What we had were a bunch of drunken Boston Patriot fans, attempting to disguise themselves as Indians and commit a B&E on private propterty and vandalize the private goods of English merchants. First they liguored up at Sam Adams bar, and when drunk enough performed their vaunted act of "patriotism."
Now, I want to act those Republicans how do you justify this act of destruction of private property?
For those compassionate conservative christians that abhor public drunkeness, how do you excuse this example?
For all you proud patriots, why did these guys hide behind the phony disquises?
What is the pervailing thought about the rights of the families of the investors in the merchandise destroyed?
If we admire these acts of property destruction, use of anti-recognition effects, stealth attacks with immediate withdrawl and hiding, should we applaud this sort of activity in other locations? Or is this ok when we do it, but to be condemned when others do it?
You know, the familiar do as I say, not do as I do routine?
Publius
Current Events » in reply to re: Boston teaparty: 1773
Boston teaparty: 1773-curious how does this play to Republicans?
The whole thread (28 posts)
- We need to kill them first
- hmm, Russians went full-force into Afghanistan
- re: Stinging attack on Bush. I hope he hear's it and we take out Al Sadr.
- Insurgency battles
- re: Very smart
- any occupied population? No, not Vichy France (n/t)
- There are would-be "insurgents" in every population
- "Occupied population?"
- re: "Occupied population?"
- 20,000 insurgents is still only 0.08 percent of the population.
- only 0.08%
- rBritish probably said the same thing, after the Boston teaparty (n/t)
- 20,000 insurgents is still only 0.08 percent of the population.
- re: "Occupied population?"