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  
•       •       •

4020 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2012 at 3:24 AM (1 year 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
 
2012-11-24 11:12:56 PM
So we're calling a 230 some odd year old case of vandalism terrorism now. What next making funny faces at babies as a terrorist act.
 
2012-11-24 11:13:29 PM
Really, I don't have a problem with this.

John Brown was a terrorist.

Jesus was regarded as a terrorist by the Romans.

The Irgun and The Stern Gang were not materially different from the PLO and Hamas.

/yeah, I know, I'm gonna piss off a lot of people with this
//BFD
 
2012-11-24 11:14:08 PM
It's only terrorism if you don't drop the bombs from airplanes.
 
2012-11-24 11:18:12 PM
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
 
2012-11-24 11:20:00 PM
See? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
 
2012-11-24 11:20:54 PM
What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?
 
2012-11-24 11:24:02 PM
well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.
 
2012-11-24 11:26:39 PM
Texas schools now teaching

I stopped reading at that. I call BS.
 
2012-11-24 11:27:31 PM
OHH FOR F*CK'S SAKE


AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH
 
2012-11-24 11:31:25 PM

Aulus:
John Brown was a terrorist.


John browns body lies a-mouldering in the grave
 
2012-11-24 11:31:33 PM

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
 
2012-11-24 11:32:36 PM

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.
 
2012-11-24 11:35:04 PM

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?


Obama's USS Cole.
 
2012-11-24 11:35:09 PM
Texas you say? Is there a way for a person to be so not-surprised, the level of surprise dips into the negative?
 
2012-11-24 11:38:08 PM
enacted by the occupying country's government

This is where they screwed up the lesson. This appears to set the stage for the government to be able to punish future freedom fighters within the U.S., but since the Boston Tea Party was against a government from another land the analogy doesn't quite hold true.

The troubling thing to me is that I think that Texas believes that D.C. is "occupying" their state, yet here they are warning its citizens not to try any funny business with the feds. Is there a need to warn citizens, and if so, it seems like the Texas government wants to be part of the union even if individual citizens don't agree.
 
2012-11-24 11:38:58 PM

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.



So, instead of closing the Port of Boston, Parliament should have had the colonists stand at the end of Dorchester Neck holding a sign: "We destroyed Ye Olde Tea in the Harbour and Disrepected the King and Mother England".
 
2012-11-24 11:41:13 PM

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


Funny how that works.
 
2012-11-24 11:47:18 PM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Aulus:
John Brown was a terrorist.


John browns body lies a-mouldering in the grave


He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord
 
2012-11-24 11:53:01 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Texas schools now teaching

I stopped reading at that. I call BS.


Well played, sir.
 
2012-11-25 12:04:25 AM
The word 'terrorism' gets used lately for a lot of things that have nothing to with 'terror'. Who exactly was 'terrorized' by the Boston Tea Party?
 
2012-11-25 12:04:28 AM
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.
 
2012-11-25 12:07:22 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
12/16 NEVER FORGET
 
2012-11-25 12:21:08 AM
Um it was? When an animal rights extremist burns down an expensive unoccupied building for political reasons we call it domestic terrorism, why would dressing up and destroying a valuable cargo for political purposes be any different? Calling it terrorism is keeping consistency with the modern definition of the term.
 
2012-11-25 12:33:31 AM

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


QFT
 
2012-11-25 12:45:48 AM
You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view


Can't believe I'm the first to say that.
 
2012-11-25 01:00:18 AM

SilentStrider: You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view


Can't believe I'm the first to say that.


blog.thetarotlady.com
 
2012-11-25 01:07:41 AM
It technically was terrorism. It was an act of a select few against an existing power structure for solely personal gain at the expense of the majority that has been utterly blown out of proportion by history. The entire American Revolution is a perfect example of the phrase 'One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."
 
2012-11-25 01:10:07 AM

GAT_00: It technically was terrorism. It was an act of a select few against an existing power structure for solely personal gain at the expense of the majority that has been utterly blown out of proportion by history. The entire American Revolution is a perfect example of the phrase 'One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."


History is written by the winners.
 
2012-11-25 01:28:38 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: 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.


And that was cost a farkton of money for the British Empire. Primarily because it was actually a worldwide conflict with one of the theaters being in North America. Supply chain management especially along colonial boarders was dammed expensive. And Parliament had long claimed the right to represent all members of colonial Britain as well as metropolitan Britain.
 
2012-11-25 01:32:43 AM

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?


That really depends. In your hypothetical scenario, was the ship docked in a Muslim country's port and did they just dump the cargo into the water? If so, then no, I don't think it would be called an act of terrorism.

If the ship were docked in a US port and it was blown up with explosives then yes it would be called an act of terrorism.

See the difference?
 
2012-11-25 01:35:22 AM
Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.
 
2012-11-25 01:35:29 AM

jaylectricity: but since the Boston Tea Party was against a government from another land the analogy doesn't quite hold true.


At that time and place it is highly unlikely that Great Britain was perceived as "another land." The collective idea of being "Americans" was quite foreign--even after the Revolutionary War most people thought of themselves as citizens of individual states first in some kind of loose confederation--rather than units in a primarily Federal system.
 
2012-11-25 01:36:36 AM

Happy Hours: Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?

That really depends. In your hypothetical scenario, was the ship docked in a Muslim country's port and did they just dump the cargo into the water? If so, then no, I don't think it would be called an act of terrorism.

If the ship were docked in a US port and it was blown up with explosives then yes it would be called an act of terrorism.

See the difference?


I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.
 
2012-11-25 01:37:00 AM
i.imgur.com

Nat Turner laughs at your fauxrage shenanigans, "The Blaze."
 
2012-11-25 02:12:46 AM

Relatively Obscure: I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.


That's only because anything a Muslim does in this country is considered terrorism by some.
 
2012-11-25 02:25:07 AM

RedPhoenix122: Relatively Obscure: I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.

That's only because anything a Muslim does in this country is considered terrorism by some.


A guy in a turban cut in front of me at Baskin Robbins today and took the last scoop of Rocky Road...it was like 9/11 all over again
 
2012-11-25 03:23:24 AM
I think the dividing line between "FREEDOM FIGHTER" and "TERRORIST" is about 2 million dollars.

The Boston Tea Party cost an estimated 1.7 million dollars in today's money. These brave patriots were clearly doing their civic duty to protest against unfair taxation.

This RADICAL ECO-TERRORIST cost car dealerships a whole 2 million dollars in damage, at least. He's clearly evil and should be locked away for life.
 
2012-11-25 03:26:30 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Aulus:
John Brown was a terrorist.


John browns body lies a-mouldering in the grave


With nothing on at all.
 
2012-11-25 03:32:04 AM

Happy Hours: Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.


Glenn Beck. I'm assuming the opposite of everything in this story is the truth.
 
2012-11-25 03:34:50 AM

Lansydyr: I think the dividing line between "FREEDOM FIGHTER" and "TERRORIST" is about 2 million dollars.

The Boston Tea Party cost an estimated 1.7 million dollars in today's money. These brave patriots were clearly doing their civic duty to protest against unfair taxation.

This RADICAL ECO-TERRORIST cost car dealerships a whole 2 million dollars in damage, at least. He's clearly evil and should be locked away for life.


Actually he was sentenced to 8 years and released after six. He has to pay for his shenanigans but is in perpetual appeal, so not even that, yet. Sounds like he got off pretty easy.
 
2012-11-25 03:41:00 AM
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.
 
2012-11-25 03:46:06 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.


You'd think so, but go take a look at what people have done to be charged with terrorism or "terroristic" activity.
 
2012-11-25 03:48:56 AM

Somacandra: Meet Us at the Stick: 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.

And that was cost a farkton of money for the British Empire. Primarily because it was actually a worldwide conflict with one of the theaters being in North America. Supply chain management especially along colonial boarders was dammed expensive. And Parliament had long claimed the right to represent all members of colonial Britain as well as metropolitan Britain.


Which is where they ran in to trouble with the American colonies because they wouldn't allow the colonies to represent themselves in Parliament. So while the taxes levied against the colonies may have been fair, the colonies had no say in the matter which was the main problem.
 
2012-11-25 03:52:03 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


I recall reading that the American colonists were taxed at a higher rate than people in England, supposedly because the war most directly benefitted them. Also, no colony was allowed to trade with any other colony, only with English merchants (who jacked up their prices while offering less than the free-market value for American goods.)

The worst thing was, the colonists had no representation in Parliament at all, so they had no legal means of protesting these policies. They were treated as second-class citizens with all of the responsibilities of British subjects but none of the rights.

Basically, the mother country was milking the colonies for as much as they could get and not giving a whole lot in return. (They did help defend the colonists from the French, so there is that.) These policies were set by King George himself (who, it was later discovered, was certifiably insane.)
 
2012-11-25 03:57:53 AM
I would like to create a ride similar to "It's a small world". It will show every language in the world, saying:

Fark Texas
 
2012-11-25 04:01:01 AM
It sounds like the teachers in question are slightly dimwitted and have heard the word "terrorist" all too often.
 
2012-11-25 04:01:29 AM
there are probably a lot of brown people around the world who can point to their destroyed homes, villages and show pictures of their dead loved ones that consider the USA government military responsible for these actions are terrorists.
 
2012-11-25 04:03:32 AM
Sure. If, by 'terrorism' you mean they politely destroyed property and treated the British officials with the utmost respect. In other words it's like Basque ETA calling in their bomb targets ahead of time and deliberately detonating empty buildings. Hell, the Sons of Liberty paid for the tea afterwards.

The Boston Tea Party was NOT terrorism. Tarring & Feathering tax collectors, however, was terrorism.

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
 
2012-11-25 04:10:26 AM
I just got done watching a few episodes of The Wonder Years on Netflix. I'm pretty sure there were a few counts of terrorism, domestic violence, child abuse, felony assault, inciting a riot, rape, legitimate rape, manslaughter in there.
 
2012-11-25 04:13:24 AM
It wasn't vandalism. It was economic sabotage which, since it was performed not by a non-state actor, falls under the definition of terrorism


Since the tea was delivered on consignment (e.g. money had yet to change hands), The East India Tea Company lost 3 vessels (342 crates) worth of merchandise worth approximately £900k today.

If an action by Earth First or Greenpeace cost a company that much money, politicians throughout the west would be decrying the act as terrorism
 
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