1701

In the context of this discussion, the actions during the original Boston Tea Party have zero relevance to the actions of the Tea Party today.

Really? People were tarred and feathered and blown up during the Boston Tea Party? Please continue! I must have missed that history lesson.

1702

The Tea Party are angels who have no violent bone in their body, law abiding citizens who would harm no one. Save frail women who get in their way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNzhZf1mYZQ

She had a blonde wig though so that makes it A Ok.

1703

You know what? You tell me what law the gentleman filming this was violating that necessitated being fired upon and I’ll agree with your entire dumb point:

You think they would have shot at the guy if he was armed?

Fact of the matter is “standing around in a park” isn’t against the law no matter how horrible, terrible, and awful you make it by pointing out that hypothetical people might hypothetically be inconvenienced by their presence. The violence isn’t even always against park dwellers, people marching in the street, like the woman who was kicked in the stomach and pepper sprayed. Oh I’m sorry, I meant to say pregnant woman who miscarriage after being kicked in the stomach and pepper sprayed http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/21/pregant-woman-blasted-with-pepper-spray-by-spd-reportedly-miscarries

This is just like the “torture” debate where the powers that be tried to change the debate to “is it torture” so they didn’t have to debate the real issue: “SHOULD we torture”.
You are trying to debate whether of not the OWS crowd deserves violence instead of whether or not violence should be used against the non-violent. Like a pregnant woman or an 84 year old woman: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Elderly-woman-pepper-sprayed-during-Occupy-march-2271197.php (I don’t know how to <a href> links)

Draconian tactics don’t need to be used against people sitting still, or just marching, or chanting, I mean where do you stop? And I damn sure would have said the same thing had the Tea Baggers been attacked. With the millions behind them though it wasn’t likely.

I’m a little sickened that you find the word of a police officer so iron clad, that you must OBEY, at all times, in any situation, everything you are told by a police officer or he has the right to use a deadly or indiscriminate weapon against you.
That’s not how things change, that’s not how things get better. You can’t fight for what you think to be right by blindly acquiescing to authority even if the authority is wrong. Again, not a direct correlation, but EVERY movement (except the Tea Baggers) has the authorities telling them to stop. Where would we be right now if George Washington had said “Holy crap guys: the King told us to quiet down. I’m gonna go home have a biscuit, you guys need to do the same.”?

1704

You’d be Canadians, like every good American liberal dreams of being.

1705

No, I haven’t made any claims about how the name “had to have been chosen.” You’re the one who erected those goalposts in the first place. Here, I’ll give you the Cliffs Notes, since you appear to have lost your way:

Cool story, bro. But you’re completely wrong. Here, watch: this is what you THINK you said:

I point out that the Tea Party does not have any history of violence, and certainly no history of resisting the police in any way.

Here’s what you actually said:

By the way, I love how you characterize the Tea Partiers who do not do anything illegal as the “angry extremists.”

And that’s what I responded to. See how there’s nothing about the police in the part I quoted, directly above? So all your attempts to make it about the police do not apply. And since you’ve already agreed that the Tea Party was indeed “historically violent”, you are just talking to yourself.

Get it now? I’ll spell it out one more time: If the Tea Party didn’t want to be thought of as angry extremists, then they shouldn’t have taken the name “Tea Party”. That’s the entirety of my point.

And, not for nothing, you know I’m right about this, because you won’t give me a single alternate reason as to why they did choose the “Tea Party” moniker. It’s OK to admit a mistake, Andy. It’s the first step towards learning.

1706

Ummm, there is nothing wrong with using violence against the non-violent. Its if the force used was excessive that’s imortant.

1707

Mm-hum.

1708

How much violence against the nonviolent is excessive?

1709

Maybe they considered it a serving of vegetables.

1710

And listen, really, I think we can all summarize your thoughts on OWS: “They should expect trouble from the police, they don’t have a clear message, they’re not noble enough, and besides it’s all over for them anyway.” That about right? There, no need to post about them anymore!

“They should expect trouble from the police” Yes

“they don’t have a clear message” Yes

“they’re not noble enough” ?

“and besides it’s all over for them anyway.” This Phase

If they want to change things they need to Occupy the places of power where the people who change things reside, like Congress. They need to go after the politicians. Obstructing traffic and camping in city parks are not going to change any financial laws in this country.

I am happy to see that you don’t have me on ignore. :)

1711

God I know right?? And don’t you just hate the way girls pee out of their butts??

1712

Enough to make them comply with the law if other methods fail and no more. Not to get all Starship Troopers, but violence does indeed solve a number of problems. That said I’m talking about forcibly removing someone from somewhere by frogmarching/carrying them, not punitive violence like pepperspray and tasers.

If they need a coherent message, you know what it should be? A simple two-planker: Reverse the Citizens United decision and set term limits for Congress. That would do more to reverse the political cronyism than anything else. I would also like to see a ban on working in the lobbying industry after serving in Congress but that’s too much of a personal freedom infringement.

H.

1713

…As had been the trend for much of the movement, the groups seemed focused on short-term logistical goals— above all, shelter and communication. Few speakers mentioned priorities related to the movement’s long-term political aims.

Several participants in the meeting spoke of the need to remain within the public eye or to muster public sentiment against the city’s overnight raid on Zuccotti Park last week, but far more were concerned with how to reconstitute the physical occupation in some form.

Only one working group— appropriately, perhaps, it was the one called “movement building”— seemed to question whether another occupation was actually necessary or desirable. Its representative warned against the potential danger of investing too much time and energy into reestablishing a physical occupation, at the expense of other actions.

1714

I’d much rather see campaign finance reform than term limits, and a reversal of whatever decision allows Fox News to claim to be News while not bothering to make a good-faith effort to be correct.

1715

My cat’s breath smells like cat food

1716

I never claimed that I would defend every police action, ever, against anyone.

If they’re “sitting still” or “just marching” somewhere illegal and refuse to move, then yes, force will sometimes need to be used. It is possible to be just “sitting still” and still cause a hazard to yourself or others.

No, but I’m going to give a police officer more of the benefit of the doubt. They put their lives at risk every day, and they are trained on how to quickly defuse a situation and minimize the risk to others. Again, not in every situation, but sometimes force can be used to resolve a situation before it gets worse.

And you don’t the see the difference between “the authorities are telling them to stop” and “the police are telling them they are doing something illegal.” The reason the Tea Party movement didn’t have problems with police is because they didn’t use illegality as part of their tactics.

1717

Oh look, corpses and arrests under terrorism laws.

Given these are campus cops, prove this.

1718

My god, it’s the power to make Andy seem reasonable! Dawn, are you a superhero?

1719

No, it always was about the police; you just chose to ignore the part I responded to. See how I made that comment in direct response to a comment about police being afraid of “angry extremists”? That was the context for the statement. Sorry, but you can’t take one sentence out of context to determine what I actually meant.

If you think that throwing tea into the ocean is “violence,” then yeah, the original Tea Party was a horrible massacre. There was tea everywhere! None of which has anything to do with any violence from the current Tea Party, mind you.

And a name doesn’t make anyone “angry” or “extremist”, which was my point. People don’t think I’m a knife-wielding murderous psychopath just because my last name is “Bates.”

No, I know you’re wrong that a name makes someone “angry” or “extremist”, which is why I refuse to entertain discussions about why the name was chosen.

1720

I wouldn’t be so sure of that if I was you.

So, why did they choose the name “Tea Party” again?