Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 81

Thread: Tea Party Leader: any muslim is a threat

  1. #61
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5128

    From
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    What is the Republican Party a faction OF?
    rofl....

  2. #62
    Senior Member Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,843
    Thanks
    5418

    From
    St. louis, Mo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Tom View Post
    Wait, you're going to bitch about accurate and truth, but you make statements like this?



    Talk about hypocrisy...
    Where did i use quotation marks in my post you quote? Where did I claim to be quoting your words? You boys need to get over your fixation with the word hypocrisy, it's getting silly........IMHO of course.

  3. #63
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5128

    From
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Where did i use quotation marks in my post you quote? Where did I claim to be quoting your words? You boys need to get over your fixation with the word hypocrisy, it's getting silly........IMHO of course.

    The ignore button is such a wonderful thing. Such a peaceful thing. It can be very effective when intelligent debate is simply no longer possible. I think that the ignore button is one of the most practical luxuries here in PH-land....

    Of course, I am not recommending that anyone "ignore" any specific member. That would be inappropriate of me. I just wanted to gently remind in a very general way that if the conversation becomes hopeless, the ignore button can be quite effective. Then the emotions cannot boil over quite so much.
    Last edited by bonncaruso; 25th July 2012 at 06:29 AM.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,843
    Thanks
    5418

    From
    St. louis, Mo.
    Quote Originally Posted by bonncaruso View Post
    The ignore button is such a wonderful thing. Such a peaceful thing. It can be very effective when intelligent debate is simply no longer possible. I think that the ignore button is one of the most practical luxuries here in PH-land....

    Of course, I am not recommending that anyone "ignore" any specific member. That would be inappropriate of me. I just wanted to gently remind in a very general way that if the conversation becomes hopeless, the ignore button can be quite effective. Then the emotions cannot boil over quite so much.
    Ok, i quite agree. But I'm pretty selective as to whom I place on my ignore list. Mad Tom is still new here and has the potential to mature as a poster IMO. We shall see, we shall see.....

  5. #65
    99% Orwell Huxley's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,913
    Thanks
    96

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Tom View Post
    You're wrong. The Republican party and the Tea Party are completely different factions.
    I wonder why all the tea party members of Congress identify themselves as Republicans?

  6. #66
    Senior Member angryamerican's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10,816
    Thanks
    1161

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Tom View Post
    No, the Boston Tea Party didn't happen because Bristish Colonies halfway around the world got a better tax rate, they were mad because their's was too high, and they could afford it. So they protested the tea by trying to send the ships back to England, but when they wouldn't go they dumped all of the Tea is the Ocean.

    You first brought up the "old tea party" being the Boston Tea Party, and now you're trying to say "no". But, uh, nice try.
    Again, before they revolted TAX on East India tea was so low that other Corps couldn't compete, giving east India a Monopoly. Many Englishmen owned stock in East India and wished to make a profit.

    Boston Tea Party Facts | Boston History | Boston Tea Party Ships


    Since the beginning of the 18th century, tea had been regularly imported to the American colonies. By the time of the Boston Tea Party, it has been estimated American colonists drank approximately 1.2 million pounds of tea each year. Britain realized it could make even more money off of the lucrative tea trade by imposing taxes onto the American colonies. In effect, the cost of British tea became high, and, in response, American colonists began a very lucrative industry of smuggling tea from the Dutch and other European markets. These smuggling operations violated the Navigation Acts which had been in place since the middle of the 17th century. The smuggling of tea was undercutting the lucrative British tea trade. In response to the smuggling, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which repealed the tax on tea and made British tea the same price as the Dutch. The Indemnity Act greatly cut down on American tea smuggling, but later in 1767 a new tax on tea was put in place by the Townshend Revenue Act. The act also taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, and paper. Due to boycotts and protests, the Townshend Revenue Act taxes on all commodities except tea were repealed in 1770. In 1773, the Tea Act was passed and granted the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies. The smuggling of tea grew rampant and was a lucrative business venture for American colonists, such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams. The Townshend Revenue Act tea tax remained in place despite proposals to have it waived. American colonists were outraged over the tea tax. They believed the Tea Act was a tactic to gain colonial support for the tax already enforced. The direct sale of tea by agents of the British East India Company to the American colonies undercut the business of colonial merchants. The smuggled tea became more expensive than the British East India Company tea. Smugglers like John Hancock and Samuel Adams were trying to protect their economic interests by opposing the Tea Act, and Samuel Adams sold the opposition of British tea to the Patriots on the pretext of the abolishment of human rights by being taxed without representation.

  7. #67
    Senior Member angryamerican's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10,816
    Thanks
    1161

    Quote Originally Posted by angryamerican View Post
    Again, before they revolted TAX on East India tea was so low that other Corps couldn't compete, giving east India a Monopoly. Many Englishmen owned stock in East India and wished to make a profit.

    Boston Tea Party Facts | Boston History | Boston Tea Party Ships


    Since the beginning of the 18th century, tea had been regularly imported to the American colonies. By the time of the Boston Tea Party, it has been estimated American colonists drank approximately 1.2 million pounds of tea each year. Britain realized it could make even more money off of the lucrative tea trade by imposing taxes onto the American colonies. In effect, the cost of British tea became high, and, in response, American colonists began a very lucrative industry of smuggling tea from the Dutch and other European markets. These smuggling operations violated the Navigation Acts which had been in place since the middle of the 17th century. The smuggling of tea was undercutting the lucrative British tea trade. In response to the smuggling, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which repealed the tax on tea and made British tea the same price as the Dutch. The Indemnity Act greatly cut down on American tea smuggling, but later in 1767 a new tax on tea was put in place by the Townshend Revenue Act. The act also taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, and paper. Due to boycotts and protests, the Townshend Revenue Act taxes on all commodities except tea were repealed in 1770. In 1773, the Tea Act was passed and granted the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies. The smuggling of tea grew rampant and was a lucrative business venture for American colonists, such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams. The Townshend Revenue Act tea tax remained in place despite proposals to have it waived. American colonists were outraged over the tea tax. They believed the Tea Act was a tactic to gain colonial support for the tax already enforced. The direct sale of tea by agents of the British East India Company to the American colonies undercut the business of colonial merchants. The smuggled tea became more expensive than the British East India Company tea. Smugglers like John Hancock and Samuel Adams were trying to protect their economic interests by opposing the Tea Act, and Samuel Adams sold the opposition of British tea to the Patriots on the pretext of the abolishment of human rights by being taxed without representation.

    Debunking Boston Tea Party Myths

    Myth 1: The dispute was about higher taxes

    The immediate catalyst was a tax break—not a tax increase—that effectively made imported tea more affordable for colonists. What irked the patriots was that they had no role in the decision.

    The saga began with the British government's bailout of a corporation deemed too big to fail. The giant East India Company not only enjoyed monopolistic privileges in south Asia and China under a royal charter granted in 1600; it effectively ruled large sections of the Indian subcontinent. But in 1772, the company was hard hit by the collapse of speculative banking schemes throughout Europe, and its stock tumbled. Unsold goods accumulated in warehouses, and company directors asked the British government for a loan to forestall insolvency. Members of Parliament—like American congressmen today—staged committee hearings in which they grandstanded against greedy company officials, who had returned from India with huge fortunes and declared large dividends despite the company's overwhelming debts. Meanwhile, they tried to figure out how to get the company, and the empire, out of the mess.

    As MPs debated the advisability of a government takeover, they also discussed schemes for unloading the company's 18 million pounds of surplus tea. The European market was already saturated, but the American market was not. In theory, the East India Company could sell many tons of tea there if taxes were lowered. Two separate taxes were involved: one imposed on tea coming through Britain on its way from India and China to Western markets and another imposed when it arrived in America. Although cutting either one was an economically viable option, repealing the American tax would have had the added benefit of improving relations with colonists. That's precisely why Lord North, the prime minister, rejected the idea.

    In the Tea Act of 1773, Parliament left the American import duties in place but decreed that the East India Company would no longer have to pay any duties on tea landing in Britain and headed to America, nor would it have to sell the tea at British public auctions. It could deliver its product straight to American consumers, untouched by middlemen and almost untaxed, save for a modest American import duty. The only people who stood to incur financial losses from the arrangement were American smugglers who had been peddling duty-free tea from Holland.

    Few in London thought the sweetheart deal was a matter of consequence to anyone but the East India Company, and it received little notice. Some relief would be granted to the struggling corporate giant, without political cost. And surely, Americans would not object to receiving tea at bargain prices.

    British prognosticators were wrong. For the Americans, the fundamental issue was one of self-governance. Whoever levied taxes got to call the shots, including how to spend the money. Parliament insisted on taxing colonists to support—and command—colonial administration. Colonists countered that they were more than willing to tax—and rule—themselves. No more "taxation without representation" became their rallying cry, not "down with high taxes."

    Myth 2: Tea taxes were an onerous burden on ordinary Americans

    Land taxes and poll taxes assessed by their own colonial assemblies, as well as long-standing import duties on sugar, molasses and wine, were a much greater burden. The tea tax was a relic of the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which also placed import duties on paint, paper, lead and glass. Parliament responded to widespread colonial protests and boycotts of the taxed items by repealing the Townshend taxes in 1770, except for the tea duty, which North kept to assert "the right of taxing Americans." At three pence per pound, the tax on tea was barely felt by American consumers, who also had access to the smuggled competition.

    Still, the tea tax maintained symbolic significance, and the boycott of tea involved complex overlays. Common folk might enjoy a sip or two of tea, but participating in the elaborate British ritual of teatime—with an array of fancy crockery and silver utensils—was prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of Americans. Calls for a continued boycott of tea dovetailed nicely with lower-class resentments. Tea was an easy target, a symbol both of Parliament's arrogance and a crumbling social hierarchy.

    Moreover, tea consumption was deemed suspect, even sinful, by a large segment of the American public. "That bainfull weed," as Abigail Adams called it, was an artificial stimulant, what we would call today a recreational drug. Promoters of virtue, who had long been expounding the evils of tea, suddenly became patriots. One concerned writer, in a Virginia newspaper, claimed that ever since tea had been introduced into Western society, "our race is dwindled and become puny, weak, and disordered to such a degree, that were it to prevail a century more we should be reduced to mere pigmies."

    Pointing to his medical expertise, Boston's Dr. Thomas Young declared authoritatively that tea was not just a "pernicious drug," as some assumed, but a "slow poison, and has the corrosive effect upon those who handle it. I have left it off since it became political poison, and have since gained in firmness of constitution. My substitute is camomile flowers."

    Resistance leaders also launched a new wave of negative propaganda that played to anti-foreign sentiments: Tea from the East India Company was packed tightly in chests by the stomping of barefoot Chinese and was infested with Chinese fleas. In turn, a vast number of colonists vowed to protect American business from foreign competition, even if that business was smuggling. Beware of products from China, buy America, wage war on drugs, down with corporations—all these messages, as well as their better-known cousin, no taxation without representation—amplified the response to Parliament's Tea Act of 1773.

    Myth 3: Dumping British tea unified the patriots

    The immediate effect was just the opposite. The morning after the tea action in Boston, John Adams penned a letter to his close friend James Warren. "The Dye is cast," he wrote. "The People have passed the River and cutt away the Bridge: last Night Three Cargoes of Tea, were emptied into the Harbour. This is the grandest Event, which has ever yet happened Since the Controversy, with Britain, opened. The sublimity of it charms me." But that opinion was far from universal among patriot leaders.

    For Americans who called themselves patriots, the slogan "liberty and property" was a common rallying cry, shouted at least as often as "taxation without representation." George Washington, among many others, chided Bostonians for "their conduct in destroying tea." Benjamin Franklin was hardly alone when he argued that the East India Company should be compensated for its losses.

    It was not the destruction of tea that pulled Americans together, but the punishments administered several months later through a series of laws dubbed the Coercive Acts (also called the Intolerable Acts by the Americans). Parliament closed the port of Boston and revoked the Massachusetts charter, denying citizens the rights they had enjoyed for a century and a half. The goal of the Coercive Acts was to isolate radicals in Massachusetts, but instead the 13 colonies formed the Continental Congress and agreed to mount a general boycott of British goods.

    The destruction of tea had been a catalyst for events leading to independence, but its belligerent tone ran counter to the favored patriotic story line: The British were the aggressors, causing peace-loving Americans to act in self-defense. After the war was over and the nation was on its own, the saga posed another conundrum. "It was time to accept the new government, duly elected by the people, and strive to maintain law and order," explains Tufts University historian Benjamin Carp. "Once this belief calcified into conventional wisdom, there was less room to celebrate a ragged group of mock Mohawks wielding hatchets in defiance of government."

    Finally, in the 1820s, Americans let down their guard, and a new generation of chroniclers toned down the truly revolutionary aspects of the action against tea and played up the carnival atmosphere. More than 50 years after the event was over, it was informally christened the Boston Tea Party. Once the story could be told playfully, it anchored every text intended for children, who liked to dress as Indians in any case. That's still the version we see in our school texts, and in books for adults as well. Declawed and simplified, the event loses not only its revolutionary punch but also its political and economic context. A corporate tax break that lowered the price of tea in America? Too big to fail? Competition from cheap foreign imports? These don't play well to children. But they do reveal that the action against tea was much more than a party.

  8. #68
    Melting Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    32,737
    Thanks
    4790

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Tom View Post
    You really should stop associating the two. I don't know how many times one must tell you and all of your liberal friends.

    The Republican party, and the Tea Party are two different factions. They're not the same. If they were the same, they would have the same name, the same principles, and the same leaders. They don't. Therefore one, especially one who isn't one, shouldn't assume they are the same.
    They are no more in competition than Pepsi and Dr. Pepper.

    On edit - make that Dr. Pepper and Diet Dr. Pepper.

  9. #69
    Senior Member angryamerican's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10,816
    Thanks
    1161

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Tom View Post
    You have zero proof that the Tea party is racist, because they aren't.
    Except that I had joined the Tea Part patriots online site a few years back.

    The racist posts their members posted on their Forum told me what they really was.

    I have no doubt they have since cleaned up their site, but its too late to change my mind.

    I saw them in their true form..

  10. #70
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5128

    From
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by angryamerican View Post
    Except that I had joined the Tea Part patriots online site a few years back.

    The racist posts their members posted on their Forum told me what they really was.

    I have no doubt they have since cleaned up their site, but its too late to change my mind.

    I saw them in their true form..
    I too had a similar brush with the Tea Party patriots and only needed to post one word of praise for the President over a foreign policy issue and BAM - I got the boot. And very unceremoniously at that.

    So much for inclusion and willingness to listen...

    And the racist postings I saw from members as comments to articles, comments that only members can read.... well, it was fucking disgusting. Truly ugly. Puke-like ugly.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed