- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

What’s the working agenda at theses tea parties?

Published: Mon, February 8, 2010 @ 12:00 a.m.

What’s the working agenda at theses tea parties?


I watched a couple TV news spots the other day on the Tea Party movement. If this group wasn’t so potentially disastrous it might be comical. These are people running around with tea bags on their heads waving signs against taxation, government and as far as I can determine, currently anything having to do with Democrats.

Apparently largely uncoordinated, one bunch is in Nashville holding a convention, another is on a cruise in the Bahamas (I guess this is the faction unbothered by taxes) advocating President Obama’s impeachment because he isn’t a citizen, and still others (including two founders of the movement) are in Washington, D.C., demonstrating because they won’t attend the Nashville convention due to its $500 ticket price.

In not one of the spots I watched did I detect even a hint of what they proposed for correcting any of the problems they claim to be protesting (except, of course, Obama’s impeachment). Bottom line seems to be just defeat anybody now in office, regardless of party.

The original intent of this movement was launched by people claiming to be Independents and was fanned further by the recent election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Now it looks like it has been hijacked by the far right Republicans. How else can they explain spokespersons like Sarah Palin and Alan Keyes?

Some of the statements made by Tea Party members, the signs they carry and choice of spokespersons make me wonder if they might be partaking of substances much stronger than tea. More than a political party, they look like what we in the military used to claim about civilians — a bunch of people in different kinds of clothes running around with nobody in charge.


Mineral Ridge

Quite a deal for corporations


A constitutional amendment to make the Constitution, as it was written, for the people, is long overdue. As it says, “We the people make this Constitution for ourselves and our posterity.” No where in the Constitution does it give any rights to nonentities. The Declaration of Independence, the basis of all our laws, says all men are created equal and have rights. It does not say corporations have rights.

Corporations do not have a conscience or soul. They cannot be punished as a person. You cannot put a corporation in prison. You cannot put a corporation to death for murder, because it has no life as does a human to be taken away. It can only be fined and it recoups the money by passing the bill on to the us. It cannot serve in the military and give its life for its country. It has no allegiance to this country and our flag. It has no heart that can break at the site of a dead or wounded solder.

And now the Supreme Court says corporations have the same rights as service men and women who put their lives on the line for this country. That it has the same rights as the mothers and fathers who sent their child to die for this country. As the brothers and sisters who will never see their siblings. As the wife who lost her husband. As the child who will grow up without his father. As the men and women who have come home from serving this country with horrible wounds.

As it now stands, corporations not only have the same rights as humans, but have superior rights that come without any responsibilities or a bothersome conscience.


New Springfield


1howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

Very well put Mr. Shanabarger.

I do have a solution for corporations can't be put in jail. If the corporation or any employee acting on behalf of the corporation are found guilty of committing a crime, then the entire board and all of the executive officers shall serve the time! ie. a 10 year sentence means they all are behind bars for ten years! That might give them the kind of conscience that corporations up to now have been totally lacking!

Suggest removal:

2howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

USA1 I have no problem with Unions being held responsible since they are non profit corporations.

I find their influence in the running of our government abhorrent too.

I would prefer to have all federal elected office campaign publicly funded with no outside interference; If you take money out of the equation we the people will have the opportunity to actually compare the candidates on the issues and on their records.

Unrelated..... I guess the GOP is never going to use the term "flip flop" in attack ads ever again since they are doing nothing but that in order to blockade congress.

Suggest removal:

3howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

Woody--- at the time of the founding of our nation those were extremely liberal ideas! So liberal in fact that you could be executed for stating them.

And just to remind everyone the Constitution says "of the people, by the people, and for the people" not CORPORATIONS!

Suggest removal:

4Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago


Since there are several national groups under the umbrella "TEA Party", and innumerable local groups, the "working agenda" depends upon the particular organization.

My interpretation of the "agenda" of this grass-roots movement is:

-Reduce government spending and waste to less catastrophic levels
-Stimulate job creation through tax cuts
-Reverse the trend of transferring wealth and power from the private sector to the public sector

I agree with you, Tom, that there is "nobody in charge", and I hope it stays that way. This is a national grass-roots uprising of concerned Americans throughout the Union, who wish to save the Union. The movement would be diminished if a solitary person's views were the "platform" of this diverse group. The ambitions of the movement, thus far, are direct and simple. Their success depends on keeping it that way.

Suggest removal:

5howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

Ok USA1 and NonSocialist, I guess that makes me a socialist Tea partyer?

I am a socialist (not a communist) and I am against big government and government waste, but I am also against Corporations and Unions having the same right as individual human beings!

Until big corporations can learn to be compassionate toward human beings and plan for the long term instead of focusing on this years numbers "at all costs" I will be staunchly anti capitalist; remember people it is because of that focus on the almighty $$$ that instead of exporting manufactured goods the USA only exports jobs now.

Suggest removal:

6Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago


I don't think you're a socialist. Big government is socialism.

The USA doesn't have to export jobs. We have the option of creating an environment that attracts employers. This could include non-punitive tax policies, and regulations that protect the community and workers, but not the unions.

so-cial-ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


Suggest removal:

7howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

NonSocialist, I am a socialist as opposed to a capitalist. and in the definition you provide it says"ownership is vested in the community as a whole not the governement".

From Wikipedia:
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
Modern social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. Modern social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets.

So socialism does not mean big government (communism is big government, and apparently so was G.W Bush and his boss Dick Cheney).
Socialism does mean that the power resides in the people not the officeholder.

Suggest removal:

8JeffLebowski(953 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

"Say what you will about the tenets of socialism, at least it is an ethos."

Suggest removal:

9Nonsocialist(710 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago


You added, "not the government" to the Dictionary.com definition.

Please refer to the Merriam-Webster definition below that includes the words, "owned and controlled by the state." Please see also the second link which contains defintions from multiple other dictionaries (Collins-English, American Heritage) which both specify "government determination" or "owned collectively or by a centralized government."

Wikipedia is an inaccurate source of information as anybody can edit it. The definition you provided does not describe socialism by any other definition.

Smashmouthing the GOP doesn't bother me. The GOP = Socialist Lite, as exemplified by GWBs spending and Medicare Part D enactment.

Trust me...the power does not reside with the people in a socialist state...by definition it doesn't...it resides with the rulers...and history has proven that they abuse those that they rule.

The people are empowered by freedom, but freedom doesn't equal success. Some will fail (Edison before the light bulb), and some will succeed. Winston Churchill said it well,

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”


1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done



Suggest removal:

10BillPoland(2 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

Though I completely disagree with Howard's views and definition of socialism, I give him credit for proclaiming his socialist tendencies. Besides Bernie Sanders, not too many are willing to do so.

Suggest removal:

11pit_bull_marley(291 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

There is a tea party "grass roots movement" for a reason. It seems as if the MAJORITY is now unhappy with this admin. So they are making noise and verbalizing their feelings. Good for them. If it wasnt for Obama they wouldnt have organized.

Suggest removal:

12pit_bull_marley(291 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

He spends more than GWB did and GWB was a Republican based on what? He talked like a Republican but catered to both sides which clearly doesnt work.

Suggest removal:

13UnionForever(1470 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

What was a good thing has turned into a Conservative RepubliCAN movement. While I support less government and socialism, I still disagree with them on big business support and abortion.

Suggest removal:

14ozzi(14 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

Tea Party rally Washington dc feb13th, Jim traficant and other concerned constitutionalists to discuss viability of a third party,end the fed bank.catch his podcast WTAM 1100 Radio.

Suggest removal:

15howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

USA1 with the exception of Venezuela the countries you mention are or were under communist regimes (communism = government owns everything including the people).

I remain in America for the same reason you do, this is my home and I was raised to believe that this country was governed by the PEOPLE, not the corporations or a monarchy. Like you I am dissatisfied with the direction the country is going and I want to see it change and am actively working for its change to the better.
Besides that, have you ever researched the requirements to permanently immigrate to another country? Most countries require you to come in with a minimum of US$500,000 cash plus an income of US$50,000 a year derived from outside of that country, unless of course you are coming in to start a new business that will employ hundreds plus of their workers and they require a minimum investment of US$5,000,000.
Now I don't have that kind of cash or income so unless you would be willing to provide it for me leaving the USA is not an option.
That being the case we are not really free to leave the USA unless we are very wealthy.
Socialism is an economic philosophy akin to capitalism; communism "is the power of the dictatorship".

Just wondering but why is everyone so afraid to actually use the word "communism" these days? I see hundreds of references to socialism when what they really mean is communism!

Suggest removal:

16howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

NonSocialist my bad, I did put the quotation mark in the wrong place, it should have read "ownership is vested in the community as a whole" not the governement.

As for the GOP from where I sit they are "Fascist lite" and the Democrats are just "GOP lite".

When you refer to socialist states what you really meant was communist regimes (ie. USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, and the eastern block pre 1982) when I refer to a socialist democracy I am referring to France 1970's-1990's or England from 1960 up to Maggie Thatcher reforms. Now before you get started on bashing those countries I agree they had many problems during those years, but you must remember that they were having to rebuild their entire economies from WWII and pay off huge debts to the US at the same time.

As for the Churchill quote “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
So by this you mean that what happened to the victims of hurricane Katrina was there own fault and that what little was done by the Bush administration to alleviate their suffering was more than they deserved?

Suggest removal:

17howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

USA1 I strongly support and believe in the Constitution of the United States. I recall no part of the constitution that says that if you are not a capitalist then you must leave the country, or that you cannot be a patriotic American if you are a socialist.

Since you feel that America is headed in a socialist direction maybe you are the one who should consider leaving since Australia is more conservative in many ways than America.

Suggest removal:

18howardinyoungstown(591 comments)posted 5 years, 3 months ago

Why should I move when I feel that America can be changed for the better.

I do believe in states rights sepearate from the federal government; for example if Utah wanted to make polygamy legal I would have no problem with that . If California or Texas wanted to succeed from the Union I would have no problem with that as long as it was done legally.

If you recognize states rights why are many conservatives and teapartiers and you, if my memory is correct, for removing a states right to control which insurance companies do business within their borders?

If as you claim Social Security is illegal, do you participate?
And if as you claim federal income tax is illegal, do you pay federal income taxes?

I fully participate in Social Security, and I pay my taxes local, state, and federal; I just don't agree with how they are being used most of the time.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes