|
|
Post by MozMode on Apr 5, 2009 13:02:47 GMT -5
I have a question...what are these "tea parties" the Fundie's keep referring to? I saw a load of threads on RR about them & where they are taking place. What purpose do they serve & what are they trying to get across by doing this?
Plus, there are some Fundies that are literally SENDING tea bags in envelopes to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 5, 2009 13:09:24 GMT -5
It's a reference to them wanting to teabag the rest of us until we accept their bass-ackward views. (jk)
Honestly, I have no idea. I think it's supposed to be some sort of protest against the fact that Obama is going to let Bush's tax cuts die, which they interpret as him raising taxes. *shrug* I think they got their idea from the Boston Tea Party, but the modern movement is obviously less sane and has little to no legitimate grievances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 5, 2009 13:21:32 GMT -5
 They're protesting Obama's refusal to cut taxes on the top 1% of Americans (those poor oppressed rich people!), because taking a pittance of people's incomes to ensure that others can afford to feed their families is EVIL. The supreme irony of the movement is that the original Tea Party was carried out to protest a tax CUT. But then, since when has the right ever let actual facts get in the way of their opinions? You can read more about the movement (and how stupid it is) here. |
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 13:26:00 GMT -5
They're protesting Obama's refusal to cut taxes on the top 1% of Americans (those poor oppressed rich people!), because taking a pittance of people's incomes to ensure that others can afford to feed their families is EVIL. The supreme irony of the movement is that the original Tea Party was carried out to protest a tax CUT. But then, since when has the right ever let actual facts get in the way of their opinions? You can read more about the movement (and how stupid it is) here. Not quite true... There was a tax cut in Britain, and there was a robbing Peter to pay Paul tax introduced in the colonies... |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 5, 2009 13:30:37 GMT -5
They're protesting Obama's refusal to cut taxes on the top 1% of Americans (those poor oppressed rich people!), because taking a pittance of people's incomes to ensure that others can afford to feed their families is EVIL. The supreme irony of the movement is that the original Tea Party was carried out to protest a tax CUT. But then, since when has the right ever let actual facts get in the way of their opinions? You can read more about the movement (and how stupid it is) here. Not quite true... There was a tax cut in Britain, and there was a robbing Peter to pay Paul tax introduced in the colonies... Again, not quite. There was a tax cut, but to pay for it, they started enforcing taxes that had been ignored for a few decades out in the colonies. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 5, 2009 15:27:59 GMT -5
Not quite true... There was a tax cut in Britain, and there was a robbing Peter to pay Paul tax introduced in the colonies... Again, not quite. There was a tax cut, but to pay for it, they started enforcing taxes that had been ignored for a few decades out in the colonies. The tax hikes began six years prior to the Tea Act with the passage of the Townshend Acts. The Tea Act was infuriating because it removed the protection American tea producers had against the East India Trading Company's monopoly. I don't recall any tax hikes in the colonies corresponding to the Tea Act. As I understand it, it went like this: 1. Townshend Acts are passed, raising taxes on the colonies. (Pretty justified, since defending the colonies was a big drain on Britain's finances and the colonists paid very little compared to British nationals.) 2. "No taxation without representation" becomes a commonly bandied slogan. 3. Tea Act is passed in 1773. Boston Tea Part occurs the same year in response. 4. Tea Party prompts the British to start cracking down on the colonies, setting off the chain of events that will lead the the Revolution. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 5, 2009 17:06:19 GMT -5
While Julian and others go it right as to the stated reasons for the tea bad parties, cons think they are the only true patriots.. so they think they are doing what the founding fathers would have done), I have another theory.
The conservatives are somehow being secretly controlled by the Daily Show to make themselves look like complete out of touch idiots and thus keep the show provided with great jokes and clips.
I mean, how could almost none of them have any idea what the modern meaning of tea bagging was? You would think one of their many closet cases would have informed them.
Conservatism has become comedy GOLD.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 5, 2009 19:26:22 GMT -5
Again, not quite. There was a tax cut, but to pay for it, they started enforcing taxes that had been ignored for a few decades out in the colonies. The tax hikes began six years prior to the Tea Act with the passage of the Townshend Acts. The Tea Act was infuriating because it removed the protection American tea producers had against the East India Trading Company's monopoly. I don't recall any tax hikes in the colonies corresponding to the Tea Act. As I understand it, it went like this: 1. Townshend Acts are passed, raising taxes on the colonies. (Pretty justified, since defending the colonies was a big drain on Britain's finances and the colonists paid very little compared to British nationals.) 2. "No taxation without representation" becomes a commonly bandied slogan. 3. Tea Act is passed in 1773. Boston Tea Part occurs the same year in response. 4. Tea Party prompts the British to start cracking down on the colonies, setting off the chain of events that will lead the the Revolution. So what you're saying is that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against Britain forcing the colonies to relinquish their tarrifs and other protectionist measures? |
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 5, 2009 20:00:23 GMT -5
The tax hikes began six years prior to the Tea Act with the passage of the Townshend Acts. The Tea Act was infuriating because it removed the protection American tea producers had against the East India Trading Company's monopoly. I don't recall any tax hikes in the colonies corresponding to the Tea Act. As I understand it, it went like this: 1. Townshend Acts are passed, raising taxes on the colonies. (Pretty justified, since defending the colonies was a big drain on Britain's finances and the colonists paid very little compared to British nationals.) 2. "No taxation without representation" becomes a commonly bandied slogan. 3. Tea Act is passed in 1773. Boston Tea Part occurs the same year in response. 4. Tea Party prompts the British to start cracking down on the colonies, setting off the chain of events that will lead the the Revolution. So what you're saying is that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against Britain forcing the colonies to relinquish their tarrifs and other protectionist measures? It's a little more complicated than that. The 13 colonies had no direct representation in Parliament. King George III - who was actually from Germany and was thus only vaguely aware of how the British government worked* - believed that the existence of the Continental Congress over in the Americas was just as good as the colonies having a seat in Parliament. On the other hand, many colonists believed that their lack of a seat in Parliament meant that it was oppressive for the British government to pass any laws or taxes aimed solely at the 13 American colonies; they felt that any such laws or taxes should go through the Continental Congress first. Thus, they regarded the Tea Act as the British government overstepping its bounds. Had George been up on how the government worked, he might have been wise enough to offer an "olive branch" of sorts by letting the colonists have a seat or two; taking the seat would knock the legs out from beneath the arguments against the government, while refusing it would give George a PR coup against any rabble-rousers who tried anything. Instead, George simply didn't bother. *This is why the British garrisons in North America were supplemented by Hessian (German) mercenaries: George III, being German, had an in with them. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 5, 2009 20:08:30 GMT -5
They're protesting Obama's refusal to cut taxes on the top 1% of Americans (those poor oppressed rich people!), because taking a pittance of people's incomes to ensure that others can afford to feed their families is EVIL. The supreme irony of the movement is that the original Tea Party was carried out to protest a tax CUT. But then, since when has the right ever let actual facts get in the way of their opinions? You can read more about the movement (and how stupid it is) here. Na, the supreme irony of this is most prolly don't know what the term 'Tea bag' means |
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Apr 5, 2009 21:00:18 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against Britain forcing the colonies to relinquish their tarrifs and other protectionist measures? Protectionism for us, free-market for everyone else! |
|
|
|
Post by disgruntledcolonel on Apr 6, 2009 6:36:08 GMT -5
Actually George III, unlike Georges I & II was born in England , spoke English as his first language and had a pretty fair idea how the British Government at that time as the policies that alienate the colonists orginated from that star of 18th century politics, Lord North and the Tories. The Hessian mercenaries were hired out because . Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel was George III's Uncle. Not that European monarchies were ever all interrelated, oh no. The final straw for the colonists were the Intolerable Acts issued as a response to the tea party as their actual reaction and what Parliament hoped it would be were poles apart. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_ActsAnyway, going back to Booley's point, perhaps these conservatives are aware of the current meaning of tea-bagging, and this ensues at the tea parties, because a tea bag a day keeps the communists away |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 6, 2009 7:40:14 GMT -5
Thus, they regarded the Tea Act as the British government overstepping its bounds. I'm sure that the Americans would have regarded the British as overstepping their authority if they sendt shiiteloads of cash to the colonies as well, but that wouldn't have started a revolution. What the Americans didn't like about the Tea Act was the act, not necessarily just Britain's imposition of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 6, 2009 11:38:05 GMT -5
Are they fucking trying to get mocked? |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Apr 6, 2009 14:24:04 GMT -5
Well they don't exactly try very hard NOT to, that's for sure.
On a more related note, ... actually I can't think of a more related thing to say. I'm distracted by that kid's face which just about says he DOES know what the real meaning of the phrase is and doesn't have an issue with his sign in that regard...
EDIT: Woo! Post #500! If I were a regular poster the spot that says "moderator" would say "God". ^-^
|
|
