UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (58) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1947376  
Subject: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/16/2011 11:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 118
What is a "second amendment solution" supposed to mean, exactly, if it's not a threat of violence?

And for that matter, what message is the name "Tea Party" intended to convey, if not the threat of violent insurrection?

And what do Tea Partiers mean when they talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants? It's not a gardening metaphor.

If you're going to make thinly veiled threats about your willingness to employ violence to bring about political change, it seems queer to get upset when people take you at your word.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624022 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 12:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If you're going to make thinly veiled threats about your willingness to employ violence to bring about political change, it seems queer to get upset when people take you at your word.

Fail. This assumes that Sharron Angle was threatening someone *and* that she speaks for the entire GOP and/or right wing. You guys don't want to play that game.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624024 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 1:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"And for that matter, what message is the name "Tea Party" intended to convey, if not the threat of violent insurrection?

Ummm...non-violent organization protesting the way people are being taxed?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624027 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 1:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What is a "second amendment solution" supposed to mean, exactly, if it's not a threat of violence?

And for that matter, what message is the name "Tea Party" intended to convey, if not the threat of violent insurrection?

And what do Tea Partiers mean when they talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants? It's not a gardening metaphor.


good questions ...imo

will be interesting to see the answers *



If you're going to make thinly veiled threats about your willingness to employ violence to bring about political change, it seems queer to get upset when people take you at your word.


i don't think they're upset someone's taken them at their word .. they're upset to be called on it




* i do see a plausible answer to #2 ..

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Stonewashed Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624033 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 5:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why do you associate all Tea Partiers with opinion of one, and yet protest loudly when one of yours says something similar (as in bring a gun to a knife fight), it is a figure of speech?

And the one who said the latter, actually got elected.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: anniesdad Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624054 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 8:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 34
And for that matter, what message is the name "Tea Party" intended to convey, if not the threat of violent insurrection?

Ummm...non-violent organization protesting the way people are being taxed?


Non-violent?

snip......Thomas Hutchinson, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, whose Boston town house was destroyed, in 1765, by a mob upset by Parliament’s new stamp tax on the colonies’ newspapers, legal documents, and pamphlets. Hutchinson and his family fled their supper table just minutes before a crowd screaming “Liberty and property!” axed open the doors of their home. The rioters scattered or stole nearly everything inside, including jewelry, dishes, furniture, paintings, about nine hundred pounds in cash, and an archive of New England history that Hutchinson had spent thirty years collecting.


George Washington disapproved of the Tea Party, and Benjamin Franklin called it “an Act of violent Injustice on our part.” But the Revolution was not yet in the hands of the Founders, although it had left those of the merchants, who now dodged and stalled as the people—passionate and heedless of economic niceties—called for a ban on all tea, even what was smuggled from the Dutch. The merchants were also losing their ability to control crowd violence.


http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/12/20/10122......

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624067 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Fail. This assumes that Sharron Angle was threatening someone

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what she meant by this:

“I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope that the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”


that she speaks for the entire GOP and/or right wing.

Correct. I assume that you disagree with her.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: temsike Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624075 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 9:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Teabaggers are batguano cwayyzee.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624080 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why do you associate all Tea Partiers with opinion of one...

I don't.

... and yet protest loudly when one of yours says something similar (as in bring a gun to a knife fight), it is a figure of speech?

I don't, though I don't think "bring a gun to a knife fight" is similar.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624082 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This assumes that Sharron Angle was threatening someone *and* that she speaks for the entire GOP and/or right wing.

I don't assume she speaks for the entire right wing. But again, what is a "second amendment solution" if it's not a threat of political violence? Such threats needn't be directed at "someone" specifically, though I think an argument can be made in Angle's case that it was.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624086 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"And for that matter, what message is the name "Tea Party" intended to convey, if not the threat of violent insurrection?
---
Ummm...non-violent organization protesting the way people are being taxed?


I suppose, but the original Tea Party wasn't exactly non-violent and the imagery, intended or not, (I can't see how it's not intended) is one of armed popular revolution against tyranny. No? Fits with the "blood of tyrants" saying that's popular among tea partiers too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrCynic Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624087 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Left wingers long ago lost the right to complain about violence as a political tool. They are the masters of that game, and they use real violence on a large scale, not just threats. So anything they get back in that regard is pure justice.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624088 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
If you're going to make thinly veiled threats about your willingness to employ violence to bring about political change, it seems queer to get upset when people take you at your word.


Because they're big, fat, (w)ussies.

They allude to killing Democrats, then when a Democrat almost gets killed, the Republicans/Tea Baggers don't have the balls to continue to stand behind their "reload" message.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624089 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
“I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope that the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

She said something fairly stupid.

Now. Your turn, since one pol speaks for the entire party. What did Paul Kanjorski mean with this:


"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.


Again, you guys DO NOT want to play this game.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624091 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't assume she speaks for the entire right wing.

Then why are you asking us? Go ask her.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624092 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 10:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
snip......Thomas Hutchinson, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, whose Boston town house was destroyed, in 1765, by a mob upset by Parliament’s new stamp tax on the colonies’ newspapers, legal documents, and pamphlets. Hutchinson and his family fled their supper table just minutes before a crowd screaming “Liberty and property!” axed open the doors of their home. The rioters scattered or stole nearly everything inside, including jewelry, dishes, furniture, paintings, about nine hundred pounds in cash, and an archive of New England history that Hutchinson had spent thirty years collecting.

An interesting incident but unrelated to the Tea Party which didn't happen till 1773 eight years after this incident

The actual Tea Party was such a model of non-violence that Gandhi would reference it during his talks with the British.

George Washington disapproved of the Tea Party, and Benjamin Franklin called it “an Act of violent Injustice on our part.”

Not quite. He said, "As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General Court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act of violent Injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. "

So what he was saying is that it was violent injustice to the India Company which lost it's ship full of tea.

So yes, unless you were a tea leaf, the Tea Party was non-violent.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624094 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
If you're going to make thinly veiled threats about your willingness to employ violence to bring about political change, it seems queer to get upset when people take you at your word.

Fail. This assumes that Sharron Angle was threatening someone *and* that she speaks for the entire GOP and/or right wing. You guys don't want to play that game.

If she wasn't threatening "someone," what was she saying?

And if she doesn't speak for the "entire" GOP and/or right wing, why weren't there denunciations of her remark plastered by right wing bloggers all over the internet and proclaimed by right-wing pundits all over the mass media?

Give me a break.

SLL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624096 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Left wingers long ago lost the right to complain about violence as a political tool. They are the masters of that game, and they use real violence on a large scale, not just threats.

yeah, back to the 'Hitler was a leftist' Orwellian revisionism again.


So anything they get back in that regard is pure justice.

collective punishment is only advocated by the depraved.


Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624097 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If she wasn't threatening "someone," what was she saying?

You'll have to ask her, and while you're at it, ask her how she represents all of us.


Give me a break.


No, intead, since dumb Angle statements are the responsibility of the entire right wing, then dumb lib statements are the responsibility of the entire left wing. You people can't have it both ways.

So which one of you wants to explain this one:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.


Because, if turnabout is fair play, then all of you feel this way, yes?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624098 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
collective punishment is only advocated by the depraved.

You may want to tell that to Felix and sandy, who seem hellbent on acting that way.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624100 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 69
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

Because, if turnabout is fair play, then all of you feel this way, yes?


I do, yes.

But, of course, it's the cumulative effect of the right-wing violent rhetoric that has poisoned political discourse in this country: not merely a few isolated comments. Not merely "second amendment solutions," but "watering the tree of liberty," crosshairs on photos of Democratic opponents, lies about the goals of progressives, "death panels," "killing your grandmother," concentration camps for conservatives," "terrorist sympathizers," Obama seeking to destroy America in favor installing a Muslim/Kenyan socialist alternative, hispanics attempting to take over America, three terrifying Black Panthers, and on and on and on and on. It's the attempt to terrify and enrage the ignorant sufficiently that they will fall in line behind right wing "solutions" to America's very real (and actually terrifying and enraging) problems, and elect right-wingers at all levels of government.

Turnabout is certainly fair play, but I'd challenge anyone to find more than a handful of such outrageous comments by progressive leadersw -- certainly not the incessant drumbeat of violence promulgated by the right against liberals, progressives, people of color, Democrats, the elderly, non-Christians, Muslims and the like.

Again, give me a break. There's no equivalence here.

SLL

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624102 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 20
collective punishment is only advocated by the depraved.

You may want to tell that to Felix and sandy, who seem hellbent on acting that way.

The "collective punishment" we have in mind, however, comes at the ballot box, and not, if politically expedient, at the end of a gun barrel.

I know that you believe that encouraging people to avoid voting for political extremists and opportunitst who compulsively use violent rhetoric is exactly the same moral infraction as encouraging people to employ "second amendment remedies" when their political objectives are not met.

We don't.

THAT is the difference.

SLL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624104 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Turnabout is certainly fair play, but I'd challenge anyone to find more than a handful of such outrageous comments by progressive leadersw -- certainly not the incessant drumbeat of violence promulgated by the right against liberals, progressives, people of color, Democrats, the elderly, non-Christians, Muslims and the like.

LOL. You guys have wallowed in hate for a long time now. It would take months to recount it all, but thankfully some others have

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate...

A mere fraction of all the junk thrown out there.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624106 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The "collective punishment" we have in mind, however, comes at the ballot box, and not, if politically expedient, at the end of a gun barrel.

Funny. Sounds a lot like what just happened...to the democrats.

I know that you believe that encouraging people to avoid voting for political extremists and opportunitst who compulsively use violent rhetoric is exactly the same moral infraction as encouraging people to employ "second amendment remedies" when their political objectives are not met.

I know that you believe in strawmen arguments. The LEAST you can do in this discussion is pick some other logical fallacy. Here's a list of ones you can choose:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624112 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1st, who the heck is Paul Kanjorski
2nd, if your quote is accurate, he is calling for the murder of Florida Gubinetorial candidate, no other meanding can be taken from that.
3rd, such as statement is immorral and if it's not illegal, it should be.
4th, if anyone had tried to kill or actually did kill the person he was talking about, then Kanjorski should be held accoutable as an acomplice
5th, I never said that one pol speaks for the entire party - but some do come a lot closer to it than others.
6th, it't not a game
7th, it doesn't matter to you anyway, because if your mind a Republican can say, KILL HIM" and it's not a threat but if anyone says about a Republican, "He's not the best candidate" that's a crime.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolsey1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624114 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 12:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
2nd, if your quote is accurate, he is calling for the murder of Florida Gubinetorial candidate, no other meanding can be taken from that.


Kanjorski was alluding to Scott's crime of swindling over $1 billion, as in Scott should be convicted and sentenced to death.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624139 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
1st, who the heck is Paul Kanjorski

Doesn't matter. If I own Angle, you own him. He was a member of Congress until this year.

2nd, if your quote is accurate, he is calling for the murder of Florida Gubinetorial candidate, no other meanding can be taken from that.

The quote is accurate.

3rd, such as statement is immorral and if it's not illegal, it should be.

Excellent that you don't like it. Now, what does that say about making an entire group responsible for the words of one person?

4th, if anyone had tried to kill or actually did kill the person he was talking about, then Kanjorski should be held accoutable as an acomplice

I wouldn't go that far.

5th, I never said that one pol speaks for the entire party - but some do come a lot closer to it than others.

Mmmmm...I could grant the wiggle room, but I'm not feeling charitable, so no.

6th, it't not a game

Who said it was? Don't like the way the game is played, then call down people who play it badly. Not those who are pointing it out.

7th, it doesn't matter to you anyway, because if your mind a Republican can say, KILL HIM" and it's not a threat but if anyone says about a Republican, "He's not the best candidate" that's a crime.

That's your perception. Your opinion of me is irrelevant to the discussion. See ya.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jwiest Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624144 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 1:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"And for that matter, what message is the name "Tea Party" intended to convey, if not the threat of violent insurrection?

Ummm...non-violent organization protesting the way people are being taxed?


If that were remotely true you'd have picked an actual non-violent symbol, like Gandhi or MLK. There was nothing non-violent about the tea party, then and now.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624145 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If that were remotely true you'd have picked an actual non-violent symbol, like Gandhi or MLK. There was nothing non-violent about the tea party, then and now.

Bzzzt. Rally sites where the tea parties held protests were models of (by and large) good behavior - few/no arrests, no vandals, trash picked up. Contrast that with say, oh, your average leftist WTO rally. Which side is more prone to violence?

Again: The reverse accusations stop when you people grow up and knock off the nonsense. 'Till then, we got a whole lotta mo.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624146 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 1:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
By the way, Kenneth Gladney and the guy at the Rand Paul rally whose finger was bitten off by the MoveOn guy say hello.

Once more: The violence that the left imagines the right doing doesn't add up to what you guys actually pull off.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624148 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 1:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
As I said in another post in this thread, Gandhi referenced the Tea Party when he dealt with Britain. Unless you were a tea leaf, the Tea Party was a relatively peaceful event.

Its about frustration over taxation.

Now maybe the current Tea Party political party has some violent undertones, but why do you have to change history to make your point.

I am not a "tea party" girl. But I think that the reason most liberals think of violence when they hear the words Tea Party is because they FEEL violent.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624162 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 1:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You'll have to ask her, and while you're at it, ask her how she represents all of us.

Show "us" all the posts "you" "true conservatives" posted prior to the elections in which Sharon Angle's 2nd Amendment views and/or candidacy was discussed in a dim light.

Finding "pro-Angle" posts by "you True Conservatives" is like shooting fish in a barrel. You "true conservatives" loved her and her prospects.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Guppy738 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624169 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 2:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Teabaggers are batguano cwayyzee
--------------

People that use a sexual slang term like teabagger to describe tea party members are "batguano cwayyzee".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jakalant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624190 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well it is clear that no one has come up with an alternative meaning for the phrase "second amendment remedies". Also most of the conservative responders have basically stated that (I summarize): 'you guys do it too'. So lets stipulate it means a violent overthrow of an election.

But this argument should not be about the Republican Party, IMO. Many Nevada Republicans supported Reid.

This argument should be with those who did give her $$ and verbal support. There are many of them as I have been posting. Ask these people why they supported her.

And if you support the use of second amendment remedies, or tolerate it in any fashion as these supporters of Angle apparently do

Karl Rove
John Ensign
Lamar Alexander
John McCain
Jon Kyl
John Cornyn
Jim DeMint
Sarah Palin
Tea Party Express
Phyllis Schlafly
Pat Boone
Joe the Plumber

man up. So we know who you are.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624209 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 3:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Left wingers long ago lost the right to complain about violence as a political tool.

Actually, I wasn't complaining.

The question is what's rhetoric like "second amendment solutions" supposed to mean if it's not a threat of political violence.

And your response, I think inadvertently, answers the question: it is.

You're simply saying "the left does it too."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624210 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 3:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Guppy says

People that use a sexual slang term like teabagger to describe tea party members are "batguano cwayyzee".

Originally, hardly anyone had any idea about the obscure sexual slang meaning of the term. Then teabaggers started throwing lurid screaming fits about it, and guess what? That just made it a lot more fun to call them teabaggers.

teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624211 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 3:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
collective punishment is only advocated by the depraved.
---
You may want to tell that to Felix and sandy, who seem hellbent on acting that way.


Huh? I haven't called for the punishment of anybody, collective or otherwise. Don't know about Sandy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Guppy738 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624345 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 7:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
People that use a sexual slang term like teabagger to describe tea party members are "batguano cwayyzee".

Originally, hardly anyone had any idea about the obscure sexual slang meaning of the term. Then teabaggers started throwing lurid screaming fits about it, and guess what? That just made it a lot more fun to call them teabaggers.

teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers teabaggers

----------------------

Thank you for proving my point!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624351 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Fail. This assumes that Sharron Angle was threatening someone

It doesn't assume anything. It was an explicit threat.

*and* that she speaks for the entire GOP and/or right wing. You guys don't want to play that game.<?I>

Actually we do. We've been trying to get you people to denounce such rhetoric and people like Angle but you won't. Sometimes you even bizarrely claim it wasn't a threat.

Derek


Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624390 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 8:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What is a "second amendment solution" supposed to mean, exactly, if it's not a threat of violence?

And for that matter, what message is the name "Tea Party" intended to convey, if not the threat of violent insurrection?


I guess that I'm missing the message, inasmuch as the original "Tea Party" was not a violent insurrection.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TellsTheTruth Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624395 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 8:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What is a "second amendment solution" supposed to mean, exactly, if it's not a threat of violence?


I think the wounded and survivors might have the very good makings for a lawsuit against Palin and the Tea Baggers.

Regards, TTT.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LifeForceDance Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624418 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 9:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I am not a "tea party" girl. But I think that the reason most liberals think of violence when they hear the words Tea Party is because they FEEL violent.

Now the Neanderthals are going to tell us what we feel. PPSSST!!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624448 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/17/2011 11:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I guess that I'm missing the message, inasmuch as the original "Tea Party" was not a violent insurrection.

I'm guessing there's a lot you don't know about the original Boston Tea party. The East India Company's boats were boarded by force by a Whig mob that destroyed about $2 million worth of tea (in today's dollars).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624474 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/18/2011 3:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I guess that I'm missing the message, inasmuch as the original "Tea Party" was not a violent insurrection.

I'm guessing there's a lot you don't know about the original Boston Tea party. The East India Company's boats were boarded by force by a Whig mob that destroyed about $2 million worth of tea (in today's dollars).



but did they kill anyone important?

that might be the "Tea P*****" criterion







(btw, happy loons day)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624493 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/18/2011 9:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You'll notice that, unlike your posts that I have read in the past few days, I have prefaced my opinion with the words "I think". So I am not telling you what you feel.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: goofnoff Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624496 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/18/2011 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
And if she doesn't speak for the "entire" GOP and/or right wing, why weren't there denunciations of her remark plastered by right wing bloggers all over the internet and proclaimed by right-wing pundits all over the mass media?

There wasn't a negative word from any GOP leader denouncing an obvious call to armed rebellion. She called for political assissination and there is no other interpretation possible. Once upon a time you ahd frnge left wing groups who did the same. I never ehard a serious Democratic candidate call for political assissination.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624518 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/18/2011 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There wasn't a negative word from any GOP leader denouncing an obvious call to armed rebellion.


That's because she is a political has been who made the comments on a radio show that no one would have heard, if it weren't for the Liberal echo chamber which, six months later, cannot speak of much else.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624672 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/18/2011 4:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I guess that I'm missing the message, inasmuch as the original "Tea Party" was not a violent insurrection.

I'm guessing there's a lot you don't know about the original Boston Tea party. The East India Company's boats were boarded by force by a Whig mob that destroyed about $2 million worth of tea (in today's dollars).


Okay, then how many people were hurt or killed in the violence?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624761 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/18/2011 9:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Kanjorski was alluding to Scott's crime of swindling over $1 billion, as in Scott should be convicted and sentenced to death.


Sorry, but his words don't invoke that image.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jakalant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624794 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/18/2011 10:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's because she is a political has been who made the comments on a radio show that no one would have heard</>

Sounds like you are stipulating she was calling for the assassination heretofore mentioned. Here's th eissue. Not only did the following people not utter a negative word, as you try to rationalize .....
BUT THEY SUPPORTED HER!!!!!!

Karl Rove
John Ensign
Lamar Alexander
John McCain
Jon Kyl
John Cornyn
Jim DeMint
Sarah Palin
Tea Party Express
Phyllis Schlafly
Pat Boone
Joe the Plumber


Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624813 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/19/2011 12:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>I guess that I'm missing the message, inasmuch as the original "Tea Party" was not a violent insurrection.

>>I'm guessing there's a lot you don't know about the original Boston Tea party. The East India Company's boats were boarded by force by a Whig mob that destroyed about $2 million worth of tea (in today's dollars).



Such a crazy mob that, after the dumping of the tea was accomplished, the mob couldn't repair a padlock that was broken ... so they went out to buy a new one for the captain and delivered it back to him. Not a bit of property (outside of the tea) was vandalized.

Ben Franklin even organized for the repayment for the tea, but it was not accepted. [Though some people back then say that this offer should never have been made because they viewed the Tea not as private property, but as a vehicle in which England was using to create a "right of taxation" which would undermine the ability of the colonies to thrive and suppress their authority to England's parliament.]

As for your supposition that the Tea Party was a violent insurrection. Some of those who enacted the tea tossing were dressed as Native Americans and hollered as they got to the ship...and they were met with a couple of ship hands who might have gotten violent... but by all accounts that was over quickly and the event as a whole was quiet (I've heard it described as silent).

There was no violence by design. But it was EXTREMELY important for the organizers of the Boston Tea Party for the event to occur without a blemish. In planning it they wrote: "Our enemies must acknowledge that these people have acted on pure and upright principles."

TaoFelix, I do wish you a good day as it is your balloon day, but please stop re-writing history on the Boston Tea Party (specially if you are a Red Sox fan).


You and others might not need the following, but it's important to understand that the Boston Tea Party was not about rioters looking to commit violence.


Boston Tea Party History:

Tea was "import taxed" heavily in England, so much so that it was common for most in England to enjoy black market tea that had no tax. The East India Tea company was losing out to the black marketeers. So England promised to rebate the company on tea sent off to the colonies. Soon England was missing that tax money, but they didn't want to renegotiate with East India. Instead they passed the tax directly onto the colonies.

The colonies didn't benefit at all from the tax ... they didn't benefit at all from England and this tax was by all accounts the "foot in the door" for the UK to continue to tax the colonies more and more.

Once the tea was debarked from the ship, the tea and the tax would be impossible to stop.

The Boston whigs asked the Governor to have the ship simply set sail back to England...but the Governor was getting paid by England and two of his son's were consignees who benefited from selling the tea (Boston's corruption of government started early). BTW: All the other cities that the ships full with tea set out from England for were either sunk by weather or were able to convince their consignees to turn them back.

So the tea was in Boston harbor, it wasn't going back to England, and if it stayed there in the harbor after a couple of weeks, it became property of England due to a bylaw.

After a final plea to the Governor resulted in no action...the Tea Party was on.

In the end, even the Governor who had prohibited the ship to sail back to England conceded that both he and England put the people of Boston in a position in which destroying the tea was the only solution and those who organized and participated in the Tea Party were acting according to the doctrine of necessity and self-preservation.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1624814 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/19/2011 12:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
shocking. yawn.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TaoFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1625068 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/19/2011 5:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
TaoFelix, I do wish you a good day as it is your balloon day, but please stop re-writing history on the Boston Tea Party (specially if you are a Red Sox fan).

Thanks for the good wishes and thanks for the historical elaboration, but your crack about re-writing history is misplaced. Nothing I wrote was inaccurate, except perhaps the $2 million value of the tea in today's terms. That's just an estimate.

And while we can debate about how violent the actual Tea Party itself was or was not, it's a symbol of American Revolution, in some ways, its genesis.

And to be clear, I'm not taking a condemnatory stance towards the Tea Party of 1773. I'm saying that the adoption of this symbol in a modern context evokes -- and for some, invokes -- revolution.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Stonewashed Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1625087 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/19/2011 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm guessing there's a lot you don't know about the original Boston Tea party. The East India Company's boats were boarded by force by a Whig mob that destroyed about $2 million worth of tea (in today's dollars
__________________

They were boarded by people egged on by merchants who felt their business plans were threatened.

Americans ostensibly boycotted the tea of the East India Company, Britain’s licensed monopoly provider, though in practice they drank what they liked. Indeed, for consumers, anger over the tea tax had never made much economic sense. For one thing, many drank Dutch-supplied tea, which was smuggled and therefore tax-free. Benjamin Woods Labaree, the most attentive scholar of the Colonial tea trade, estimates that three-quarters of the 1.2 million pounds of tea that Americans consumed each year was smuggled. Meanwhile, the tax on legal tea was largely offset by a tea-tax refund passed the same year. But in 1772 that tax refund shrank, making British tea more expensive and enhancing smugglers’ price advantage. Tea piled up in the British warehouses of the East India Company, which owed money to the British government and also needed to ask it for a loan. Someone had an idea: why not raise cash by dumping the company’s surplus tea on the American market? Parliament agreed to help by restoring the old refund in full and by allowing the company to export tea directly rather than through merchant middlemen. With the new measures, the price of legal tea was expected to halve. Consumers would save, Parliament needn’t lose quite so much on its bailout of the East India Company, and smugglers would be driven out of business.

Boston’s big businessmen felt threatened. Not only might smuggling cease to be profitable but, if the experiment of direct importation were to succeed, it might cut them out of the supply chains for other commodities as well. Clearly, it was time for Sam Adams and William Molineux to rile up the public again. At the start of November, 1773, a public letter summoned merchants expecting tea consignments from the East India Company to the Liberty Tree. When they failed to appear, Molineux led five hundred people to the store where the merchants were huddled, and its doors were torn from their hinges. A second letter warned the consignees not to take it for granted that the colonists would remain “irreconcilable to the idea of spilling human blood.” Amid the populist fervor, only a few noticed that the working-class Bostonian stood to gain little from the protest. Joke in a Boston newspaper, November 4, 1773: Colonist No. 1, hurrying to the Liberty Tree, says he hopes that a mob will force merchants to lower the price of tea, which has risen to a dollar a pound. Not exactly, Colonist No. 2 says. The mob is going “to make those who expect to sell at half that price send it back again.”



Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/12/20/10122...

Not much has changed.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: carcaradon Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1625102 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/19/2011 8:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the good wishes and thanks for the historical elaboration, but your crack about re-writing history is misplaced. Nothing I wrote was inaccurate, except perhaps the $2 million value of the tea in today's terms. That's just an estimate.

Well, the way you proposed the sentence and countered the previous posters claim of the peaceful Boston Tea Party, I thought you were somewhat inaccurate.

And while we can debate about how violent the actual Tea Party itself was or was not, it's a symbol of American Revolution, in some ways, its genesis.

It might have led up to the American Revolution, and been a reason for the Revolution, but it wasn't the Revolution.

Maybe the current Tea Party mumbo jumbo has been corrupted. Maybe it's not worthy of the moniker Tea Party.

But the original Boston Tea party does stand as a pristine example of civil disobedience, self preservation and artful politicking.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MBAFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1625387 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/20/2011 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the good wishes and thanks for the historical elaboration, but your crack about re-writing history is misplaced. Nothing I wrote was inaccurate, except perhaps the $2 million value of the tea in today's terms. That's just an estimate.
---
Well, the way you proposed the sentence and countered the previous posters claim of the peaceful Boston Tea Party, I thought you were somewhat inaccurate.


Fair enough, but although nobody was killed, I still don't think it was all that peaceful. The Tea Party was, in fact, violent, and provocative. And I can't help but remember that many of my more conservative interlocutors consider things like tree-spiking by radical environmental groups, "terrorism" and the vandalism of anti-globalization mobs to be acts of violence. Also that they tend to be champions of private property. I think it's fair to say the use of force to destroy $2 million (or thereabouts) in private property is a violent act.

But the original Boston Tea party does stand as a pristine example of civil disobedience, self preservation and artful politicking.

Destroying private property isn't, by definition, civil disobedience. And even if it were, I wouldn't call it "pristine." The Tea Party greatly embarrased many of those who'd come to be considered the Founding Fathers. And it wasn't referred to or taught as a part of American history for decades, until the 1830s (when one of the surviving Sons of Liberty published an autiobiography -- yes, I looked that up,) because it was still considered somewhat disgraceful.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MBAFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1625390 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/20/2011 3:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not much has changed.

Not much, indeed. Like then, the supposed champions of liberty are actually the unwitting pawns of special interests.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1625680 of 1947376
Subject: Re: If not meant to be threatening, then what? Date: 1/21/2011 10:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Fail. This assumes that Sharron Angle was threatening someone *and* that she speaks for the entire GOP and/or right wing. You guys don't want to play that game.

______________________________

LMAO, yes they do, they just want ot make sure that you don't.

I have read over and over posts by the jokers out here.

They are really really peeved that the tactics they love can be used against them

They do not like, that the other side being proven imprefect is not validation of everything they believe.

They are upset beyond all redemption that mistakes by folks ontheir side are used to indict them?

It really socks to live by the rules they seem to believe want others to live by

And if you do it? Heck you are a Nazi

But they didn't really call you a Nazi, they did something else and the term Nazi referring to you was not calling you a nazi.

Isn't is genuinely funny how that happens with these open minded clowns?

The only thing remotely as bad as their belief in double standards regarding their actions, is their non-existent relationship with the truth.

But apparently, it is who they desire to be and how they want to express themeselves for all they do is go deeper in the same direction, no matter how bad their behavior is. The relationship with reality - it allows them to ignore it as it really does not happen.

Over and over and over it is what they are.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (58) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement