If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Houston)   Texas schools now teaching Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. Subby scared to find out what they're calling the Tea Party Tea Party   (houston.cbslocal.com) divider line 180
    More: Interesting, tea party, Texas, Texas schools, for-profit schools  
•       •       •

4022 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2012 at 3:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-25 04:13:41 AM  

Darth Macho:

Oh, and if anyone's interested in the semi-official British opinion of all this there's a hilarious and boneheaded counterargument written in response to the Declaration of Independence. Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.
Link



England Prevails!
 
2012-11-25 04:14:07 AM  
Better add The Boston Tea Party to the List Of People Conspiring Against The G.O.P. And Therefore America. (LOPCATGOPATA)


Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Community Organizers
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Climatologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Little Green Footballs
Video Games
The Bible
CBO
Bruce Springsteen
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity
Comedy Central
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is
Small Business Owners
Math
CPAC
Navy SEALs
The Economist
Reality
Standard and Poor's
Warren Buffet
Lightbulbs
81 CEO's of Major US Corporations 
The Boston Tea Party
 
2012-11-25 04:17:43 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.


I'd say it's really neither. Though it can be viewed as both.

Anything that incites fear for political outcome/gain is terrorism. It's a really really broad stroke that boils down to perception.

As for vandalism, the perpetrators of the act would have disagreed. In fact, they went to great lengths to avoid any unneeded damages to the ship. It was an act of speech (protest), from their viewpoint.

What the school should be teaching instead of political slant is historical truth.

The number one lesson of the Boston Tea Party was this: fark with people enough and they will get pissed and send you a message that may or may not come at a great personal cost to you.
 
2012-11-25 04:20:22 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh


And Sergent York was a mass murderer. If you look at if from the German's perspective.

The difference between a Religion and a Cult? The following. The difference between a Patriot and a Terrorist? Well, I can't name any countries founded by Terrorists.
 
2012-11-25 04:25:16 AM  
The tea party is nothing but a bunch of whiny old teabaggers.
 
2012-11-25 04:25:28 AM  
All done to stop the Templars.

Too bad someone had to stab a biatch, after all.

In all seriousness, did anyone notice that the lesson plan hadn't been used in two years, and was taken off the website in January?

WHERE IS THE APPLICATION OF OLD NEWS IS SO EXCITING?

/Just finished reading Woodward's American Nations, which put the Revolution in a new light, so getting a kick.
 
2012-11-25 04:31:01 AM  
One thing I've noticed lately is that the "regular media" is now reporting using blogs as their source. I don't care if TheBlaze is right (heh) about this; they're wrong (typically deliberately) about damn near everything else.

I fully expect to see a CNN article sourced solely by InfoWars.
 
2012-11-25 04:32:51 AM  
Secede already!
 
2012-11-25 04:36:16 AM  
 
2012-11-25 04:41:19 AM  

dickfreckle: One thing I've noticed lately is that the "regular media" is now reporting using blogs as their source.


They get more attention that way when it's later proved to be all lies.

log_jammin: Since our original posting of this story, TheBlaze has received a flood of emails from educators and parents in Texas providing more information that will be included in our follow-up story next week. One teacher claimed that our report about the "Boston Tea Party being taught as terrorism" was incorrect and that the lesson is currently not on the CSCOPE website.


See?
 
2012-11-25 04:43:15 AM  
Which only goes to show how badly the word "terrorism" has been bastardized by today's media and politicians.

Strictly speaking, I suppose that the Boston Tea Party would have been terrorism IF such a term had been in use back then; and IF it had been described in the British press; using Great Britain's definition of 2000 which does include "serious damage to property."

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.[51]

(They added the property damage most likely because the IRA had begun extensively bombing buildings while being extra careful to call in the attacks with plenty of time to evacuate the property; hence, nobody got killed except the insurance salesmen who died of grief)

However, nearly all international and national definitions of "terrorism" as they now exist pretty much require either an act which causes or intends to cause serious harm to civilians (as separate from combat actions) and which are motivated by political or religious ideology, to constitute terrorism. So tossing some bales of tea into a harbor, no matter how politically motivated, just wouldn't cut it nowadays and no matter how bad it soaked the insurers at Lloyds. Although the British might disagree based on their own Terrorism Act.
 
2012-11-25 04:43:58 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.


I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..
 
2012-11-25 04:45:03 AM  
it was an act of terrorism.
that wasn't the worst part.
the worst part was that it was a group of european men dressing up like native american men in order to commit the crime. it's no different, in execution, than some white dude rolling up on a bank with shoe polish on his face.
 
2012-11-25 04:46:02 AM  

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought


And still are to this day. Thank you very much.
 
2012-11-25 04:46:47 AM  
Terrorism is the use(or threat) of force to create a state of fear for political purposes. You don't have to be a guerilla or insurgent to be a terrorist; national armies or dictators can do it just fine. It can be as intimate and personal as a suicide bomber or as cold and calculating as a foreign drone patrolling your sky.

While the British were, and still are, quite attached to tea, I don't think they were that attached to it.
 
2012-11-25 04:46:52 AM  

Darth Macho: Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.
Link


I won't listen to derp in English, why should I attempt to read derp in Old English, while heavily buzzed?

/it was probably written by Bill O's great-great-grandaddy
 
2012-11-25 04:47:10 AM  

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 400x280]

Nat Turner l
aughs at your fauxrage shenanigans, "The Blaze."


Hero.
 
2012-11-25 04:51:40 AM  

Alphax: Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.

I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..


How does dumping tea into the bay induce fear? Rage over loss of money, YES, but not fear.
 
2012-11-25 04:58:09 AM  

Smoking GNU: Alphax: Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.

I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..

How does dumping tea into the bay induce fear? Rage over loss of money, YES, but not fear.


Perhaps the East India Tea Company feared it would happen again?

I don't have a good answer.
 
2012-11-25 05:02:35 AM  

Smoking GNU: Rage over loss of money, YES, but not fear.


"The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over"

that's not "rage over loss money".
 
2012-11-25 05:04:11 AM  

Alphax: Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.

I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..


The whole "use of force" aspect is fairly important, otherwise basically every politician in history would be a terrorist. Plus every lawyer, school board member, and elementary-school teacher, probably.
 
2012-11-25 05:05:37 AM  
I'm sure this was not designed to enrage neocons from the start.
 
2012-11-25 05:06:53 AM  

Jim_Callahan: You have to actually threaten violence against civilians


Jim_Callahan: The whole "use of force" aspect is fairly important,


so which is it?
 
2012-11-25 05:07:33 AM  
Ah, Texas. Racing for the bottom at the speed of plaid.
 
2012-11-25 05:16:31 AM  

log_jammin: Jim_Callahan: You have to actually threaten violence against civilians

Jim_Callahan: The whole "use of force" aspect is fairly important,

so which is it?


Do you speak a different variant of English where violence doesn't involve the use of force or something?
 
2012-11-25 05:25:49 AM  
I'm sure those ships were unguarded and the cargo was taken control of without a fight.
 
2012-11-25 05:29:08 AM  

powhound: Darth Macho: Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.
Link

I won't listen to derp in English, why should I attempt to read derp in Old English, while heavily buzzed?

/it was probably written by Bill O's great-great-grandaddy


They spoke Anglo-Saxon in 1776? Who knew?
 
2012-11-25 05:32:58 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Do you speak a different variant of English where violence doesn't involve the use of force or something?


No. I speak a language where the threat of something and the act of doing are two different things.

First you said it wasn't terrorism unless they threatened civilians, then you said it wasn't terrorism unless there was a "use" of force. I'm just trying to figure out what your definition of terrorism actually is. To most people it's the use of fear to achieve a political goal. Hence the name. How that is done is irrelevant. Be it "threatening civilians",just spreading rumors to scare the people, or dressing up as indians and attacking some ships and dumping the cargo into the sea.

especially when attacking the ship was just one thing in a long string of incidents, all designed to use fear to achieve a political goal.
 
2012-11-25 05:39:23 AM  

propasaurus: Why did they wait so long to call it an act of terrorism? What are they covering up? How many Americans had to die because they wouldn't admit it was terrorism right from the start?
I demand a Congressional investigation into Teapartygate.


i1222.photobucket.com

Investigation Complete!
 
2012-11-25 05:41:36 AM  
Sounds like the lesson was to imagine the conservative, royalist reaction to the Boston tea party.

And either the lesson did not mention that, or (MUCH more likely) the new reports failed to mention that.
 
2012-11-25 05:42:29 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh


No, it was vandalism.

That is unless there was some kind of eventdesigned to inflict as much damage and death to as many unsuspecting civilians as possible.
 
2012-11-25 05:54:23 AM  

Mikey1969: That is unless there was some kind of eventdesigned to inflict as much damage and death to as many unsuspecting civilians as possible.


again. terrorism is the use of fear to achieve a political goal. Death to tons of unsuspecting civilians is one way to achieve that goal. it's not an end in and of itself.
 
2012-11-25 06:01:01 AM  
So I guess if this isn't terrorism then Bill Ayers isn't a terrorist. Just a vandal.
 
2012-11-25 06:16:44 AM  
They're right. What's the issue...?
 
2012-11-25 06:19:16 AM  

Frederick: ToxicMunkee: See? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

That terrorism is a matter of perspective is obvious to some -the others are neo-conservatives.


Yes. Perspective is not something that comes easily to thickheaded Americans.

This story involved Glenn Beck. Poutrage. Done.
 
2012-11-25 06:21:28 AM  

GhostFish: So I guess if this isn't terrorism then Bill Ayers isn't a terrorist. Just a vandal.


True.
 
2012-11-25 06:43:17 AM  

log_jammin: Mikey1969: That is unless there was some kind of eventdesigned to inflict as much damage and death to as many unsuspecting civilians as possible.

again. terrorism is the use of fear to achieve a political goal. Death to tons of unsuspecting civilians is one way to achieve that goal. it's not an end in and of itself.


Sorry, you're reaching. I do hope that you're tied off with an OSHA-approved safety harness, because you're really hanging your ass out there trying to equate this with terrorism. One slip and you could be in for quite a fall.
 
2012-11-25 06:45:57 AM  
The Boston Tea Party is John Adams's Benghazi.
 
2012-11-25 06:47:02 AM  
It was terrorism. Also, interesting bit of historical perspective, if you still believe that no taxation without representation bullshiat you might be interested to know several members of the founding fathers deliberately fast tratcked the revolution and antagonized britsh interests to avert then fact that england was on the verge. Of just giving the colonies an equal, IE one third stake in parliament.

\American
\\but I got passing grades in college history.
\\\eh, fark the English anyway, we won.
 
2012-11-25 06:48:20 AM  
Blasted phone typing.
 
2012-11-25 06:55:28 AM  
Goldurnit, turrism is whatever the prezdent sez it is.

I mean the *real* president. Buncha traitors!
 
2012-11-25 06:56:54 AM  

Mikey1969: Sorry, you're reaching.


I'm not reaching. That is what terrorism is. a simple peak in the dictionary proves that to be true. If I'm so wrong, it should be very easy for you to prove it.

here, I'll start

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "

If you don't like that source we can check what the FBI says.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Guess what the Boston Tea party was? It was an unlawful use of force and violence against property to intimidate or coerce a government, in furtherance of political or social objectives. was it not?
 
2012-11-25 07:03:43 AM  

log_jammin: Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).


the definition of Shock-and-Awe-ism is on the next page. it's basically the same thing, but with sparklers.
 
2012-11-25 07:07:41 AM  

heap: the definition of Shock-and-Awe-ism is on the next page. it's basically the same thing, but with sparklers.


sparklers made out of thermite and depleted uranium.
 
2012-11-25 07:13:59 AM  

starsrift: Terrorism is the use(or threat) of force to create a state of fear for political purposes. You don't have to be a guerilla or insurgent to be a terrorist; national armies or dictators can do it just fine. It can be as intimate and personal as a suicide bomber or as cold and calculating as a foreign drone patrolling your sky.

While the British were, and still are, quite attached to tea, I don't think they were that attached to it.


No? You might want to read about the Opium Wars. China refused to take British manufactured goods as payment for tea. Thus all the silver drained out of England. They were crazy for tea.

Their solution was to use military force to expand the opium trade in China. The silver flowed back, once they'd created several million addicts. Then they portrayed the Chinese as degenerate rat-eating junkies incapable of governing themselves.

Queen Victoria: the world's biggest drug dealer.

(For tea.)
 
2012-11-25 07:14:02 AM  

log_jammin: Mikey1969: Sorry, you're reaching.

I'm not reaching. That is what terrorism is. a simple peak in the dictionary proves that to be true. If I'm so wrong, it should be very easy for you to prove it.

here, I'll start

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "...

...Guess what the Boston Tea party was? It was an unlawful use of force and violence against property to intimidate or coerce a government, in furtherance of political or social objectives. was it not?


No, it was a protest. It was not intended to be intimidation or coercion; it was expression. There was no intent to create a state of fear or standing threat of more tea to be given to Davy Jones.
 
2012-11-25 07:19:15 AM  
Yeah, it was "terrorism", just as the Doolittle raid was designed as an act of terrorism and John Brown was a terrorist without question. There is nothing wrong with terrorism per se. It's the cause and who is being terrorized that matter.
 
2012-11-25 07:24:37 AM  

starsrift: No, it was a protest. It was not intended to be intimidation or coercion; it was expression. There was no intent to create a state of fear or standing threat of more tea to be given to Davy Jones.


this wasn't occupy Boston harbor by a bunch of college kids. It wasn't a sit in. It was revenge because the governor didn't give in to their demands.
 
2012-11-25 07:29:29 AM  

log_jammin: starsrift: No, it was a protest. It was not intended to be intimidation or coercion; it was expression. There was no intent to create a state of fear or standing threat of more tea to be given to Davy Jones.

this wasn't occupy Boston harbor by a bunch of college kids. It wasn't a sit in. It was revenge because the governor didn't give in to their demands.


'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.
 
2012-11-25 07:30:19 AM  

log_jammin: Mikey1969: Sorry, you're reaching.

I'm not reaching. That is what terrorism is. a simple peak in the dictionary proves that to be true. If I'm so wrong, it should be very easy for you to prove it.

here, I'll start

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "

If you don't like that source we can check what the FBI says.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Guess what the Boston Tea party was? It was an unlawful use of force and violence against property to intimidate or coerce a government, in furtherance of political or social objectives. was it not?


"Violence against property"? Yeah, once again, that's vandalism. Of course if you want to go there, than the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the assorted 'actions' we've carried out in our country's history have all been terrorist attacks carried out by the US.

Every time, it's been violence and threats against people and property in order to intimidate or coerce government and civilians in furtherance of political or social objectives. The added bonus to your loose definition of "terrorist attack" is that these were all illegal somewhere at the time they happened, fulfilling another part of your claim. Sure, they might not have been illegal attacks according to US law, but not only does your definition not specify that as a condition, but there weren't US laws at the time anyway, so to be a terrorist attack, you'd have to use foreign law as a factor anyway...
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report