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.

Have a great day!

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 9:02 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 8:01 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





Wow... what a come back. Next time stay awake in your history class in
high
school.

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 6:45 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Oh my... you know nothing about the Boston Tea Party. Sad.

The great thing about this country is that people like you working
with only one functioning neuron are allowed to have an opinion and
openly express it.

It's kind of like watching drunk Old Uncle Harry when he's trying to
molest the nieces and nephews. You ignore him and keep the kids out of
his reach.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Next time have a bit of knowledge about what you wish to post before
you post it.

Like I said, he knows nothing about history.
--
Nom=de=Plume-

The people that participated in the Boston Tea Party weren't called
teabaggers. The term teabagger is a recent invention, and one that
carries a negative stigma, at least for most people. The application
of it to the protesters is an attempt by their opponents to ridicule
them.

To wit: "Only now, the protesters and their organizers are fighting a
battle on two fronts: not only against what they see as a government
gone wild with giveaways; but ridicule for the double meaning of "tea
bagging.""
From http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?...&sc3=&id=89676

The original poster knows what the Tea Party was about... he provided
a link to an explanation of it. The double meaning and innuendo
contained in this thread either went over your head, or you're trying
far too hard to be rude.



--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

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?

Jack wrote:
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.

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?


Teabaggers, Birthers, Deathers, Tenthers - right-wing scumbags, all of
them, just like you. They may feel as if they "don't have
representation," but they do. They have the same right and ability to
vote as every other voter.

The country had eight years of their bull**** with Bush and decided it
was time to move on, and with a black president. *That* is what is
behind the right-wingers these days, their absolute intolerance for a
black man in the White House.

Not to worry; in 2016 the Democrats will nominate a Latino, and then,
eight years later, a woman.

By then, the white race will be a political minority. Maybe the ones who
can't tolerate that will move to South Carolina or Texas and secede.

Harry the Klown wrote:
and with a black president. *That* is what is
behind the right-wingers these days, their absolute intolerance for a
black man in the White House.

Ah, the race card. Call somebody a racist and watch their knees tremble.

Too bad he's not a "black man". He's just as much a "white man" as he is
a "black man".

There are certainly many qualified black men who could do a far better
job than the current "black man" in the White House. Bring them on.

Who cares about the skin color? Democrats. Oppose Obama's policies = racist.

Former President Jimmy Carter: An affable man, but a very misguided soul.

Johnson

"Johnson" wrote in message
...
Harry the Klown wrote:
and with a black president. *That* is what is
behind the right-wingers these days, their absolute intolerance for a
black man in the White House.

Ah, the race card. Call somebody a racist and watch their knees tremble.

Too bad he's not a "black man". He's just as much a "white man" as he is a
"black man".

There are certainly many qualified black men who could do a far better job
than the current "black man" in the White House. Bring them on.

Who cares about the skin color? Democrats. Oppose Obama's policies =
racist.

Former President Jimmy Carter: An affable man, but a very misguided soul.

Johnson

I bet $20 that you could ask Jimmy what day it was and today's date, and he
wouldn't get it right. The tapes I saw of him lately looked like he was
going to drool at any second. And those Orphan Annie eyes ................
OY!

Steve

In article ,
says...

"Johnson" wrote in message
...
Harry the Klown wrote:
and with a black president. *That* is what is
behind the right-wingers these days, their absolute intolerance for a
black man in the White House.

Ah, the race card. Call somebody a racist and watch their knees tremble.

Too bad he's not a "black man". He's just as much a "white man" as he is a
"black man".

There are certainly many qualified black men who could do a far better job
than the current "black man" in the White House. Bring them on.

Who cares about the skin color? Democrats. Oppose Obama's policies =
racist.

Former President Jimmy Carter: An affable man, but a very misguided soul.

Johnson

I bet $20 that you could ask Jimmy what day it was and today's date, and he
wouldn't get it right. The tapes I saw of him lately looked like he was
going to drool at any second. And those Orphan Annie eyes ................
OY!

Steve

The guy has no class, no brain, and no guts... Worst President in
modern history...

--
Wafa free since 2009

"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

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?


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.

"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

On Sep 17, 9:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

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


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.

I disagree. "they feel they have representatives that aren't
representing *them*, while still being taxed. " The symbology fits
perfectly, at least to them. You cut that, but it's pertinent.

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.

Oh.. you seemed to have an objection to the Tea Party demonstrators,
and Toots who brought it up to begin with. You seem to have a problem
with anyone that has a viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own.

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.

Well, while I don't think that it belongs on the state house, or on
the grounds, it *is* a bit of history. While it's history has meaning
way beyond anything racial, the flag has been commandeered by groups
on both sides with an agenda to represent racial repression. Wilson's
attempts to keep the flag, however misguided they may be, don't mean
he's a racist.

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.

I'm sure that self-examination is difficult, but always necessary for
proper perspective.

Buh-bye.