleans Jan 1815 but the British had not yet received news of the Treaty of Ghent on 24 Dec 1814 ending the war. The British people welcomed the peace with the US as they wearied of the Napoleonic war going on at that time. Canada was not invaded and had a renewed sence of independence. President of the US in 1823 James Monroe. In 1833 Andrew Jackson.

  • Not one in the same, but many of the stockholders in the East India Co. were King George and other British politicians.

  • Well the EIC sure as hell wasn't a colonial wal-mart.

  • wasn't it all about american folks bitter about the british taxation of goods to be used to finance british colonialist wars and an empire where we didn't gain any benefits from it

  • so why is it interpreted as a taxation protest?

  • Big Government and Big Business work together...the British had this system (it was called Mercantilism)

  • i know what it is called, i am tired of people going crazy over these protests

  • Comment removed

  • The argument was taxation without representation. The colonist didn't mind the taxes themselves, it was the fact they had to pay taxes but had no representatives in the Parliament. The current tea party is in protest of not only Obama's stimulus bill, and bailout, but George W.'s as well. Over a trillion dollars in total, of tax payer money spent without approval of the voting population. Politicians need to learn that just because they win doesn't mean we agree with everything they say and do.

  • This is why I'm in favor of going to a form of direct democracy to keep our representatives in check. How's this for an idea: remove Congress' ability to allocate money for the yearly budget. Instead establish line-item taxation. Every April 15th voters get to decide what percentage of their taxes go to what federal department.

  • I'd actually prefer a flat tax breakdown that could eliminate all other taxes beyond income. Simply make it a 10% federal income tax, 8% state income tax, and 2% local income tax. This tax would apply to all business and individual incomes without write offs. No more sales tax and no more property tax necessary.

  • Flat taxes are regressive and hurt the poor the most and benefits rich the most.

  • No one has ever successfully argued that point to me. I just don't see how it affects one group more than another when its the same percentage. Granted like it is now if the wages earned are not considered livable then no tax would be collected, basically anything below poverty rate.

  • Jsickert: Just do the math. If we are both taxed at 10% but I make a $100 / week and you make $10,000 / week - yes we pay a proportional percentage but my $10 impacts me more since I need to pay for food and other necessities. You on the other hand are impacted much less than I am.

    You can see the impact of flat taxes in states like Alabama where the working poor struggle to survive while upper & middle class families are benefiting. Here's a report on the topic.

    tinyurl (dot) com / dlto2k

  • Mikepalomino: read my whole comment. If you made a $100 dollars a week you wouldn't be paying taxes. I did specify livable wages. Why should someone be penalized for success and have to pay a higher share than another? Keeping the percentages equal is the only fair way of handling it and insure advancements will still be made. Everyone screams equality and fairness, but they don't mean it, what they really mean is what is fair for me. I will check your link.

  • The biggest arguments in the video are against the additional taxes levied. Look at my earlier post to alva. I did say no more sales tax and property tax, and now, after that video I would include the grocery tax. I also say no write offs. this mean that at the federal level Wal-mart would have paid 2 billion in taxes out of their 20 billion posted profits in 2007. 8% of the combined profit of all the Wal-mart stores in the state goes to the state and so on.

  • If the government would stick to the confines of their duties as outlined by the Constitution, they wouldn't need so much money.

  • Just 8 out of the top ten on the Fortune 500 list (I didn't count GM and Ford who were at a loss) would generate 13.537 billion dollars in taxes alone at a 10% rate. That isn't even counting the income of the CEO's and the employees making a livable wage.

    To clarify what I mean by a livable wage. Last I heard the national median income was around 46,000-48,000 a year. Therefore I would consider anyone making less than 36,000-38,000 (depending on the numbers) do not have a livable income.

  • I did make a mistake however, according to Fortune 500, Wal-mart only posted 11 billion in profit in 2007.

  • I hear ya. This is why products purchased, are to be tax. Nobody understands that you do not have to pay income tax. Only corporations. Your labor is your property. to fight this I feel everyone should incorporate themselves, so they can file the right offs, such as mileage, gas, clothing, food, and car repair. That way you can recoup almost all of what your taxed in income. If corporations are allowed to have right offs them maybe we should to.

  • As for a direct democracy, it could work. But I do like our current system, I just feel term limits should be applied to the house and senate. Allowing a person no more than 12 years or 6 terms house and 2 term senate. When you have, more or less, the same group of people in office for too long you tend to start arguing in circles.

  • I think term limits is a useless idea. I don't think it would solve anything. Instead we should just give our own citizens the power to veto government decision and to remove people from office whenever they like by popular vote.

  • Citizens do have the right to remove government officials. Its called recall. All you have to do is get enough signatures to get the recall vote on the ballot, that's how we got rid of Gray Davis here in California. The people can even get a Supreme Court Justice removed if we can prove they are guilty of treason. We have the power it's just most people have either forgotten or don't care.

  • I KNEW something stunk like twenty day old fish in regards to this so called "Tea Party". And slick Rick "the little prick" Santelli pimped like hell for Bush and then McCain every time. He is just another Wall Street Whore and as such, his words should be taken in the same light as any other whores whispers and moans, it's all as real as a seven dollar bill.

  • What a load of shit.

  • Coming from a right wing ass bandit shill P O S like you? Damn, I dead nailed it then!

  • Oh that's right. Start an insult and name calling war. That's your m.o. bud.

  • "What a load of shit" How incredibly erudite and yet, so concise. You are a shrill shill, I do remember you pre-election, you have quite the agenda and I would guess, grudge. You did quite a bit of predictificatinizing.....none too accurately I'll add. So, if you want to show up shooting off your ill informed inaccurate yap, fully expect to be pimp slapped.

    Better yet, call in to Thom, get slapped down on the air, super genius. He moves Con callers to the head of the line, go for it.

  • So now you pretend to criticize my comment content THEN immediately go back to the name calling. AND THEN pretend to remember something that never happened. What predicting did I do? Oh now you remember that it was none. And btw I'm a NEOCON woooooo. Riiiight!

  • Deny the truth all you want, I could give a shit less. Lies are expected from the likes of you. Now shoo little bunny, what barely wets my ankles will drown you.

  • I know I know. You can't block me here. And I'd definitely do a bit o' xsposin' on your milk sucking ass. thom will take care of it; no worries.

  • 'smatter uranusdog,can't remember? You should remember that I did quite a bit of spot on aiming at your profile which is totally Wizard of Oz cloaked on your channel. You and your buddy were playing tag with me and swapping spit about "I think we have him pegged" then holding hands, and skipping off in the sunset totgether to have a little private tet .

  • Ahhh, the typical resort of a closet queen right wing idiot. Homo-eroticise much Rabbittosser? And as for channels, yours is as empty as your soul . Gutless much? Piss off oh empty one, you lack the sack to stand out, you only have what it takes to sneer from anonymity. Now go back to your manly mens channels, you know you want to.

  • Ha ha ha Ohhh yeah. All "rightwingnuts" are "neocons" and Larry Craig "closet queens". Bet you get alot of fanboy activity on your phoney channel with that line of "reasoning". You're a joke. And I might add a grumpy old bigot. (but you think you're on some higher plane of course).

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more