"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 6:31 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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.

Demonstrations *are* a method of taking it up with their elected
officials. The liberals weren't silent during the 8 years of
President Bush, were they? Of course not, so why should things
suddenly be different now?

Reply: True enough, but calling them Tea Party protests is an error of
understanding. It was supposed to be symbolic, but the symbology doesn't fit
the protests.


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.

You say you don't, but you sure don't seem to mind repeating it, do
you? I don't like it when people use racial slurs against anyone,
including Obama. I also don't like it when anyone that dare express
an opinion opposite Obama's opinion gets automatically labelled a
racist. That's happening as well, but I don't sense any outrage from
you on that. BTW, there is no racial overtone to "You lie!" But many
liberals sure want to make it seem that way, don't they? Or maybe
you're smart enough to realize that Jimmy Carter doesn't have a clue.

Reply: I'm not repeating anything. You asked a question, so I tried to
answer honestly. Again, you go on about "anyone" daring to express an
opposite opinion, but as you well know, the left *have* been criticizing
him. Then you go on to say it's happening. Well, yeah, and I don't have any
objection to raising objections about policy issues.

Re the "You lie" outburst. Are you aware that Wilson voted against removing
the Confederate flag from the state house? This is a symbol of what? It's
pretty clear that he supports a position that coincides with that symbol.

I'm having trouble believing that you're really interested in exploring my
comment about racial baggage, so I think I'll just drop it. You can have the
last word.


--
Nom=de=Plume