Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Your history is terrible, sir. The Boston Tea party was a direct act of civil disobedience against english law. Specifically, the Tea Tax act which took effect on May 10, 1773. If the colonies were not under british control and law, the Tea Tax Act would not have been an issue, would it? The Tea Party was a definitive act of civil disobedience, performed by some of the founding fathers of the country.
It sounds like what they did was entirely unacceptable to you and many other posters on this board. Or, is there one standard for causes you agree with, and another for causes which you do not?
Well, if your nun-burning remark was "facetious", then my remarks were just clever puns. 
|
Against English law, England was an enemy of our way of life at the time, the standard of my political cause is very simple: I like America and don't enjoy people hurting it, the Boston tea party furthers this goal, these nuns do not.
England and the colonies at this point are two seperate powers, there's no way you're going to retain English law whilst commiting acts of war against England, I highly doubt they ever recognized English law as legitamate in the first place.
The people who I disagree with are disobeying their own law, it's not oppressive and it's not foriegn, if they don't like it then there are far more efficient means of going about changing it then trespassing on a nuclear silo (the forefathers sure weren't stupid enough to throw the cannonballs from an english battleship overboard). This ability for change the Boston tea party fellows just didn't have available to them, the motives were different. You have independance on one hand, and on the other you have contempt for your own country. So I say phooey, this is nothing at all like the Boston tea party.