"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 2:28 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. All the
people protesting and calling themselves tea bag protesters have
representation. Thus, what they are doing has nothing to do with the BTP.


Only problem is, these people don't feel that they *do* have
representation. They feel that the government, in general, is not
representing their viewpoints. IOW, they feel they have
representatives that aren't representing *them*, while still being
taxed.

Reply: Then they should take it up with the people they elected or voted for
and/or elect someone else next time? If they voted for someone and that
person lost, then they need to understand that's how the democratic process
works. Just like when Bush was elected (well... anyway). I didn't like it,
but he was still the president. Even though I really dislike him, I didn't
like the idea of him going to Iraq that first time. I thought it was
foolishly dangerous.

Hey, relax. It was nothing more than a catchy name for just another
demonstration from a group of activist. Both sides of the political
spectrum has them all the time. This time the liberals smeared it
with a vulgar reference that caught on. It didn't seem like you
appreciated people being rude or vulgar. Maybe I'm wrong?

Reply: I don't. In that case, I take it you're not happy with people using
racial slurs when referencing the president... all the monkey, banana eating
stuff? Not to make too fine a point on it, but the context of the language
is important and has to be considered. And, the context of that kind of slur
conjures up a very nasty bit of US history. So, if someone calls White
Person X a monkey, then there's like no racial slur intended (at least not
in the US). On the other hand, if someone calls Black Person Y a monkey,
then there's all sorts of racial baggage that goes along with the comment.

--
Nom=de=Plume