Politics Why don't the Tea Partiers get arrested?

it doesn't make me "go ballistic" ace, dear. i've known about the unilever buyout for several years. the only reason you've singled out ben & jerry's is because they came out in support of the occupation. it's transparent. gee whiz, ben & jerry's supporting a progressive political cause because, in part, they think viewpoints like yours are bad for business---and they are----what a shock.

get real. jeez.

 

I would suggest it is more legitimate for a company like Ben & Jerry's to support OWS than a "fair and balanced" news organizations like Fox to actively promote and participate in a Tea Party event, rather than simply report on it.

As to why Tea Partiers did not get arrested, I would suggest it was due to some extent to the fact that many Tea Party events were organized or taken over by astroturf organizations like Americans for Prosperity (Koch brothers) that set the agenda, controlled access, etc.

 

You put that together on your own???

They pay a "living wage" in the short-term means a person may make more but in the long-run can very well be meaningless, they give to charity (who doesn't), they use local farmers (so what) and they make sure everybody know about their good deeds (give me a man who does good without the need for publicity). But the bottom-line is their product is not affordable to average and poor people. it is a luxury item for the rich. And they got rich, the old fashion way, via Wall St. no matter how you want to rationalize it. But the more you defend this...just keep on, I need say no more.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2011 9:23 PM ---

I see Fox News as a business. I see Ben and Jerry's as a business. In my view they both have a right to cater to their selected audiences. I see them as the same. When I watch Fox News I know what to expect. If I ever step foot in a Ben and Jerry's (my issue is their price) again, I know what to expect.

 

ace, you didn't look up the history of the buyout did you? of course not.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124468487

so the story is not at all how you represented it.
and so here we are once again.

and ace, it's transparent now as it has been for a long time that if you are saying something that involves any specific reference to the actually existing world, chances are good it's a cheap rightwing talking point.

 

I know the history, as usual you miss the broader point. No interest in spin. I don't dispute anyone's sincerity, but the end results are what they are. These men built a big business, made money, made profits on an over priced product and sold-out. Quintessential capitalism, I respect that. You defend this?

 

If roach admits that Ben and Jerry's exists in a capitalist economy, then Ace gets a free iced latte at Dunkin Donuts.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. There is nothing wrong with businesses making a profit. If they didn't then capitalism would die a very quick death.

Capitalism = good
Capitalistic greed and manipulation = bad

Let's not confuse the two - eh?

 

ace,---- spin? you blab aboutben & jerrys but then call the history of the buyout spin and information about how they operate spin? that's dissociative.

ben & jerry's operates in a capitalist context. duh. but there are many ways to do that. they made a mistake when they went public. they were one of the earlier companies that used social responsibility as a significant aspect of their business model to get taken out by this nonsense "shareholder's rights" business of the early years of this decade. that's what threw their old business model out the window--and showed, in a nutshell, the conflict between an exclusive focus on maximizing shareholder returns and social responsibility. that's the point at which ben cohen left the company. from that point on, he was active in progressive political and business development. there's no contradiction between social responsibility and capitalist activity except when people like ace run the show, and that exclusively because of their one-dimensional viewpoints. and nothing else. when people who view the world like ace does, working people loose. there's something of an explanation for the occupation movement in that.

but this whole fatuous ace foray is based on some faux news-specific misrepresentation of the occupation as anti-capitalist. that's the basis for such "argument" as ace imagines that he is making. of course, the stupidity of that faux news misrepresentation is obvious. but there appears to be no bottom to the intellectual laziness of some conservatives, who prefer to simply--as heroic individuals---swallow whatever roger ailes puts down their throats and will never, ever look for themselves at what's being misrepresented by faux news. so the "point" that ace is making is, of course, worthless as it is based on no understanding of ben & jerry's---but he blabs about it anyway----and even less an understanding of the occupation--but the same obtains. so more of the same old same old. blah blah blah blah.

 

Honestly, I think Ace may be doing the best he can. When you've been taught to trust in half the math, the other side of the equation may look foreign once it's presented. Whether or not he'll ever be able to grasp the entire equation depends upon how much of the Koolaid he's partaken of.

*me trying to be understanding*

 

I quite like Phish Food - the choice of champagne socialists who don't drink champagne everywhere.

Glad we sorted out the reason the Tea Party don't get arrested. Will it be on TV when they do? Should I get some Phish Food in?

 

i should say that ben & jerry's continues to support progressive political causes since the buyout, even as the relation between executive and worker pay is out the window. i don't know enough about how the decisions are made to determine if this is a maintenance of brand identity or motivated otherwise. so i pass no judgment about it---what i do know is that what motivated ben's departure was the abandonment of the practices within the company than enacted the politics they both supported. jerry stayed on, but i've never met him. ben would sometimes turn up in philly when i was living there as he was dating someone i knew there. she's since retired and i lost touch with her. the buyout itself was a little performance of the conflict between neo-liberal values and more progressive values. like i said, as it turned out, the company made a mistake going public and unilever's was a hostile takeover.

alistair---this just happened to be the thread ace chose to practice repeating the conservative talking point of the moment. it could have been anywhere.

 

This is why centrist politics now resides on the right.
--- merged: Oct 12, 2011 12:05 AM ---

Before the thread veered off into the question of whether progressives like Ben and Jerry have a right to embark on a capitalist venture, I believe I posed the above question, which I never received an answer to.

 

I was thinking about the OP and it occurred to me that police forces and other authoritarian organizations tend to have memberships that would more closely align themselves politically with the tea party than they would the occupy-wall-street-types. Could be that this personal belief colors police encounters and makes the police more likely to instigate certain protestors? Anybody else?

 

Tea partiers tend to have organized events with speakers. They have clear leadership which is crucial if you hope to accomplish anything. Most importantly, Tea partiers understand that working through elected representatives is the only way to effect change in a democratic government. I guess you could say that the Tea Party is the grown up version of OWS.

 

I agree that the Tea Party events were more organized and the agendas more controlled....by astroturf organizations fronting for corporate interests.

The grown up version of OWS? Nah, more like the naive version unknowingly controlled by corporate puppet masters.

A perspective from outside the US:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers

 

Corporate money will find its way into everything. You think OWS doesn't have corporate backing? Corporations aren't inherently bad, anymore than being rich is inherently bad. I know that's completely opposite of what the libs disseminate but it's true nonetheless.
--- merged: Oct 20, 2011 5:14 AM ---

Cops are much less likely to arrest a group of armed citizens who know their rights.