The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

[BackAgain]

then i guess diebold is off the hook admiral
View attachment 873702
~S~

For terrorism? Good call. But not much for sabotage.

 

[sparky]

For terrorism? Good call. But not much for sabotage.

such confusion BA

they are, afterall, in two distinct places in webster's ....~S~

 

[Mushroom]

Dante has not denied his OP or the Headline.

Ah, but you have. Many times now. Have you forgotten already?

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.

So once again, you can not keep your story straight. Saying you did not inject "terrorism", even though it is right in the title of this garbage thread. And you keep going back and forth saying it is terrorism, then saying you never said it was terrorism.

I am done, this entire thread and your talking about yourself in the third person is so juvenile that it defies belief. Go take your mental masturbation elsewhere, because it got pathetic ages ago.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

yes well, homeland security was rather lax at the time you see....

View attachment 873703
~S~

The beginning of the Sioux After Action Report

 

[AZrailwhale]

It was never about the taxes themselves, but the legality of them. Because under the Constitution all English Citizens were entitled to representation, and only their representatives could impose taxes.

That was right in the Constitution.

Uh, Great Britain didn’t and doesn’t have a constitution. What the colonies had been denied were seats in the House of Commons. Taxes were assigned by the Crown, not Parliament if I remember correctly,

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Uh, Great Britain didn’t and doesn’t have a constitution. What the colonies had been denied were seats in the House of Commons. Taxes were assigned by the Crown, not Parliament if I remember correctly,

GB has an unwritten constitution.

The British Parliament claimed that the American colonists were represented for the purpose of taxation by the Parliament through the Stamp Act of 1765123. The Stamp Act was the first internal tax levied directly on American colonists by the British Parliament. It imposed a direct tax on all printed material in the North American colonies, including newspapers, legal documents, and playing cards1. The act came at a time when the British Empire was deep in debt from the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) and looking to its North American colonies as a revenue source1. The colonists, however, insisted that only their own representative assemblies could tax them and argued that the act was unconstitutional1. The issues of taxation and representation raised by the Stamp Act strained relations with the colonies to the point that, 10 years later, the colonists rose in armed rebellion against the British1.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I’ve often wondered how they managed to run the colonies from so far away. Given the distances, and the time it took for communications. No telegrams, telephones, faxes, emails etc.

The governors were appointed by the Crown and they had plenipotentiary power to rule.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh yes Dante is. English/British, North American, Colonial history and early American (USA) history are subjects Dante has researched for decades and it's also his family history. Get it? My family history. Unlike many like myself, I have no agenda outside of curiosity.

Dante is a 13th century Italian, European. He knew nothing of colonial history.

 

[AZrailwhale]

GB has an unwritten constitution.

The British Parliament claimed that the American colonists were represented for the purpose of taxation by the Parliament through the Stamp Act of 1765123. The Stamp Act was the first internal tax levied directly on American colonists by the British Parliament. It imposed a direct tax on all printed material in the North American colonies, including newspapers, legal documents, and playing cards1. The act came at a time when the British Empire was deep in debt from the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) and looking to its North American colonies as a revenue source1. The colonists, however, insisted that only their own representative assemblies could tax them and argued that the act was unconstitutional1. The issues of taxation and representation raised by the Stamp Act strained relations with the colonies to the point that, 10 years later, the colonists rose in armed rebellion against the British1.

An unwritten constitution is worth the paper it’s printed upon. The Crown or Parliament can override or change it at will.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They were in many cases. They could escape the class system. Do you know about that?

Mel Gibson had a lovely house in that anti British film he made.

Gibson’s character was very loosely based upon Francis Marion (The Swamp Fox) who was a wealthy planter and politician. The writers decided to change the name and other details when they finally realized that Marion owned over 200 slaves when the Revolution started.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

An unwritten constitution is worth the paper it’s printed upon. The Crown or Parliament can override or change it at will.

You get to add or subtract or nuance an unwritten constitution.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Physically? No. Financially yes. And?

That would depend on HOW you attack the state.

Is there any hope of a point?

The Tea Party wasn’t an attack on the Crown, it was an attack on the Honorable East India Company which the Crown had given a monopoly on the importation of tea to North America and was exempt from taxation, so the only tax was being paid by the colonists. One of the lesser known causes of the Revolution was that the Crown claimed a monopoly on all trade with the colonies. The Colonists couldn’t legally trade with the French, Spanish or Dutch. Smuggling was a really big business in the Northeast, that’s one of the reasons the British closed Boston harbor in March 1774, the other was an effort to force the citizens of Boston to reimburse the HEIC for the tea destroyed in the Tea Party.

 

[BackAgain]

such confusion BA

they are, afterall, in two distinct places in webster's ....~S~

The confusion is yours.

Try being genuine.

 

[Mushroom]

Uh, Great Britain didn’t and doesn’t have a constitution. What the colonies had been denied were seats in the House of Commons. Taxes were assigned by the Crown, not Parliament if I remember correctly,

Then you had better tell them that. It is not the same as the US, but they do have one.

The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document.

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf

The United Kingdom has never had a written constitution embodied in a single document. The foundational constitutional text for what is now the UK is the Magna Carta issued by King John of England in 1215. Since then, the UK's constitution has evolved organically over time in response to political, economic, and social changes.

The present constitution encompasses landmark statutes, such as the Bill of Rights of 1689, as well as many conventions or unwritten rules of constitutional practice. For example, the residual (prerogative) powers of the monarch and the relationship between the monarch and Parliament are still governed largely by these unwritten but nevertheless binding conventions.

Guides: United Kingdom Legal Research Guide: Constitutional Law

This in-depth guide will help researchers navigate legal materials for the United Kingdom.

guides.ll.georgetown.edu

This is what, the second or third time I have had to explain this so far?

 

[Unkotare]

Then you had better tell them that. It is not the same as the US, but they do have one.
....

No, they don't.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

The Tea Party wasn’t an attack on the Crown, it was an attack on the Honorable East India Company which the Crown had given a monopoly on the importation of tea to North America and was exempt from taxation, so the only tax was being paid by the colonists. One of the lesser known causes of the Revolution was that the Crown claimed a monopoly on all trade with the colonies. The Colonists couldn’t legally trade with the French, Spanish or Dutch. Smuggling was a really big business in the Northeast, that’s one of the reasons the British closed Boston harbor in March 1774, the other was an effort to force the citizens of Boston to reimburse the HEIC for the tea destroyed in the Tea Party.

The Americans drank tea?

And did you see the size of that boat? Most underwhelming, given the hype about it.

 

[Unkotare]

The Americans drank tea?

And did you see the size of that boat? Most underwhelming, given the hype about it.

There is not one middle schooler in the Greater Boston area who hasn't been on at least one field trip there.

 

[sparky]

Try being genuine.

I'm not the one obfuscating here BA

But our government certainly is.

In a time where some soccer mom can be painted 'domestic terrorist' at a school board meeting by government officials because the 'law' allows them to , one should consider we've come full circle towards being exactly what this nation was founded on to get away from

We (formerly the left of left) told you this would eventually happen after the PA passed.

Now we can't tell dissidents from patriots , or terrorists from freedom fighters w/out Big Bro's jack boot of approval

~S~

 

[BackAgain]

The Tea Party wasn’t an attack on the Crown, it was an attack on the Honorable East India Company which the Crown had given a monopoly on the importation of tea to North America and was exempt from taxation, so the only tax was being paid by the colonists. One of the lesser known causes of the Revolution was that the Crown claimed a monopoly on all trade with the colonies. The Colonists couldn’t legally trade with the French, Spanish or Dutch. Smuggling was a really big business in the Northeast, that’s one of the reasons the British closed Boston harbor in March 1774, the other was an effort to force the citizens of Boston to reimburse the HEIC for the tea destroyed in the Tea Party.

It wasn’t an “attack” at all. At least not in the way that word connotes violence. There was no violence. It therefore was not even possibly “terrorism.”

The rest of your history lesson has no bearing on the conversation at hand.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not the one obfuscating here

Yes. You are sparks.

But our government certainly is.

Nope.

In a time where some soccer mom can be painted 'domestic terrorist' at a school board meeting by government officials because the 'law' allows them to , one should consider we've come full circle towards being exactly what this nation was founded on to get away from

So your issue is that some current moron in government says that a parent protesting at a school board meeting is a “terrorist.” Obviously, such morons wrong, too. But that’s not the entire government. And the misuse of the term “terrorism” by some asshole in government doesn’t make it appropriate to misuse the term when discussing some other historical incident like the BTP.

We (formerly the left of left) told you this would eventually happen after the PA passed.

Non sequitur.

Now we can't tell dissidents from patriots , or terrorists from freedom fighters w/out Big Bro's jack boot of approval

~S~

Of course we can “now.” As always. Call bullshit when it is offered. The BTP was not a terroristic act. Parents protesting at a school board meeting aren’t domestic terrorists either.

The balance of your post is political polemic and otherwise well off the mark.