The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

[Mushroom]

Neither the article, nor Dante has claimed dumping physical property in the water is considered a “terrorist act?”

Oh really?

#looks up at the very title of this thread#

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism​

Yea, I would say that is wrong, Unless you are trying to claim that you did not create this thread and gave it that name.

all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law is considered - vandalism?

But that is the problem, the law was not "duly passed".

Both the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689 both clearly stated that taxes could not be imposed upon those who did not have representation. Therefore the law was not "duly passed" and illegal. Which was the very issue that kicked off the revolt, that they did not have representation.

And the UK at that time did not have a "Supreme Court" to bring the issue up with. They could and did petition both the Crown and Parliament to address the issue, and each time they simply refused to accept the petition. That is one of the reasons why when they later formed their own government, they established a Supreme Court. So the citizens could force the government to at least listen to them, and to strike down a law if it was in violation of the Constitution.

If the UK had such a court at the time, it would have struck down the taxes as they were indeed against British Law. But there was no such court in existence at the time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did you or did you not write: “I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act.”

Your evasions are noted with appropriate derision. But you can only run and hide for so long.

Neither the article, nor Dante has claimed dumping physical property in the water is considered a “terrorist act?” I went through and see you people injecting 'terrorism' Dante did not.

From Post #1:

A horde of White men disguised themselves as Native Americans...to commit seditious conspiracy and destroy private property. The riotous mob trespassed on three ships and destroyed goods worth nearly $2 million in today’s money — all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law.
Your pal Mushroom introduced to me the term 'terrorism' in Post # 26

"Dante never commented upon your delusional claims -(which were)- inferring Dante did or didn't agree on people being terrorists." Post #42

"Did Dante claim "destroying property without anyone being injured is terrorism?" No he did not. And why focus exclusively on a ship, and not all of it and the not wanting to obey a duly passed law?" Post #143

next

" - Governor Hutchinson is incensed, calling the dumping of the tea high treason" - Post #41
"It was a quote from an article. I agree with much of the article. I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act. You must learn how to read and comprehend." - Post #149

Post #156
Dante said:
Neither the article, nor Dante has claimed dumping physical property in the water is considered a “terrorist act?”
You:
Actually, you kind of did, the Dainty.

You’re the idiot who had just posted: “I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act.”

So you're WrongAgain rather than BackAgain

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh really?

#looks up at the very title of this thread#

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism​

It's a headline. Terrorism not mentioned in the OP/Post #1

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But that is the problem, the law was not "duly passed".

Both the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689 both clearly stated that taxes could not be imposed upon those who did not have representation. Therefore the law was not "duly passed" and illegal. Which was the very issue that kicked off the revolt, that they did not have representation.

And the UK at that time did not have a "Supreme Court" to bring the issue up with. They could and did petition both the Crown and Parliament to address the issue, and each time they simply refused to accept the petition. That is one of the reasons why when they later formed their own government, they established a Supreme Court. So the citizens could force the government to at least listen to them, and to strike down a law if it was in violation of the Constitution.

If the UK had such a court at the time, it would have struck down the taxes as they were indeed against British Law. But there was no such court in existence at the time.

You are seriously confused here.

 

[BackAgain]

Neither the article, nor Dante has claimed dumping physical property in the water is considered a “terrorist act?” I went through and see you people injecting 'terrorism' Dante did not.

From Post #1:

A horde of White men disguised themselves as Native Americans...to commit seditious conspiracy and destroy private property. The riotous mob trespassed on three ships and destroyed goods worth nearly $2 million in today’s money — all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law.
Your pal Mushroom introduced to me the term 'terrorism' in Post # 26

"Dante never commented upon your delusional claims -(which were)- inferring Dante did or didn't agree on people being terrorists." Post #42

"Did Dante claim "destroying property without anyone being injured is terrorism?" No he did not. And why focus exclusively on a ship, and not all of it and the not wanting to obey a duly passed law?" Post #143

next

" - Governor Hutchinson is incensed, calling the dumping of the tea high treason" - Post #41
"It was a quote from an article. I agree with much of the article. I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act. You must learn how to read and comprehend." - Post #149


So you're WrongAgain rather than BackAgain

Nonsense. Now the Dainty is simply being pitiably dishonest.

The Dainty wrote his own thread headline. Now, the Dainty tries (futilely) to run away from his own words.

The Dainty did also write what I correctly quoted The Dainty as having written:

“I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act.”

It is hysterical now observing The Dainty trying so hard to run away from The Dainty.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are seriously confused here.

Colonies had representation in the form of official agents to Parliament (like Benjamin Franklin", but no colonies had sitting representatives in the British Parliament. Laws passed in the Parliament governed the colonies. There were disputes over this as the colonies aged -- 150 years(?). The colonies Dutch, English, others were all governed by their homelands. Colonists were subjects, not citizens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nonsense. Now the Dainty is simply being pitiably dishonest.

The Dainty wrote his own thread headline. Now, the Dainty tried (futilely) to run away from his own words.

The Dainty did also write what I correctly quoted the dainty as having written:

“I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act.”

It is hysterical now only serving The Dainty trying so hard to run away from The Dainty.

Saying something could be, is not saying it is in fact.

You disagree the tea party could be considered terrorism? Have you seen what is considered terrorism? Stop playing at scoring cheap points (imaginary ones at that), against your betters. You do this while misrepresenting and as usual -- ling through commission.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

trying so hard to run away from The Dainty.

So clarifying and correcting your nonsense is now running away? Okay.

 

[BackAgain]

Saying something could be, is not saying it is in fact.

Again, you said it “could be.” Couldn’t. And when we toss in your own mindless thread headline, we all see what your actual position was.

It’s ok if you wish to recant. When exposed as you have been, it’s appropriate to admit your mistake.

You disagree the tea party could be considered terrorism?

Yes. I disagree. Because it absolutely could not be.

Have you seen what is considered terrorism?

Irrelevant. Words still have actual meaning despite the fact that this Chaffee you so very much.

Stop playing at scoring cheap points (imaginary ones at that), against your betters.

I’m not playing. I’m exposing your sophistry and ignorance and dishonesty. And your nobody’s “better.” You’re just a chord.

You do this while misrepresenting and as usual -- ling through commission.

You stand fully exposed. Also, your spelling and editing skills suck almost as much as you do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again, you said it “could be.” Couldn’t. And when we toss in your own mindless thread headline, we all see what your actual position was.

It’s ok if you wish to recant. When exposed as you have been, it’s appropriate to admit your mistake.


Yes. I disagree. Because it absolutely could not be.

Irrelevant. Words still have actual meaning despite the fact that this Chaffee you so very much.

I’m not playing. I’m exposing your sophistry and ignorance and dishonesty. And your nobody’s “better.” You’re just a chord.

You stand fully exposed. Also, your spelling and editing skills suck almost as much as you do.

Here you go again WrongAgain

 

[BackAgain]

Here you go again WrongAgain

You have failed to support your own claim. And your waffling and contradictory efforts to distance yourself from your own words only serve to highlight what a totally laughable jackass you have been and remain.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and keep making a public fool of yourself by chasing Dante. It used to be amusing. Now? Sadly pathetic.

 

[BackAgain]

and keep making a public fool of yourself by chasing Dante. It used to be amusing. Now? Sadly pathetic.

The dainty is now reduced to publicly crying over the exposure to his own words and his subsequent efforts to distance himself from his own words.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You have failed to support your own claim. And your waffling and contradictory efforts to distance yourself from your own words only serve to highlight what a totally laughable jackass you have been and remain.

What claim? “I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act.” So stupid. Dante is not denying anything. You're just playing your sophomoric games again .. Liability.

You disagree the tea party could be considered terrorism? Have you seen what is considered terrorism?

 

[BackAgain]

What claim? “I also think the 'party' could be classified as a terrorist act.”

Yes. That claim. Again, it absolutely couldn’t be so classified under any actual, meaningful definition of terrorist act.

So stupid. Dante is not denying anything. You're just playing your sophomoric games again .. Liability.

You have been and still are denying what you claimed, the Dainty. You even lie to the Dainty.

You disagree the tea party could be considered terrorism?

Again. Yes? Not sure why you need this constantly repeated. It absolutely could not possibly be considered an act of terrorism under any actual meaningful definition of the term. You moron.

Have you seen what is considered terrorism?

Irrelevant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A horde of White men disguised themselves as Native Americans — coppering their faces and donning headdresses in the same tradition that would lead to blackfaced minstrel shows decades later — to commit seditious conspiracy and destroy private property. The riotous mob trespassed on three ships and destroyed goods worth nearly $2 million in today’s money — all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law.
I love this article, if for nothing else that it speaks truths, while asking serious questions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/13/boston-tea-party-anniversary-crime-patriot/

Opinion | Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism? It depends.

The Boston Tea Party took on the British 250 years ago. It pitted one American value against another.

web.archive.org

Hey now!

quotes:

Before the dumping, hundreds of Bostonians will gather at the Old South Meeting House to restage the raucous gathering on Dec. 16, 1773, of citizens outraged by what they saw as illegitimate taxes and other oppressive measures imposed by the British. Outside, they will be joined by thousands for a fife-and-drum-fired “rolling rally” to the wharf, where costumed re-enactors will dump nearly 2,000 pounds of tea donated from all over the world.

The Boston Tea Party Turns 250 and Raises 21st-Century Questions

How does the most famous act of politically motivated property destruction in American history speak to our own polarized moment?

www.nytimes.com

It wasn’t until the 1830s that anyone called it a “tea party,” as Alfred Young documented in “The Shoemaker and the Tea Party.” It was a moment of nostalgia for the revolutionary era, whose last survivors were passing from the scene. It was also a time of radical workingman’s activism, as emerging labor unions claimed the mantle of the Revolution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes. That claim. Again, it absolutely couldn’t be so classified under any actual, meaningful definition of terrorist act.

You have been and still are denying what you claimed, the Dainty. You even lie to the Dainty.

Again. Yes? Not sure why you need this constantly repeated. It absolutely could not possibly be considered an act of terrorism under any actual meaningful definition of the term. You moron.

Irrelevant.

keeper post

Thank you

 

[Weatherman2020]

You really need to get a handle on what ails you.

Either stand by your OP or stop posting crap.

 

[Mushroom]

Colonies had representation in the form of official agents to Parliament

They were unofficial, had no power, and had no legal standing in the government.

That literally is like trying to claim that a agent or political activist is an "Official agent of Congress". They are not, because they have absolutely no power in the government, and Congress is free to ignore them.

That is not representation, you fail again.

 

[Mushroom]

You disagree the tea party could be considered terrorism? Have you seen what is considered terrorism?

Wow, I rarely see somebody spinning so hard and fast in here.

Are you honestly expecting to be taken seriously, and as anything other than a joke when you are trying to argue you never said it was terrorism, then turn right around and accuse another of disagreeing with your belief it is terrorism?

Good god, at least be consistent. Talk about speaking with a forked tongue.