Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Sabotage is not terrorism. The only victims were the owners of the tea.This is what you believe?
verb: sabotage;
- deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.
You’re welcome. And you’re partly right. It is a “keeper” posting only you could learn from it.keeper post
Thank you
Not at all. It was an act of theft and of property damage. But where words have meaning, it wasn’t and couldn’t possibly be “terrorism.”Yes, by today's standards, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.
Fuck with us we keeeel you.That one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter repetitively on this rock escapes most Dante'
What they lack in such perspective is due to the propaganda they've digested
View attachment 873698
~S~
Why are you talking to yourself?Those loyalist were here much longer than many rebels. They made the colony what it was at the time. Your views on colonial American and early USA history are stuck at the Junior High School level.
Snitchy?Some of the most celebrated arguments came from Colonists who later broke with the rebels over going against the Sovereign. They were loyalists, yet the rebels incited groups using the arguments of those very loyalists.
The Dainty reserves its right to post shit and refuse to stand by its own word.Either stand by your OP or stop posting crap.
then i guess diebold is off the hook admiralSabotage is not terrorism.
So, it was treason and not terrorism. You just destroyed your own premise.Good gawd...
From the article, posted in the OP, Post #1: Two separate items listed, which are mutually exclusive?
to commit seditious conspiracy and destroy private property
From the article, posted in the OP, Post #1: Actions not against the government?![]()
all because they didn’t want to obey a duly passed law
Facts: not like your distorted opinions "the tea would be taxed at the point of entry in colonial ports." The East India Company was not taxing anyone. The British Parliament was.
"Boston's consignees petition the governor to safeguard the tea once it arrives, but with British forces confined to Castle William since the unfortunate events of the Boston Massacre, Hutchinson is powerless to oblige. The streets belong to the opposition." (sounds like ANTIFA to me).
Governor Hutchinson is incensed, calling the dumping of the tea high treason
yes well, homeland security was rather lax at the time you see....Yes, by today's standards, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.
The Dainty is now outright lying to distance itself from its own words.Not my problem if some of you are confused when confronted with nuance and ...
Dante has not denied his OP or the Headline.
Sailors. You know, the ship's crew?Sailors?
Are you just waking up?
Never walked away from the OP.
You're as confused as Liability is. Not healthy.