I love it when those who were in the military think they are so high and mighty that they believe others who did not are lesser people and should not have an opinion.
For the record I was not in the military. My number did not come up high enough in the last Nam draft and then the draft was cancelled.
Now that we have that out of the way what the fuck does that have to do with these Occupy movements anyway.
I suggest you put me on ignore John. Because I will continue to post comments that you do not agree with. Ignore works quite well.
Evidently, ignore doesn't work so well or you wouldn't be responding with this comment. I and many others would appreciate it if those of you who choose to participate in this section of the forum would present your facts as facts, your opinions as opinions and keep your disrepectful thoughts and comments to yourselves. The term debate seems to imply there must be a winner and some of you seem ready to fight to the death. I challenge you to disregard the term debate and consider these discussions, instead.
Having said that, I just read this in a history book.
[American Colonial]Loyalists are often represented today as being traitors to their own people who tried to sell them out to a tyrant king, when in fact, the Loyalists were simply loyal to their government and didn't feel one third of the population should be able to decide for the rest simply because they were more vocal or more angry.
I can't help but think of the events transpiring in our nation as the OWS movement grows and I read all the pro and con opinions on the movement and especially the vitriolic criticism. I think of the grossly unlawful act committed by early Americans when they boarded private ships and tossed more than 90,000lbs of tea overboard. I have a feeling that many colonists who understood and shared concerns about the underlying motive, surely must have condemned the action. Patriot is a term that was applied to these men years after the event. What they did at the time was illegal.
Before they were patriots, they were considered by some to be agitators, traitors, radicals and according to one British sympathizer, they were "not only the worst of subjects, but the most truly immoral Men" and despite popular belief today, they were not and never were representative of the colonial majority. We all benefit to this day from their acts of rebellion.
What I don't see with the OWS movement is the understanding and shared concerns of the motives behind OWS and their open rebellion. I'm willing to bet if the revolting colonials had assumed the mantra of "We are the 99%", the loyalists would have countered with "We are the 53%". The bottom line is that we have a corrupt government, a corrupt economical system, a corrupt banking system who are all in cahoots together and the flesh and blood people have no voice. Though this should be a unifying theme in this country it is being made into a Lt vs Rt divisive issue. Folks need to get over the peripheral issues and focus on the core issues. So, you don't support the OWS protestors. Fine. Have you written your congressmen and senators to tell them you want:
A.) an end to corporate personhood
B.) a full fledged, legitimate investigation into the fraud and crimes committed against the nation and the world that led to the financial implosion of 2008 and that you want to see these bankers, financial managers, etc imprisoned for their actions
C.) the government to take back from The Federal Reserve (a private corporation) their authorized responsibility under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and per HR 92163-introduced April 1936, "return to Congress, its constitutional power to issue money and regulate the value thereof; to provide monetary income to the people of the United States at a fixed and equitable purchasing power of the dollar, ample at all times to enable the people to buy wanted goods and services at full capacity of the industries and commercial facilities of the United States; to abolish the practice of creating bank deposits by private groups upon fractional reserves, and for other purposes."
D.) a restoration of appropriate financial regulations such as Glass-Stegall?
If you haven't, I urge you to please do so.
In regards to the original Boston Tea Party, my primary schooling of the event misled me into believing this was a small party of men, under the cover of dark who boarded these ships as stealthily as any navy seal operation. The truth is that though their identities were never known, their activities were not covert. The customs officers on board each of the 3 ships were escorted to shore. It is reported there was a throng of onlookers and that there was a British navy vessel in the harbor not a hundred yards from the tea laden ships and in spite of the military presence,"At no time during the evening did the governmental authorities move to interrupt the proceedings." . Admiral Montagu wrote in his report the following day, "I could easily have prevented the Execution of this Plan but must have endangered the Lives of many innocent People by firing upon the Town". Another observer was a merchant by the name of Henry Bromfield who observed "The undertaking had all the signs of a well-planned operation. The whole episode was conducted with such dispatch that there must have been 'People of sense and more discernment than the vulgar among the Actors.' I thought that was interesting and thought some of you might, too.
References:
"http://www.archive.org/stream/provincialstatep07newh#page/n23/mode/2up
http://www.nhssar.org/essays/TeaParty.html
http://thebean1.tripod.com/loyal.html
