The differences between Tea Party protest today and those of the real American Revolution

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It is undemocratic to question or protest the government once it's elected. We need to be quiet and obedient since the representatives in power have a mandate. The minority has no right to be heard or considered in any way. Since the Democrats are in power we need to give them everything they want because that's how America is supposed to work. After all, it says that in the Constitution doesn't it? Besides, anyone who opposes The Agenda is stupid, because our masters know better than any of us. We need to be willing servants of government, as long as that government does what we want it to do, and excludes everyone else.

Anyway, I'm not into the Tea Parties. Not my thing. The real point is that people who don't like what is going on are banding together to protest a powerful government who wants something they do not, and has no intention of even considering their position.

Again I'm not a Tea Party type, but it's good to see people exercising their rights. I wish those who look down their noses at them had participated to the same degree against Iraq before war.

You are posting a straw man.

Imagine that we didn't have a law against foreign meddling in our political system - you know, the kind of meddling we do around the world 'covertly' - and the Chinese poured big money into building a 'political movement', using marketing, owning media, in our country and had established a major following that just happened to support the Chinese political agenda, against what's good for Americans.

If you saw this and raised objections to it, would you be right to do so? Would you be 'challenging the right' of those citizens who followed the movement to do so?

Or would you be objecting to their being manipulated, to their not getting informed and making bad choices?

That's how many see the tea bagger problem - 'interested parties', as served by Fox News, leading these people like a pied piper to some bad choices.

It just happens to be an agenda of the rich, instead of the Chinese.

But you are misguidedly not addressing the merits of the issue of the policies they're supporting, and instead wrongly claiming that their freedoms are being attacked.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
We remain paranoid and delusional.

Fixed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It is undemocratic to question or protest the government once it's elected. We need to be quiet and obedient since the representatives in power have a mandate. The minority has no right to be heard or considered in any way. Since the Democrats are in power we need to give them everything they want because that's how America is supposed to work. After all, it says that in the Constitution doesn't it? Besides, anyone who opposes The Agenda is stupid, because our masters know better than any of us. We need to be willing servants of government, as long as that government does what we want it to do, and excludes everyone else.

Absolutely. This type of dissent must be quelled, by force if necessary. It's sedition.

Ahhhhh great, more straw men arguments. It's like there's an echo in here. :roll:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It is undemocratic to question or protest the government once it's elected. We need to be quiet and obedient since the representatives in power have a mandate. The minority has no right to be heard or considered in any way. Since the Democrats are in power we need to give them everything they want because that's how America is supposed to work. After all, it says that in the Constitution doesn't it? Besides, anyone who opposes The Agenda is stupid, because our masters know better than any of us. We need to be willing servants of government, as long as that government does what we want it to do, and excludes everyone else.

Absolutely. This type of dissent must be quelled, by force if necessary. It's sedition.

Ahhhhh great, more straw men arguments. It's like there's an echo in here. :roll:

How is it straw man?

 

[DealMonkey]

Well for one, I'm not jimmyj68, and no one in here has claimed it's sedition.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It is undemocratic to question or protest the government once it's elected. We need to be quiet and obedient since the representatives in power have a mandate. The minority has no right to be heard or considered in any way. Since the Democrats are in power we need to give them everything they want because that's how America is supposed to work. After all, it says that in the Constitution doesn't it? Besides, anyone who opposes The Agenda is stupid, because our masters know better than any of us. We need to be willing servants of government, as long as that government does what we want it to do, and excludes everyone else.

Absolutely. This type of dissent must be quelled, by force if necessary. It's sedition.

Ahhhhh great, more straw men arguments. It's like there's an echo in here. :roll:

How is it straw man?

The straw man is in suggesting the left wants to deny the political rights of the citizens who are misled into following this crap agenda.

The straw man is in saying the critics of tea baggers are saying all dissent is wrong - rather than saying SOME dissent is wrong, the Fox agenda dissent is wrong.

The straw man is saying the citizens 'have no right to be heard or considered'.

The straw man is yous saying the critics want to shut up those citizens by force.

Let's look at the link you posted to support your point, the one that argued the Fox agenda is sedition.

Note, we had a law against 'sedition' that allowed for people who said things the government didn't like to be put in jail. Adams used it; Jeffeson abolished it.

So, the post you linked will no doubt advocate for the use of force against the tea baggers to shut them up, right? Let's see, in the dramatic call for action in the linked post:

All of you out there that have been drawn into this cesspool of hatred had better wake up.

'404 call for use of force to silence citizens not found'.

That's the straw man - your misrepresentation of the points in that post as the call for force to silence citizens, when that's not what it said.

That's what a straw man is - the replacement of the actual argument with one that is phony, made up by you and stuffed with straw so you can beat it more easily.

 

[PJABBER]

The problem with this whole thread is that is sets up a false comparison of widely different events and then wastes time and energy gratuitously indulging in all sorts of castigating examples and terms to prove what? That the Boston Tea Party is different than the American Tea Partys of the present? I guess you must dress in leggings and powder your wig daily to take exception to the myriad differences. If that is the case, well, carry on.

Craig, if you and your fellow travelers start by providing an example and start self correcting by showing some respect for those who hold opinions different than you, you might actually get some respect yourself. Elevate the discussion.

I think even the gay community, which has actually been insulted by your arrogation, might be relieved if you stop using terms such as "tea bagger" to describe fellow citizens expressing themselves. But, that level of reasonableness is likely outside of your capacity for reasoned discourse.

 

[PingSpike]

I'm not really sure how brave the boston tea party dudes were. I mean, its pretty obvious they dressed as Indians so that if things didn't go their way they could just blame it all on the local natives.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

I think even the gay community, which has actually been insulted by your arrogation, might be relieved if you stop using terms such as "tea bagger" to describe fellow citizens expressing themselves. But, that level of reasonableness is likely outside of your capacity for reasoned discourse.

Why would the gay community care if he used the word 'tea bagger'? It's not a uniquely gay thing in any way.

 

[Fern]

Somebody really felt the need to write a paper identifying the differences between the original Boston tea party and the current political rallies?

Srly?

Fern

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
The problem with this whole thread is that is sets up a false comparison of widely different events and then wastes time and energy gratuitously indulging in all sorts of castigating examples and terms to prove what? That the Boston Tea Party is different than the American Tea Partys of the present? I guess you must dress in leggings and powder your wig daily to take exception to the myriad differences. If that is the case, well, carry on.

Craig, if you and your fellow travelers start by providing an example and start self correcting by showing some respect for those who hold opinions different than you, you might actually get some respect yourself. Elevate the discussion.

I think even the gay community, which has actually been insulted by your arrogation, might be relieved if you stop using terms such as "tea bagger" to describe fellow citizens expressing themselves. But, that level of reasonableness is likely outside of your capacity for reasoned discourse.

I think it's obvious to everyone, except perhaps to you, that if you give your movement a historical moniker it lends credibility, but at the same time opens yourself up to comparison. I'd venture to argue that the current tea party movement folks liken themselves to American revolutionaries, hence the examples of armed protesters showing up at Obama appearances and holding signs referencing quotes of our founding fathers.

The guy in my sig as just one example...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Craig, if you and your fellow travelers

Nice, idiotic buzzword attack.

start by providing an example and start self correcting by showing some respect for those who hold opinions different than you, you might actually get some respect yourself. Elevate the discussion.

I do. When there is any decent post, it's treated as such; when there's garbage, it would be harmful to pretend it's not.

I think even the gay community, which has actually been insulted by your arrogation,

Wrong. While there can be allusions to the gay usage of the term, my post had none.

might be relieved if you stop using terms such as "tea bagger" to describe fellow citizens expressing themselves. But, that level of reasonableness is likely outside of your capacity for reasoned discourse.

You're an idiot, and no that doesn't prove your point about my reasonableness, you proved the point about yours.

You have had your garbage debunked countless times, and you have not once that I recall shown any of the personal responsbility you would say you support by admitting it.

I invite you to join the elevated discussion and get treated accordingly. See any of the threads I started for the chance to do so.

You aren't going to get away with the phony attacks you attempt here. You will be called an idiot if you are being one, no matter how you try to set it up for that to look bad.

The word idiot can be misused as a generic insult, misused by replacing what should be an argument, misused to attack good comments - and it has a place that's legitimate also.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: PJABBER
The problem with this whole thread is that is sets up a false comparison of widely different events and then wastes time and energy gratuitously indulging in all sorts of castigating examples and terms to prove what? That the Boston Tea Party is different than the American Tea Partys of the present? I guess you must dress in leggings and powder your wig daily to take exception to the myriad differences. If that is the case, well, carry on.

Craig, if you and your fellow travelers start by providing an example and start self correcting by showing some respect for those who hold opinions different than you, you might actually get some respect yourself. Elevate the discussion.

I think even the gay community, which has actually been insulted by your arrogation, might be relieved if you stop using terms such as "tea bagger" to describe fellow citizens expressing themselves. But, that level of reasonableness is likely outside of your capacity for reasoned discourse.

I think it's obvious to everyone, except perhaps to you, that if you give your movement a historical moniker it lends credibility, but at the same time opens yourself up to comparison. I'd venture to argue that the current tea party movement folks liken themselves to American revolutionaries, hence the examples of armed protesters showing up at Obama appearances and holding signs referencing quotes of our founding fathers.

The guy in my sig as just one example...

I was wondering when someone would pick William Kostric as an example of a Tea Party protester. I don't think he was actually part of a Tea Party gathering. Wasn't it a Town Hall event, entirely separate from the Tea Party movement?

I found his interview attack by Chris Matthews to be highly illustrative of both the tone and the tenure of the two sides of the liberal/conservative debate.

Kostric, looking like Seinfeld's Cosmo Kramer character as played by Michael Richards, provides a rational explanation of his presence and presentation, while Matthews comes off as a bullying ass doing his best, and ultimately failing in any way, to intimidate his guest.

Who offers the more convincing argument?

Chris Matthews Hardball attack on protester William Kostric

How apropos to the tone and tenure of the discussion in this thread and others at P&N.

 

[Underclocked]

The Tea Party theme is symbolism, not re-enactment. Get it?

Many of those participating probably do feel they have no representation when the choice given for their vote is generally the lesser of two evils.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
We remain paranoid and delusional.

Fixed.

Now, who can argue with that?


:laugh:



The idea that the TBs are revolutionary patriots co-opts both revolution and patriotism.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Underclocked
The Tea Party theme is symbolism, not re-enactment. Get it?

Many of those participating probably do feel they have no representation when the choice given for their vote is generally the lesser of two evils.

You're right, and that's part of the tragedy of what a manipulative power like Fox News does. They've thrown away their rights as citizens to support garbage.

Instead of supporting a legitimate movement in the right direction, they've signed on to the propaganda of the Fox agenda and similar agendas.

It's going to leave them unrepresented - whether how they feel about Obama, or when the corporate interest who sduece them get power, they'll screw these citizens.

There is some poetic justice when the people involved are acting in a selfish manner unconcerned with the exploitation of others, and then get screwed themselves.

It's sad, how they don't understand who is really against their interests, as they flop around like fish out of water furious and disoriented.

 

[zephyrprime]

I think the most important point of difference is the fact that no tea is involved.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
~~snip~~
Nice try, but this isn't Dems vs Repubs anymore. The Republicans alone do not have the votes to stop anything, so obviously there are some democrats putting a halt on the Health Care bill as well as other bills in the House. Which would mean, they aren't my representative, so they must be someones, and if for once they are listening to a constituent, then they must be listening to at least some of their Democratic base.

News Flash.

60 votes are required in the Senate for cloture (even with the passing of Teddy).

That number may only be reduced (to 59) with the death of another Senator.

The Cons are free to filibuster to their hearts content to stop the passage of any health care legislation.

Gee. I wonder why they won't do that?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I think the most important point of difference is the fact that no tea is involved.

:laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Underclocked
The Tea Party theme is symbolism, not re-enactment. Get it?

Many of those participating probably do feel they have no representation when the choice given for their vote is generally the lesser of two evils.

Orly?

The Chicago Young Republicans, a conservative interest group with 500 active members ranging in age from 18 to 40, threw a historically-inspired "Tax Day Tea Party" at Navy Pier Wednesday aboard the largest sailing ship in the country, the Tall Ship Windy.

Building on the momentum from a tea party event earlier in the day at the Federal Building in downtown Chicago and in tandem with tea parties across the country, the Young Republicans vied most aggressively to mirror history by tossing crates of tea into a body of water like the colonists of revolutionary yore.

"It's exciting, we'll have about 100 or so people," said Corrine Williams, communications director for the CYRs.

Standing on the bow moments before the ship's departure, Williams summoned the symbolic event that has served as a buzz word for opposition leaders ever since CNBC's Rick Santelli initially proposed a tea party in a now-famous jeremiad from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade.

"We have always fought oppressive taxes, since 1773," Williams said.

http://bit.ly/18rU2u

My, what a lovely little tea party!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: PJABBER
The problem with this whole thread is that is sets up a false comparison of widely different events and then wastes time and energy gratuitously indulging in all sorts of castigating examples and terms to prove what? That the Boston Tea Party is different than the American Tea Partys of the present? I guess you must dress in leggings and powder your wig daily to take exception to the myriad differences. If that is the case, well, carry on.

Craig, if you and your fellow travelers start by providing an example and start self correcting by showing some respect for those who hold opinions different than you, you might actually get some respect yourself. Elevate the discussion.

I think even the gay community, which has actually been insulted by your arrogation, might be relieved if you stop using terms such as "tea bagger" to describe fellow citizens expressing themselves. But, that level of reasonableness is likely outside of your capacity for reasoned discourse.

I think it's obvious to everyone, except perhaps to you, that if you give your movement a historical moniker it lends credibility, but at the same time opens yourself up to comparison. I'd venture to argue that the current tea party movement folks liken themselves to American revolutionaries, hence the examples of armed protesters showing up at Obama appearances and holding signs referencing quotes of our founding fathers.

The guy in my sig as just one example...

I was wondering when someone would pick William Kostric as an example of a Tea Party protester. I don't think he was actually part of a Tea Party gathering. Wasn't it a Town Hall event, entirely separate from the Tea Party movement?

I found his interview attack by Chris Matthews to be highly illustrative of both the tone and the tenure of the two sides of the liberal/conservative debate.

Kostric, looking like Seinfeld's Cosmo Kramer character as played by Michael Richards, provides a rational explanation of his presence and presentation, while Matthews comes off as a bullying ass doing his best, and ultimately failing in any way, to intimidate his guest.

Who offers the more convincing argument?

Chris Matthews Hardball attack on protester William Kostric

How apropos to the tone and tenure of the discussion in this thread and others at P&N.

I think Matthew's reaction was similar to a lot of America's reaction, when an armed protester showed up at an Obama event carrying a sign advocating watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It's difficult not to imagine that Kostric is advocating armed resistance against Obama and our government. Frankly, there's not a lot of other possibilities, are there?

I can only imagine how your argument might have been the polar opposite had this been a Bush appearance during one of his two terms.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: PJABBER
The problem with this whole thread is that is sets up a false comparison of widely different events and then wastes time and energy gratuitously indulging in all sorts of castigating examples and terms to prove what? That the Boston Tea Party is different than the American Tea Partys of the present? I guess you must dress in leggings and powder your wig daily to take exception to the myriad differences. If that is the case, well, carry on.

Craig, if you and your fellow travelers start by providing an example and start self correcting by showing some respect for those who hold opinions different than you, you might actually get some respect yourself. Elevate the discussion.

I think even the gay community, which has actually been insulted by your arrogation, might be relieved if you stop using terms such as "tea bagger" to describe fellow citizens expressing themselves. But, that level of reasonableness is likely outside of your capacity for reasoned discourse.

I think it's obvious to everyone, except perhaps to you, that if you give your movement a historical moniker it lends credibility, but at the same time opens yourself up to comparison. I'd venture to argue that the current tea party movement folks liken themselves to American revolutionaries, hence the examples of armed protesters showing up at Obama appearances and holding signs referencing quotes of our founding fathers.

The guy in my sig as just one example...

I was wondering when someone would pick William Kostric as an example of a Tea Party protester. I don't think he was actually part of a Tea Party gathering. Wasn't it a Town Hall event, entirely separate from the Tea Party movement?

I found his interview attack by Chris Matthews to be highly illustrative of both the tone and the tenure of the two sides of the liberal/conservative debate.

Kostric, looking like Seinfeld's Cosmo Kramer character as played by Michael Richards, provides a rational explanation of his presence and presentation, while Matthews comes off as a bullying ass doing his best, and ultimately failing in any way, to intimidate his guest.

Who offers the more convincing argument?

Chris Matthews Hardball attack on protester William Kostric

How apropos to the tone and tenure of the discussion in this thread and others at P&N.

I think Matthew's reaction was similar to a lot of America's reaction, when an armed protester showed up at an Obama event carrying a sign advocating watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It's difficult not to imagine that Kostric is advocating armed resistance against Obama and our government. Frankly, there's not a lot of other possibilities, are there?

I can only imagine how your argument might have been the polar opposite had this been a Bush appearance during one of his two terms.

Notwithstanding that the guy was not actually at the Obama event,

... are you afraid of legally armed peaceful protesters?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Notwithstanding that the guy was not actually at the Obama event,

... are you afraid of legally armed peaceful protesters?

Yes, he was. He was in the vicinity of the Obama appearance. What I have a problem with is armed protesters who appears to be threatening violent revolution. And that's exactly the picture you get with this guy.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I can only imagine how your argument might have been the polar opposite had this been a Bush appearance during one of his two terms.

Having lived in Texas, and having met George W. Bush several times, and been at many more events which he attended, I can tell you that both when he was governor, and when he was president, no one with a concealed handgun license was ever hassled for carrying around him. The Texas concealed handgun law was his campaign promise to Texas. He signed it as soon as he was elected.

Liberals are just scared of guns, and the idea of an armed people tearing down a big government.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I can only imagine how your argument might have been the polar opposite had this been a Bush appearance during one of his two terms.

Having lived in Texas, and having met George W. Bush several times, and been at many more events which he attended, I can tell you that both when he was governor, and when he was president, no one with a concealed handgun license was ever hassled for carrying around him. The Texas concealed handgun law was his campaign promise to Texas. He signed it as soon as he was elected.

Liberals are just scared of guns, and the idea of an armed people tearing down a big government.

I have no problem with guns, what I have a problem with is partisan idiots showing up at the President's events advocating violent revolution, while meanwhile Obama racks up the most death threats for any president in recent history. I think the President's safety trumps the citizen's rights to carry a weapon in his vicinity. And for the record, I would say the same exact thing if we were talking about Bush or any other President.