Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fayrik]

I'd just like to chip in that, as an arbitary Brit, this "Tea Party" offends me, some what.

[Urist is dead tome]

Why does it offend you?

[Sowelu]

Every time I hear "_____ Party", I think of the game Colonization.  Where the king can raise taxes, but you can cancel it out by sacrificing all of a good in one city and getting it boycotted (IE, tea party => city loses tea stockpile => can no longer trade in tea, well, if tea was actually a resource in the game).  This led to absurdity like "The king wants to raise taxes on our muskets?!  We'll show him!  THROW OUR GUNS IN THE WATER!"

[Fayrik]

Why does it offend you?

Well, while I guess it's no immediately clear, I still feel that this seems a bit less cryptic than most of the other cryptic stuff I say.

They are a political movement. Calling themselves "The Tea Party". Their slogan is "Lets take back America".
Combining the two, I just can't help but come to the conclusion it's a reference to the American war of Independance.
I don't know much about the said war, and, I'm quite happy with the fact America won it...
But that kind of referencing seems uncalled for and below the belt. >.>

Unless anyone else can explain why it's not related to that.

[Sowelu]

Wait, the Brits are still sore about that?

I mean, it seems weird for me to phrase that that way, but I'm not sure how else to parse it.  Does it bug you to think about that war?  We did fight it, it was for good reasons, it was a long time ago, and it is validly symbolic.  It's kind of like drawing an allusion to WW1 or WW2, except that it's so long ago now that it's not so overplayed as to Godwin your political party.

[Fayrik]

Wait, the Brits are still sore about that?

Not the last time I checked. That's why I tried to explicitly explain that I don't tend to care about it.
Do you think we'd be in the political state we are if we where?

Does it bug you to think about that war?

Again, see above. The answer outright is no..
But it bugs me that there's a possibility that these people could be idolizing themselves to that.

[Urist is dead tome]

Hear! Hear!

Sarah Palin ain't George Washington lemme tell ya that.

[G-Flex]

They are a political movement. Calling themselves "The Tea Party". Their slogan is "Lets take back America".
Combining the two, I just can't help but come to the conclusion it's a reference to the American war of Independance.
I don't know much about the said war, and, I'm quite happy with the fact America won it...
But that kind of referencing seems uncalled for and below the belt. >.>

Unless anyone else can explain why it's not related to that.

You're right. The revolutionary themes are right in the name and in the basic attitudes of the movement. In fact, it's not even so much "Tea Party" as in a political party, it's more named directly after the Boston Tea Party entirely.

[Fayrik]

You're right. The revolutionary themes are right in the name and in the basic attitudes of the movement.

Urgh.

In fact, it's not even so much "Tea Party" as in a political party, it's more named directly after the Boston Tea Party entirely.

I'd heard somewhere that it wasn't a new name, and that'd been named after something.
Had no idea it was an event in previously mentioned war.

This just makes me feel that they're referencing the independance war, while trying to over-throw their own government.
Kind of like that... Uhh... The American Civil War.

<Conspiricy Theory>They're actually the South, trying it again. Only, referencing the wrong war to draw people's attentions away.</Conspiricy Theory>
Bwahahahah.

[Sowelu]

People deserve the right to air their greivances.  And historically, well, obviously revolutions have been necessary.  They're totally not at the moment, but I wholeheartedly support the right to use that rhetoric.

They could use revolutionary rhetoric without active calls to violence, though.  C'mon guys, tone it down will you?  Ugh!

[Bouchart]

The country will be in civil war within 5 years or so.

I, for one, encourage the rhetoric.  Let's get this over with rather then let it linger around forever.

Are you that myopic (or young, or foolish) that you think things have never been this bad before, and that they're so much worse that civil war within five years is inevitable? To the point where you're encouraging violent behavior?

I don't need to encourage violent behavior at this point.  It's all set in motion.

[Grakelin]

A civil war is possible, but I don't think it's inevitable, and certainly not likely within five years.

Who would the 'rebels' be? Who is actually discontent enough with the system that they are willing to give up everything they have to change it? A civil war requires organization, and the bouts of violence we have seen so far have not been organized attacks of any sort.

[Fayrik]

A civil war is possible, but I don't think it's inevitable, and certainly not likely within five years.

These things always take a long time to roll around.

Who would the 'rebels' be? Who is actually discontent enough with the system that they are willing to give up everything they have to change it? A civil war requires organization, and the bouts of violence we have seen so far have not been organized attacks of any sort.

Whoever's not in power. It's kind of the definition of rebel.
So yes. It's theoretically possible there could just be a war between rebels, simply by having multiple groups rebel against the state then fight between eachother.

They're totally not at the moment, but I wholeheartedly support the right to use that rhetoric.

Okay. Again, just to confirm, since my knowledge here is a little bit hazy. The American war of independance was not a civil war, seeing as it was faught technically, between two countries. It was a border war, just like most others.
This is what angers me the most about this "rhetioric". They're acting in civil disrest, and making it out to be some sort of international incident.

[Bouchart]

I honestly think that few people realize that the U.S. government could collapse and civil war could occur as the result of a single terrorist attack, the passage of a bad federal law, or a failed Treasury auction.

[ChairmanPoo]

Because it is bloody unlikely that such a thing would happen because of ONE terrorist attack or ONE single bad law.. That kind of event is caused by the summation of a number of causes over time.