Do the "tea partiers" know anything about history?

[CTLawGuy]

The original Boston Tea Party was an act of protest by American Colonists, NOT against the idea of TAXATION, but against (primarily) the idea of TAXATION without REPRESENTATION.

"The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestrs would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented....

The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestrs were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent.<39> Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights.<40> This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's sad that this iconic event is being made a mockery of by RW extremists who love to invoke comparisons to the revolution and the founding fathers. If anyone should be having a "tea party" it should be the residents of DC, which still has no voting representation in Congress yet whose residents must still be subject to every federal tax.

[hobbit709]

1. The know as much about history as they know about grammar and spelling.

Zero=Zero.

[liberal N proud]

2. They don't know much about what taxes pay for either

I would say they just know what they have been told during the last session of FOX news they tuned in to.

[zbdent]

3. I heard that many Teabaggers had history books in mint condition during school ...

some even in the original wrapping ...

[Sherman A1]

4. Why would they do such a thing?

It's so much easier just to take the Fox Talking Points (sort like Clif Notes) and then make up whatever you need from there!

Just like when the "Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor"

[no_hypocrisy]

5. It would only confuse them and slow them down with inconvenient contradictions.

[era veteran]

6. How can you be a communist Nazi taking the USA to socialism with a muslin

president? Lunatics

[political_Dem]

7. They also don't believe that the Confederates Lost.

:sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

8. I could care less. I'd rather trash their LEADERS and flip the "blinded sheep" who are not racist.

:shrug:

[chemp]

9. In their defense...

They are CLAIMING taxation without representation.

They think because none of their representatives won election, they are not being represented.
Sad premise, really.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Let me take your argument head-on

When Bushco was in the White House, and Rethugs controlled both the House and the Senate, did you feel like you were being represented?

[mrcheerful]

12. No but then I never made crap up about * or the R's that was based on my opinion or my distorted

world views. Everything I said about the R's was said by things they actually done, like * attacking rights granted in the bill of rights. Unlike the birther tea baggers. I didn't run around saying crap like socialist islamic nazi, I know that 2 of the words are actually political ideologies of extreme left and right ideals and the third is a religious belief no better or worse then any other religious belief. I also know for a fact that R's do not represent me, they are all for corporate welfare to billionaires paid for by those like me who can't afford to eat 3 meals a day or not go hungry at least 4 or 5 days a month.

[customerserviceguy]

15. OK, that's true

and most progressives did not make up crap, either. But for every birther, there is a truther on our side, someone who also chants, "Selected not elected" even after the 2004 election. I've heard other things here that are the equivalent of what some of the baggers have been saying, only with the opposite political orientation.

I don't believe the majority of teabaggers or tea partiers, or whatever you want to call them are racist or openly homophobic. I've long spoken out on this, and that calling them all bigots only serves to drive more people into their camp, and that camp into the Rethuglican party.

[RoBear]

11. Of course they don't, and they glory in their ignorance

"The fool is happy that he knows no more." -- Alexander Pope.

[Bitwit1234]

13. It sounded patriotic so the STOLE IT

can you believe they could be original about anything. The don't even know they are getting all kinds of help from the government. and the basic fifth grader knows that. Have you ever seen any of them on "Are you smarter than a fifth grader"..heck they wouldn't get pass the first question.

[ieoeja]

14. The Boston Tea Party was in response to Britain forcing Massachusettes to buy tea against their will

The response to unrepresentative taxation was a boycott of tea. Britain then tried forcing the Massachusettes colonial government to purchase the tea so (1) the British East Indies Tea Company would get their money, and (2) the boycott would end as the people would effectively be boycotting themselves.

A radical group launched their Tea Party which was only 50% successful. The Crown was probably going to lose its bid in the courts to force Mass to purchase the tea. Instead, the courts ended up holding Mass responsible for the damage caused by the Tea Party.

On the other hand, it did keep the boycott going (the 50% success). And, of course, the Crown went all law-and-order nutso in response causing the eventual American Revolution.


I hate to admit this. But while writing this it occurs to me there is an actual correlation with the Tea Party. Then the Crown forced Massachusetts Bay Colony to purchase tea they did not want. Now the Affordable Healthcare Act forces individuals to purchase health insurance they do not want.

But since that is not what the Teabaggers are protesting, the correlation is coincidental and meaningless.