calfoxwc Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 Boston Tea party = peaceful. Liberals love to change definitions to make fake justifications for their emotional knee jerking. : devoid of violence or force The opposing groups used peaceful tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 Boston Tea party = peaceful. Liberals love to change definitions to make fake justifications for their emotional knee jerking. : devoid of violence or force The opposing groups used peaceful tactics. The TEA party of today = peaceful protests...many times they even would clean up their garbage and trash after their rallies unlike the messes the left usually leaves behind after any of their protests/rallies for others to clean up after them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 yep - we went to some Tea Party rallies - nothing but terrific Americans there, no garbage. reminds me of the phoney anti-war protests at Kent State - a whole lot of garbage.... and arson - the ROTC building was burned down. Threats to any student with a camera - they would assume you were a "narc" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 So in a recent conversation with liberal friend the outrage of the day was the fact that someone wants to hold protesters, or rioters as I call them, responsible for financial losses of the people that they have inconvenienced or damaged during the protest. Any of you members of loyal opposition find this to be a thing? Personally I'd have no problem at all holding these people liable for financial damages. And that goes for protesters on either side of an issue. You mean "rioters" on either side... Interesting question... Physical damages, be they purposeful as in a truly riotous protest or accidental, are certainly fair game, but "existing laws", a phrase conservatives love, already cover that. As for loss of business because patrons stay away... no... sorry, but no. To assess a charge for this would violate at least two elements of the 1st Amendment, the freedoms of assembly and speech. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Any protest large enough to disrupt commerce requires a parade permit. So what might be done is to vary the locations/routes for which parade permits are issued. That way no one business is driven out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 Start Its very difficult comparing the Boston Tea Party, the Civil Rights Movement, and even those Vietnam War protests against these fucking sissy ass snowflakes still upset that Hillary isn't the president. A price we pay for freedom is allowing people to be asshole liberals....redundant I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 You mean "rioters" on either side... Well yeah, in case one day conservatives actually started rioting. Interesting question... Physical damages, be they purposeful as in a truly riotous protest or accidental, are certainly fair game, but "existing laws", a phrase conservatives love, already cover that. Well, that wasn't really a question. And what is it that's troubles you about Conservatives "loving" to say "existing laws"? You don't like existing laws? They are a nuisance to your liberal agendas? As for loss of business because patrons stay away... no... sorry, but no. To assess a charge for this would violate at least two elements of the 1st Amendment, the freedoms of assembly and speech. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Any protest large enough to disrupt commerce requires a parade permit. So what might be done is to vary the locations/routes for which parade permits are issued. That way no one business is driven out of business. How ironic, you mock Conservatives about their clinging to existing laws, then you cite an Amendment that liberals and liberal judges love to skew and misinterpret as it pertains to religion. There is no existing law requiring "the separation of Church and State". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 By the way Tour no I wouldn't hold protesters liable if for instance customers refused to shop at a place that was being picketed. I would find the protesters liable if they intimidated or blocked entrance to customers. Sound about right? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 The Boston Tea Party was not peaceful, an armed group of men destroyed 3 ships worth of tea. Just because the people responsible for the Tea chose not to get in the way does not make it peaceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 Protesters should probably look at the optics of it all. If you stop some poor guy or gal from getting to work, I guarantee they will not be on your side. They may have been on the fence on the issue you care about but after getting a tardy or missing their kid's play, they will not be on your side of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 The Boston Tea Party was not peaceful, an armed group of men destroyed 3 ships worth of tea. Just because the people responsible for the Tea chose not to get in the way does not make it peaceful. go back to the definition of "peaceful". They shot no one, but were able to defend themselves. It is NOT VIOLENCE to the tea. That is just liberal emotional knee jerk. It was a direct response to aggression, and total oppression by the brits. Carrrying a ccw is not breaking the peace. The Boston Tea Party occured in 1773. The Shot Heard Around the World happened in 1775. The rest is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 It was a riot. Not much different than anti-war protesters wanting to break into the ROTC building and Burn It Down. Had the British prevailed in the Revolutionary War the Boston Massacre would be looked at as a great victory. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 It was a riot. Not much different than anti-war protesters wanting to break into the ROTC building and Burn It Down. Had the British prevailed in the Revolutionary War the Boston Massacre would be looked at as a great victory. WSS Pretty much this, purposeful destruction of private or public property in my book is not considered peaceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.