Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 235
  1. #76
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    You, for starters.



    How about I don't because that's not at all what we're talking about.

    I'll ask you this. What would you call violence against loyalists and tax-collectors? Hate crimes?
    You still haven't answered any of my questions, so I don't know why you feel inclined to start asking.

    BTW, at which terrorist acts our FF participated in not being a relevant part of this discussion. That's exactly what we're discussing.

  2. #77
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    "That was an act of rebellion"

    Colonial tea smugglers paid the Tea Partiers to dress up as Indians and dump the tea because the King gave East India Company exclusive tea importing rights AND cut the tea tax, which made smuggling less profitable.

    "Resisting the Tea Act

    This 1775 British cartoon, "A Society of Patriotic Ladies at Edenton in North Carolina", satirizes the Edenton Tea Party, a group of women who organized a boycott of English tea.

    In September and October 1773, seven ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to the colonies: four were bound for Boston, and one each for New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[35] In the ships were more than 2,000 chests containing nearly 600,000 pounds of tea.[36] Americans learned the details of the Tea Act while the ships were en route, and opposition began to mount.[37] Whigs, sometimes calling themselves Sons of Liberty, began a campaign to raise awareness and to convince or compel the consignees to resign, in the same way that stamp distributors had been forced to resign in the 1765 Stamp Act crisis.[38]

    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. Protestors 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.[41]

    Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business.[42] Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act.[43] Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods.[44]"

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

    So it was the REDUCTION in tea tax that really pissed off the "American" smugglers.

    So, nothing linking the FF with terrorists in any conventional sense of the word.

  3. #78
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    You, for starters.
    Again, it doesn't matter what I think since we're talking about perceptions of others.





    You still haven't answered any of my questions, so I don't know why you feel inclined to start asking.
    I'm not answering because they are straw men questions.

    BTW, at which terrorist acts our FF participated in not being a relevant part of this discussion. That's exactly what we're discussing.
    You do have a reading comprehension problem. We're talking about how they were seen either in their own time or by historians.

  4. #79
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    He's either really persistent in trying to change the subject or he's really dumb.

  5. #80
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    Again, it doesn't matter what I think since we're talking about perceptions of others.
    And you have yet to quote any others, or answer yourself.






    I'm not answering because they are straw men questions.
    ...

    We're talking about how they were seen either in their own time or by historians.
    And I'm waiting on your source that proves Manny's original statement or whatever your argument is. You do have one, right?

  6. #81
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    He's either really persistent in trying to change the subject or he's really dumb.
    You haven't proved, in any way, shape, or form, that the FF were terrorists or were perceived as terrorists by anyone other than the British government's propaganda machine.

    Anytime you feel like joining in on the discussion, feel free.

  7. #82
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    is a people that forces their will and ideals on another people considered terrorism?

  8. #83
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    And you have yet to quote any others, or answer yourself.
    Wait, did you find those "primary sources"?



    ...
    Straw Man



    And I'm waiting on your source that proves Manny's original statement or whatever your argument is. You do have one, right?
    Here's something quick I found. I'll have to search google scholar later

    Were they a terrorist organization? The British certainly believed they were. After all, the Sons were advocating overthrow of the status quo government and independence for the thirteen colonies
    http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

    I'm waiting on your proof the British didn't think the Americans were what we consider terrorists.

  9. #84
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    At least he finally abandoned his straw man.

  10. #85
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    Wait, did you find those "primary sources"?
    Why would I prove Manny's statement for him? And I don't know your argument.



    Straw Man


    So nothing to do with this discussion. Dunno why you keep bringing it up unless you're ready to expose these strawmen logically.



    http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

    I'm waiting on your proof the British didn't think the Americans were what we consider terrorists.
    That proves the Founding Fathers were terrorist? Because "the British certainly thought they were".

    Once again, commonly considered means everyone, including the other countries that supported the USA, considered them terrorist.

    If Manny wishes to revise his statement as state, "the British government commonly considered the FF terrorists", I will agree 100%.

    Try to not buy into that 250 year old propaganda, guys.

  11. #86
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    Why would I prove Manny's statement for him? And I don't know your argument.



    Straw Man


    So nothing to do with this discussion. Dunno why you keep bringing it up unless you're ready to expose these strawmen logically.





    That proves the Founding Fathers were terrorist? Because "the British certainly thought they were".

    Once again, commonly considered means everyone, including the other countries that supported the USA, considered them terrorist.

    Try to not buy into that 250 year old propaganda, guys.
    Oh man I thought he got it. I was sooooo wrong

  12. #87
    TheDrewShow is salty lefty's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Post Count
    101,216
    Of course the FF were terorrists

    They killed natives

  13. #88
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    So then their ideology isn't terrorism, but their acts, right?

    It's the combination of the two. Otherwise, the act of Dr. Hasaan at Ft. Hood was just the act of a crazy person, right?

  14. #89
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    Yeah, you are.

    Where in that link does it specifically reference a FF?

    Try to stay in topic. With all your strawmen references and lack of an argument, you've been bumping around and can't seem to focus on the issue at hand:

    were the FF commonly considered terrorists in their day and age? The answer is no, only in political propaganda machines were they labeled anywhere close to terrorists and none of the great writers and thinkers of that day support the position.

    I have yet to see a single source that specifically names a Founding Father and links him to a precisely terrorist, non-rebellious act. I have yet to find one do ent by a revered writer, author, or statesman that considered them such.

  15. #90
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    he don't get it.

  16. #91
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    What the American insurgents were doing piecemeal foreshadowed a pattern. Everywhere insurgents spend more energy attacking their fellow inhabitants than the foreign enemy. They do so in part, no doubt, because civilians are easier targets than soldiers, but this is not the crucial reason: it is that unless they can forge a solid core of like-minded people, they cannot hope to survive, much less to "win".
    From Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq

    Let's put aside the fact that you don't understand the argument we're having. Going by that passage, how do you think the British and other parties saw the people described?

  17. #92
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    Yeah, you are.

    Where in that link does it specifically reference a FF?

    Try to stay in topic. With all your strawmen references and lack of an argument, you've been bumping around and can't seem to focus on the issue at hand:
    This is too funny

    were the FF commonly considered terrorists in their day and age? The answer is no, only in political propaganda machines were they labeled anywhere close to terrorists and none of the great writers and thinkers of that day support the position.
    Proof? I've already given you two pieces of evidence that you're wrong.

    I have yet to see a single source that specifically names a Founding Father and links him to a precisely terrorist, non-rebellious act. I have yet to find one do ent by a revered writer, author, or statesman that considered them such.
    Have you looked?

  18. #93
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    I think what's funny is that he doesn't realize he's the one who is going off topic. He keeps asking for evidence and has provided none himself.

  19. #94
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    I thought we were going off of primary sources and perceptions from that time period? This is neither and has no use in the current context of linking the FF with terrorists.

    Let's put aside the fact that you don't understand the argument we're having.
    we aren't having an argument whatsoever. You haven't stated a position to argue over. I'm simply wasting time here at work while you post links that have nothing to do with the FF specifically.

  20. #95
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    I think what's funny is that he doesn't realize he's the one who is going off topic. He keeps asking for evidence and has provided none himself.
    Why should I provide evidence for Manny's statement? You can stop changing the subject and answer this question.

  21. #96
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    his declaration is that the US is immune to that label, regardless of action.

    his programming is complete.

  22. #97
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    I thought we were going off of primary sources and perceptions from that time period? This is neither and has no use in the current context of linking the FF with terrorists.
    You dodged the question. So either you know by answering it you'll hurt your position or you don't understand why I was asking. I'm leaning towards the latter.



    we aren't having an argument whatsoever. You haven't stated a position to argue over. I'm simply wasting time here at work while you post links that have nothing to do with the FF specifically.
    It doesn't name names, the founding fathers are absolved! Hoorah!

  23. #98
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    Why should I provide evidence for Manny's statement? You can stop changing the subject and answer this question.
    Are you trolling me?

    I'm asking you to provide evidence to your point that people of the time didn't see the Americans as terrorists. Still waiting.

  24. #99
    United Autodidact Society Shastafarian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    8,321
    his declaration is that the US is immune to that label, regardless of action.

    his programming is complete.
    It's like he reads the posts, the information gets midway into his brain, then it just evaporates.

  25. #100
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Had to deal with some insurance paperwork and a couple of patients but here we go:

    http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/procreb.html

    And because it is going to come up, the word terrorist is not used but the descriptions used to describe the founding fathers are synonymous with the usage of the word terrorist today. I'm not sure if the word terrorist was in actual usage in that time period, but the meanings are obviously the same.

    Enjoy.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •