4th of July, but could americains do the boston tea party today?

[revelarts]

The Boston Tea party was just one of many protest the Americas did during the run up to the revolution.
Today we would have to apply for a permit to do the same and it would of course be denied OR there would be "free speech" zone 500 to 1000 yards away from the tea. and have to PAY for the permit and give a security depot for clean up. Or off to jail with the scoff laws.
and God forbid they stop traffic. they have a right to protest but not STOP TRAFFIC that's to much and illegal. And they shouldn't mouth off at the British soldiers they're just doing their jobs and you get what ask for when to do that. har har.


the Bonus marchers after WW1 didn't have any permits to camp out in D.C. to demand what the gov't promised them. The Army drove those law breaking veterans out the shanty town with bayonets and gas so decent folks could run their local businesses but Those pesky veterans came back and finally got some redress to their free speech and assembly protest.


the 4th of July, in the ideal, is the peoples revolution we the people celebrate freedom and self governance, not "general welfare" or "safety".


Happy 4th everyone

[ConHog]

The Boston Tea party was just one of many protest the Americas did during the run up to the revolution.
Today we would have to apply for a permit to do the same and it would of course be denied OR there would be "free speech" zone 500 to 1000 yards away from the tea. and have to PAY for the permit and give a security depot for clean up. Or off to jail with the scoff laws.
and God forbid they stop traffic. they have a right to protest but not STOP TRAFFIC that's to much and illegal. And they shouldn't mouth off at the British soldiers they're just doing their jobs and you get what ask for when to do that. har har.


the Bonus marchers after WW1 didn't have any permits to camp out in D.C. to demand what the gov't promised them. The Army drove those law breaking veterans out the shanty town with bayonets and gas so decent folks could run their local businesses but Those pesky veterans came back and finally got some redress to their free speech and assembly protest.


the 4th of July, in the ideal, is the peoples revolution we the people celebrate freedom and self governance, not "general welfare" or "safety".


Happy 4th everyone

Sometimes you crack me up Rev. Other times you make me sad.

Would you like to like in a community with no laws?

[Kathianne]

The Boston Tea party was just one of many protest the Americas did during the run up to the revolution.
Today we would have to apply for a permit to do the same and it would of course be denied OR there would be "free speech" zone 500 to 1000 yards away from the tea. and have to PAY for the permit and give a security depot for clean up. Or off to jail with the scoff laws.
and God forbid they stop traffic. they have a right to protest but not STOP TRAFFIC that's to much and illegal. And they shouldn't mouth off at the British soldiers they're just doing their jobs and you get what ask for when to do that. har har.


the Bonus marchers after WW1 didn't have any permits to camp out in D.C. to demand what the gov't promised them. The Army drove those law breaking veterans out the shanty town with bayonets and gas so decent folks could run their local businesses but Those pesky veterans came back and finally got some redress to their free speech and assembly protest.


the 4th of July, in the ideal, is the peoples revolution we the people celebrate freedom and self governance, not "general welfare" or "safety".


Happy 4th everyone

Ummm, it wasn't legal then either. In fact, when England heard of it, the Intolerable Acts were passed, along with the Quebec Act and Quartering Act. The reaction of Bostonians led to the closing of the port and city. That led to 1776.

[Thunderknuckles]

Sometimes you crack me up Rev. Other times you make me sad.

Would you like to like in a community with no laws?
Rev is an old school patriot born 200 years after his time :)

[Nukeman]

Sometimes you crack me up Rev. Other times you make me sad.

Would you like to like in a community with no laws?I beleive the point he is making is that "we" as in Americans have been regulated to the point that hardley anyone would take the time to do what needs to be done for fear of "crossing" the line or incurring the wrath of the authorities!!

We have become what our forefathers would hate. Sheep blindly following the govt with no will to fight back!! Personally its pathetic, and you are one who ignors this!!!!

[Kathianne]

I beleive the point he is making is that "we" as in Americans have been regulated to the point that hardley anyone would take the time to do what needs to be done for fear of "crossing" the line or incurring the wrath of the authorities!!

We have become what our forefathers would hate. Sheep blindly following the govt with no will to fight back!! Personally its pathetic, and you are one who ignors this!!!!

Most of the colonists would have agreed with us sheeple, at least until the closing of Boston, that was the final act that triggered the unity of the colonies that led to the moment of the 'Shot heard around the World.'

[ConHog]

I beleive the point he is making is that "we" as in Americans have been regulated to the point that hardley anyone would take the time to do what needs to be done for fear of "crossing" the line or incurring the wrath of the authorities!!

We have become what our forefathers would hate. Sheep blindly following the govt with no will to fight back!! Personally its pathetic, and you are one who ignors this!!!!

I don't believe that is true. Our forefathers understood the need for government and the need for law. What they disagreed with was being governed by a government that didn't include representation from them and or a government that persecuted people, especially for religious reasons.

[Kathianne]

I don't believe that is true. Our forefathers understood the need for government and the need for law. What they disagreed with was being governed by a government that didn't include representation from them and or a government that persecuted people, especially for religious reasons.

People left England over religious persecution. In the colonies, discrimination certainly occurred regarding religion, no argument. However here, very little had to do with England, with the exception of handing out land grants among the gentry.

It was the colonies themselves that were persecuting on religious grounds, though by 1770 most of that had lessened to near tolerable levels. Of course discrimination along racial and religious lines would continue throughout our history, but certainly not to the level of rebellion.

Nope, the primary argument was 'representation' though a very decent argument can be made that it really had to do with people 2 or more generations removed from the motherland, that had become at least middle class, if not wealthy. Many were landowners, among the founders they were primarily "Large" landholders. Less taxes seemed very much in their interests.

[Dilloduck]

I beleive the point he is making is that "we" as in Americans have been regulated to the point that hardley anyone would take the time to do what needs to be done for fear of "crossing" the line or incurring the wrath of the authorities!!

We have become what our forefathers would hate. Sheep blindly following the govt with no will to fight back!! Personally its pathetic, and you are one who ignors this!!!!

Sheep or plain old chicken shits. Or so hopelessly cycnical that no one thinks it is a viable way to get anything changed.

[Nukeman]

I don't believe that is true. Our forefathers understood the need for government and the need for law. What they disagreed with was being governed by a government that didn't include representation from them and or a government that persecuted people, especially for religious reasons.WE have that now or are you blind!! We have persecution of Christians here in the US We have almost NO representation in govt unless you are a union or lobbiest!! The average American citizen really has NO representation at the national level and if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself!!!!:poke:

[ConHog]

WE have that now or are you blind!! We have persecution of Christians here in the US We have almost NO representation in govt unless you are a union or lobbiest!! The average American citizen really has NO representation at the national level and if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself!!!!:poke:

Let's start with the easiest. Please link to a SINGLE example of the USG persecuting Christians.

[logroller]

Let's be honest here, if the Boston tea party happened today it'd more likely be considered an act of terrorism than patriotism.

[Kathianne]

Let's be honest here, if the Boston tea party happened today it'd more likely be considered an act of terrorism than patriotism.

No explosions, heck no firing of weapons. I don't think so.

Without some justification it would only be seen as destruction of property at the level of major felony. That was a lot of tea.

[ConHog]

Let's be honest here, if the Boston tea party happened today it'd more likely be considered an act of terrorism than patriotism.

In many ways our forefathers were the terrorists of their day. I mean they didn't wear standard uniforms (especially in the beginning) , they didn't stand and fight "fair" , they stole supplies, they terrorized crown sympathizers, they destroyed strategic locations.

But hey, we won so all good.

[logroller]

No explosions, heck no firing of weapons. I don't think so.

Without some justification it would only be seen as destruction of property at the level of major felony. That was a lot of tea.
Wasn't someone hurt? Just needs a few passes through the govt propaganda machine...bam!

[Kathianne]

Wasn't someone hurt? Just needs a few passes through the govt propaganda machine...bam!

I've not heard or read of such. I went to Boston Harbor Museum and read a lot-saw nothing to indicate anything like that. You've got something?

[logroller]

I've not heard or read of such. I went to Boston Harbor Museum and read a lot-saw nothing to indicate anything like that. You've got something?
Google John crane; he was actually one of the terrorists.;)
Im just teasing really; though tea was then as highly regarded as oil is now. Imagine if group intentionally dumped a tanker of oil; even ignoring the environmental impact, it would likely be considered a terror inducing act by many.

[Kathianne]

Google John crane; he was actually one of the terrorists.;)
Im just teasing really; though tea was then as highly regarded as oil is now. Imagine if group intentionally dumped a tanker of oil; even ignoring the environmental impact, it would likely be considered a terror inducing act by many.

Ok, after reading that I do remember that. Sheesh! Crates fall in ship's hold. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Google John crane; he was actually one of the terrorists.;)
Im just teasing really; though tea was then as highly regarded as oil is now. Imagine if group intentionally dumped a tanker of oil; even ignoring the environmental impact, it would likely be considered a terror inducing act by many.

If a group of people today somehow caused the loss of an oil tanker's cargo, without injury to crew and not as an attempt to change the government , they would be charged with destruction of property and environmental destruction. Really no comparison. The tea wasn't toxic. No one was hurt. In fact, at that point there was still an active diplomacy effort to bridge the problems with England.

[Dilloduck]

Toxic or not that tea was full of caffeine and I'm sure the fish were none to happy about. Just ask the EPA. They can read animal's minds and stuff. I'm afraid the tea war party would have gotten a lot of jail time for that and offending native Americans while they did it.

[fj1200]

If a group of people today somehow caused the loss of an oil tanker's cargo, without injury to crew and not as an attempt to change the government , they would be charged with destruction of property and environmental destruction. Really no comparison. The tea wasn't toxic. No one was hurt. In fact, at that point there was still an active diplomacy effort to bridge the problems with England.

But isn't the more important aspect the response after the fact? Also, what would the parallels be? It's not like we can push the army back into DC and declare independence.

[Kathianne]

But isn't the more important aspect the response after the fact? Also, what would the parallels be? It's not like we can push the army back into DC and declare independence.

I already posted on the consequences of the Boston Tea Party and the consequences of those consequences.

First, I don't think we are close to a parallel in anger or organization with 1773. If anything I'd say Obamacare; regarding how passed and popularity and now SCOTUS maybe more on the line of Proclamation of 1763. People are confused, angry, and saying 'this is not going to stand...'

So people went ahead and ignored the line, skirmished some with Native Americans and pretty much life went on. For awhile.

Early days.

[logroller]

If a group of people today somehow caused the loss of an oil tanker's cargo, without injury to crew and not as an attempt to change the government , they would be charged with destruction of property and environmental destruction. Really no comparison. The tea wasn't toxic. No one was hurt. In fact, at that point there was still an active diplomacy effort to bridge the problems with England.
I assumed it was an act of protest, and entirely destructive of the property. Wasn't the tea in Boston technically the crown's, ie East India Co?

[fj1200]

I already posted on the consequences of the Boston Tea Party and the consequences of those consequences.

First, I don't think we are close to a parallel in anger or organization with 1773. If anything I'd say Obamacare; regarding how passed and popularity and now SCOTUS maybe more on the line of Proclamation of 1763. People are confused, angry, and saying 'this is not going to stand...'

So people went ahead and ignored the line, skirmished some with Native Americans and pretty much life went on. For awhile.

Early days.

I know. Right now options are limited for those who wish to "leave the crown." Move to another country, vote, and secede.

[Kathianne]

I assumed it was an act of protest, and entirely destructive of the property. Wasn't the tea in Boston technically the crown's, ie East India Co?

Best of my knowledge it was the East India Co.'s and to some extent price subsidized by lower tax by Crown. Remember the 'Tea Act'? The tea cost less than it had, but the Crown added a tax.

Most of these: Stamp, Tea, Sugar were attempts to rein in the colonies, who'd become emboldened through years of being mostly tax free through benign neglect. Until the French-Indian War, the colonies were sending so much products for manufacturing to England, that they pretty much left the colonists to run themselves. The war changed everything. The fact that England kept fighting with the French worldwide didn't help matters either. England needed more revenue and looked to the colonies to pitch in.

The got pitch forks instead.

[revelarts]

Let's be honest here, if the Boston tea party happened today it'd more likely be considered an act of terrorism than patriotism.


No explosions, heck no firing of weapons. I don't think so.

Without some justification it would only be seen as destruction of property at the level of major felony. That was a lot of tea.

There are laws on the books about "eco terror" that involve only property. People have been tossed in jail via the patriot act for talking to loud on the air plane. and people have been to court as terrorist for sort of counterfeiting money. To name a few.

[Kathianne]

I assumed it was an act of protest, and entirely destructive of the property. Wasn't the tea in Boston technically the crown's, ie East India Co?

The Tea Party really was, as I'm sure you know, The Sons of Liberty. These were some of the local leaders who really were trouble makers, in that they were much of the thinking of the Jefferson, Washington, etc. However they wanted things to speed up though, they wanted revolution and not reconciliation. For the most part they were men like John Hancock, rich off of illegal trade. Not one to liking taxes.

If the tea had been unloaded, which it had to be the next day, the merchants would have had to pay the tax-then they'd be forced to sell the tea. By destroying the tea-no tax. But a whole lot more.

I'd say it was a provocation more than a protest. I mean who would protest paying less for something used everyday, unless there was a political point being made-thus a provocation.

[Kathianne]

There are laws on the books about "eco terror" that involve only property. People have been tossed in jail via the patriot act for talking to loud on the air plane. and people have been to court as terrorist for sort of counterfeiting money. To name a few.

Indeed. Eco terror though at the point you are speaking of is used as intimidation to prevent development or use of one's own property. It nearly always carries a risk of potential human harm. Nails embedded in trees that are going to be chainsawed. Fire to destroy housing developments, etc.

[red state]

Let's start with the easiest. Please link to a SINGLE example of the USG persecuting Christians.

Just like a liberal...wanting LINKS! Wow get out in the real world & open your eyes!!! But, since you need a link....here is one:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/1/abortion-activists-concur-presidential-vote-paramo/

"As intended — or feared — the abortion issue has been a volatile component of health care reform."

[revelarts]

Indeed. Eco terror though at the point you are speaking of is used as intimidation to prevent development or use of one's own property. It nearly always carries a risk of potential human harm. Nails embedded in trees that are going to be chainsawed. Fire to destroy housing developments, etc.

Well the Animal Enterprise terrorism Act says
"You must have “the purpose of damaging or interfering
with the operations of an animal enterprise” “in
connections with such purpose—“ which“
(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any
real or personal property (including animals or
records) used by an animal enterprise, or any
real or personal property of a person or entity
having a connection to, relationship with, or
transactions with an animal enterprise;..."

it covers property only here and threats to persons later both are consider "terrorism",
but even so how does raising your voice on a plane and sorta almost counterfeiting money make it to a legal definition of a "terrorist" threat? you didn't mention them.

the point is the word terrorist has gotten a lot of broad and wide use.
Over million people on the "terrorist watch list" some little kids, military personnel and lil old ladies, actors, congressmen, journalist, etc etc .

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say the the original tea party crowd would be labeled terrorist by several factions of the contemporary federal gov't.

[red state]

This is just ONE such attack on Christians and their faith. Look, if you want an abortion, have one, but don't FORCE me or other tax payers to pay for the murder of our most innocent. I realize that some may not be Christian yet see abortion for what it is (murder) and do not like the thought of their taxes going for such awful things but this is a deliberate attack in forcing Christians to sponsor abortions.

Now, to get on to what you will surely respond to: This may not be an actual attack on Christians when other faiths are as equally against abortion so consider those who have lost their job or were fired for adhering to their faith. Google it if you will or ask someone else for links. Funny how liberals are on the computer most of the day YET they have yet to learn how to search for information and facts. The truth is out there....don't be frightened. It won't hurt long and you'll feel so much better and enlightened afterwards.

[Kathianne]

Well the Animal Enterprise terrorism Act says
"You must have “the purpose of damaging or interfering
with the operations of an animal enterprise” “in
connections with such purpose—“ which“
(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any
real or personal property (including animals or
records) used by an animal enterprise, or any
real or personal property of a person or entity
having a connection to, relationship with, or
transactions with an animal enterprise;..."

it covers property only here and threats to persons later both are consider "terrorism",
but even so how does raising your voice on a plane and sorta almost counterfeiting money make it to a legal definition of a "terrorist" threat? you didn't mention them.

the point is the word terrorist has gotten a lot of broad and wide use.
Over million people on the "terrorist watch list" some little kids, military personnel and lil old ladies, actors, congressmen, journalist, etc etc .

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say the the original tea party crowd would be labeled terrorist by several factions of the contemporary federal gov't.

It's not only 'animal rights' folks that commit eco-terrorism, some are just luddites.

I detest restrictions on liberties too, though am not for ignoring the threats, coupled with. In fact, that in a nutshell has been the impediment towards going full out libertarian for me. Call it what you will, but the Libertarians are isolationists, that fail to understand that the airplane changed warfare and targets forever.

I agree that the Patriot Act has been a fiasco in implementation, the 'watch list' in particular has been a joke for those included who shouldn't have been and while purging it should be easy enough HS hasn't done so. That's wrong. However, many on the list have been stopped that needed to be, though that doesn't make the headlines.

[revelarts]

It's not only 'animal rights' folks that commit eco-terrorism, some are just luddites.

I detest restrictions on liberties too, though am not for ignoring the threats, coupled with. In fact, that in a nutshell has been the impediment towards going full out libertarian for me. Call it what you will, but the Libertarians are isolationists, that fail to understand that the airplane changed warfare and targets forever.

I agree that the Patriot Act has been a fiasco in implementation, the 'watch list' in particular has been a joke for those included who shouldn't have been and while purging it should be easy enough HS hasn't done so. That's wrong. However, many on the list have been stopped that needed to be, though that doesn't make the headlines.
understood.
I just wonder what the original tea party would do in our place if faced with similar foriegn threats, would they create the tsa for travel, would they allow the warrentless searches, would they allow no trials for suspects or give the prez authority to kill citizens at will, would they allow one million of their fellow citizens on a secret gov't list? To name just a few of the things we put up with or embrace in the name of safety.

I don't think they would.

[Kathianne]

understood.
I just wonder what the original tea party would do in our place if faced with similar foriegn threats, would they create the tsa for travel, would they allow the warrentless searches, would they allow no trials for suspects or give the prez authority to kill citizens at will, would they allow one million of their fellow citizens on a secret gov't list? To name just a few of the things we put up with or embrace in the name of safety.

I don't think they would.

What you are asking is the opposite problem most folks have with history. We can no more 'pretend' to know what the Founders/Framers would have done 'then' if faced with today. We cannot put those men, who were classicists, speaking and reading Latin and Greek and French, reading Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke in today's world. We can 'what if' some, using original thoughts of letters, diaries, articles; but actually placing them today-with all that's gone inbetween, including Marx, Engles, Hitler, Cold War, etc.? No. Anymore than literally possible to go from 2012 to 1400's. We can appreciate, read about those times and try to enter their context? Not totally feasible.

[revelarts]

What you are asking is the opposite problem most folks have with history. We can no more 'pretend' to know what the Founders/Framers would have done 'then' if faced with today. We cannot put those men, who were classicists, speaking and reading Latin and Greek and French, reading Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke in today's world. We can 'what if' some, using original thoughts of letters, diaries, articles; but actually placing them today-with all that's gone inbetween, including Marx, Engles, Hitler, Cold War, etc.? No. Anymore than literally possible to go from 2012 to 1400's. We can appreciate, read about those times and try to enter their context? Not totally feasible.

sure there something to said about that, but i don't think those thing would negates their basic outlook.
Just as if you brought an old 1855 abolitionist Quaker to the world today I doubt todays context would change their views on slavery.
And all of the of the framers did looked back and saw the pattern of history, that gov't tends toward growth and corruption. Nothing fundamental has changed on that front in the past 200 years. the principals they espoused are just as valid to today with Marxs, Engles, Hilter the cold war etc. the basics questions are the same. How much gov't do we need to maintain to "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity.."

[Kathianne]

sure there something to said about that, but i don't think those thing would negates their basic outlook.
Just as if you brought an old 1855 abolitionist Quaker to the world today I doubt todays context would change their views on slavery.
And all of the of the framers did looked back and saw the pattern of history, that gov't tends toward growth and corruption. Nothing fundamental has changed on that front in the past 200 years. the principals they espoused are just as valid to today with Marxs, Engles, Hilter the cold war etc. the basics questions are the same. How much gov't do we need to maintain to "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity.."

We'll both agree with less than we have today. I bet we'd still be in the main agreeing with less than last 80 years-with some differences regarding terrorism. We differ more in degree than principle.

[Missileman]

Ummm, it wasn't legal then either. In fact, when England heard of it, the Intolerable Acts were passed, along with the Quebec Act and Quartering Act. The reaction of Bostonians led to the closing of the port and city. That led to 1776.

Maybe something like those will lead to 2013! :salute:

[Kathianne]

Maybe something like those will lead to 2013! :salute:

Early days. I'm hoping for a change. ;)

[fj1200]

Just like a liberal...wanting LINKS! Wow get out in the real world & open your eyes!!! But, since you need a link....here is one:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/1/abortion-activists-concur-presidential-vote-paramo/

"As intended — or feared — the abortion issue has been a volatile component of health care reform."

How is that the USG persecuting (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecute) Christians?

[ConHog]

How is that the USG persecuting (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecute) Christians?

If he can point to a SINGLE instance of a Christian being forced by the USG to have an abortion we will have to concede the point.