Would you have been a 'Patriot' or a 'Tory'?

Umm... As I can see this obviously did not turn out well...

I was meaning for an intelligent debate, I guess I can blame myself for not sparking one. The redneck remark was not to be taken out of context I live around rednecks and it makes me feel safe to know that if I need anything their right next door and always willing to help. But how I phrased it in that sentence did not turn out right.

And no the founding fathers were not 'rednecks' of any term.

Originally posted by Misoir
During the American Revolution would have been a Patriot/Revolutionary or would you have been a Tory/Loyalist?

I into explanation why in 1776 I would have been what is referred to as a Loyalist/Tory. The Revolutionaries/Patriots were violent rebels that were opposed to the crown.

It's not that I am against the founding fathers, the reasons for the revolution or the constitution. It is that I believe at the time it was unnecessary. We could have fought against the British without it being violent rebellion, we could have forced them to listen to us and come to some sort of peace agreement. We did not support compromise of any kind. We tarred and feathered our fellow citizens that just happened to disagree with the rebellion. I go into that further on that thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Tea Party Movement really mirrors the people who represented the revolution. I am opposed to the Tea Party Movement in any form. I think we are coming to a point in time where we have to either declare ourselves a Patriot(Anti-government, Tea Partier) or a Loyalist(Pro-government, anti-Tea Partier). I have already drawn my line in the sand. The government is bad and corrupt but the Tea Partiers are insane.

So which would you be? A Tory/Loyalist or a Patriot/Revolutionary?

And which side would you be on today? A Patriot/Tea Partier or a Loyalist/Pro-Government?

EDIT: I apologize to everyone that I offended in this OP. I changed it now so it can spark a debate and not an argument. Please just read it again and reply if you want.

Both by definition would have been considered patriotic.. according to what side you were on.

I, of course.. would have chosen neither side.

Sandra Oh reads speech given by Emma Goldman, just prior to the US entry into WW1: What is patriotism?






[edit on 6-6-2010 by broahes]

reply to post by Misoir


Just as the Founders did prior to 1776, which was to appeal to the sanity of the Crown, to negotiate a peaceful means of understanding, so too has the Tea Party Movement. Prior the the Revolution for Independence, the thirteen colonies had made every effort to negotiate equal and fair representation in Parliament, but every effort was met with steadfast refusal. The colonies also believed they had the right to govern themselves, but this also was rejected by the well documented Madness of King George, and by 1774 those thirteen colonies had established their own Provincial Congress and had expelled all royal officials. It was the response of the Crown that dictated war and the eventual and inevitable Revolution that followed.

Great Britain responded to the American's attempts at self government by sending combat troops in order to impose their authority over the colonies, and what began as an idea, turned into the bloody war that Great Britain demanded. This era of revolutionary ideas began around 1763 when Britain began imposing a series of direct taxes and other intrusive laws upon the colonies, and since the colonies had no direct representation in Parliament there was little they could do outside of flat out defiance except protest. With the establishment of their own First Continental Congress, and the violence that erupted in Boston due to a blood thirsty royal military, in spite of the constant pleas by the First Continental Congress directly to the Crown, to intervene on the colonists behalf, England's refusal to accommodate, led to the establishment of The Second Continental Congress and eventually war.

The taxation without representation had continued to increase and by the time of the Stamp Act in 1765 the colonists were faced with their first direct tax imposed by the Crown. After the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the British responded by passing a series of legislative acts that became known as The Intolerable Acts. The first of these acts restricted town meetings in Massachusetts, the second act protected British soldiers from any legal action by the colonies, and any British soldier to be tried for a crime would be tried in England, the third act closed the port of Boston, and the final intolerable act by the Crown was the Quartering Act, where British troops were given the homes of Americans granted by royal governors without any permission required by the owner of those homes.

Benjamin Franklin was at the forefront of the peaceful attempts to bring sanity and reason to an intolerable situation and went to England himself where he appealed Parliament directly to repeal the Stamp Act, and yet Parliament stubbornly refused. Franklin's accomplishments as a diplomat are well documented and not disputed, the diplomacy of one King George is not at all a part of history, and his and Parliaments arrogance ensured their historical legacy of being the ones directly responsible for loosing control of the American colonies. They lost control by asserting far more control than was ever prudent.

Just as the thirteen colonies had done in attempting to find some sort of peaceful revolution, so now the Tea Party Movement is doing the same. It should be noted that where the colonists by and large revolted over direct taxes on the sale of certain goods such as stamps and tea, there was no such thing as an income tax, and certainly not an income tax in perpetuity. The vast and varied members of today's Tea Party Movement began long before there was even a Tea Party to begin with, and many conservatives had abandoned the Republican Party to join with the Libertarian Party in protest to what was clearly a Republican Party who had long ago abandoned the republic in favor of political power.

While conservatives were leaving the Republican Party, both loyal members of that Republican Party and the Democratic Party watched the federal government take the imprudent "war on drugs", an undeniable attack on the people to ever increasing levels, that has led to the imprisonment of more people per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world, and accelerate this vicious attack on American people even more, and a gross show of deadly and intimidating force with such violent and unnecessary acts such as Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

The Libertarian Party cemented its own doom as a political party by first demanding an oath of fealty from all its members, demanding all Libertarians vote strictly along party lines, then failing miserably in offering any viable candidates that could be elected to office. The civil unrest that had been increasingly growing each decade was culminating in a grass roots movement with out any organized name or party, but were simply people who were rightfully appalled at the usurpation and unconstitutional acts of a federal government by all three branches that have clearly conspired to work together in order to impose federal rule over the people, instead of working as a check on each other as was originally mandated by Constitution.

Thus, after 9/11 and the remarkably incompetent passage of the so called Patriot Act, where members of Congress openly admitted they had not even read the bill before passing it, a Tea Party Movement began to gel, first in the efforts of anti-war protesters who came from both right and left wing ideologies, and with each atrocity the federal government committed, these disparate and frustrated Americans began to recognize that the so called two party system was a sham, and that the incumbents of Congress, and state legislatures had betrayed their constituents in favor of personal political power.

The federal government of today has raided and arrested members of the Hutaree, not for any acts of violence or crimes committed but for suspicion of crimes not yet committed, that all hinge on the word of a single government agent who had infiltrated the Hutaree and acted as a spy. Through the courage of a single federal judge, and the clear and present, and indeed, gross incompetence of the prosecution, the obvious efforts at intimidation by the federal government is only sparking more unrest, and doing little to convince Americans that they should mind their P's and Q's and just do as their told.

Sycophants of government are everywhere denying that inalienable rights even exist, and insisting that any rights the people have are those rights the government allows, while organizations such as The United Nations continually negotiate deals with corrupt politicians to continue the usurpations of a Constitutionally established government in favor of some more insidious world government. The battle lines are clearly being drawn, and where movements such as the Tea Party seek to find a peaceful way of returning this nation to the rule of law, where due process of law is once again respected, sycophants of government such as the O.P. continue to bait and cajole and beg for war by calling everyday people who have done nothing more than organize in ways to peacefully influence the political process as being insane.

In a day and age when the term "homegrown" terrorist is used to describe people who merely show up to protest, it is clear who the psychopathic fear mongering advocates of violence are, and it sure as hell ain't the Tea Party members. These ruthless advocates of violence proudly declare themselves socialists pretending their socialism is some sort of compassion when each day it becomes more clear that while they ignore all the violent force the government has used to quell protest and the right to peaceably assemble and of the people to petition their government for a redress of grievances, they also encourage that government to continue doing more to quell these rights simply so that they may have their own political ideology imposed upon all Americans, and would demand we bow our heads in reverence and thank these benign socialists for their brutal compassion.

You want debate, O.P.? I stand ready to debate you and challenge you to support your assertions that a political party that has caused no violent acts against either the people or the government are insane. Such violent rhetoric can have only one purpose, and that purpose is to incite the violence you can not point to today. You want debate O.P.? Then defend the violent actions of government against its own people! Defend the governments gross imprisonment of more people per capita than China has, or even the Soviet Union at the height of its tyranny, and while you're defending these abhorrent acts against the Constitution those government officials swore an oath to uphold, while you're defending the intolerable acts of violence committed by this government, explain to us how sane you are.



[edit on 6-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I have tried to understand the TPM, and not by listening to the media or watching protests. I have registered to the TPM website to see what they are talking about, get to know them before I continue saying anything about them. And what I saw I did not like.

Freedom fighters? I don't think so when they have articles declaring that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is perpetuated by Communist Liberals. Then when I tried to respond by saying that the constitution says equality before the law I was attacked and eventually my responses were removed.

I visited TPM several more times and while not everyone was racist, homophobic, libertarian alot of them were and I did not like that. So I stopped visiting TPM about 2 weeks ago.

As Americans we all have a right to be pretty darn pissed off at our so called government that is corrupt, ignorant and thuggish; but to support the efforts of the TPM would be like driving a steak through my own heart. While I am not pro-administration or in support of anyone in our Congress, I am pro-government being a Socialist and all. These people are a threat to any foundation of Social Democracy IMO and I do not support a revolution or a libertarian takeover.

I am a Civil Libertarian too, I hate the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs(War on Minorities). I hate our foreign military bases, the government spying, the government corruption with corporations and bankers, the destrouction of our environment, the seizing of private land, the sellout of our healthcare to corporations under the name of Universal Healthcare, the impending sellout of SS and Medicare/Medicaid to Wall Street. I hate all of that, but I am pro-government.

If I was promised that if they had a Revolution and I was allowed to choose other than Libertarian or Libertarian, I could support a Revolution. But as of right now when they talk about constitution and the role of government I can't help but say no F'ng way.

reply to post by Misoir


I know of no Tea Party members that are advocating violence, nor have I meant one of these so called "homophobes" or "racists" that you speak of. It of course makes sense that a self avowed socialist would attack Libertarians as Libertarians advocate free market principles, but the Libertarian Party is a legitimate political party that continually runs for elected office, not revolution, but office in government by being elected legally. Of course, it is the willful deceit by the self avowed socialists to continually insist that Libertarians want to overthrow a government that was usurped long ago, but this is demonstrably false. The best you can do is offer your own personal point of view, as you clearly have no understanding of history, and by your own language reveal a gross misunderstanding of law.

You claim to advocate equality before the law, but Libertarians advocate equality under the law, and no one is above that law...no one. Nothing comes before the law and all are subject to the law, including and especially government officials. The only person I see calling for revolution is you, and your frustration is not the fear of revolution, it is that a grass roots political movement has developed that would find a peaceful way to reign in government other than the violent revolution you admittedly get behind were it not for the fact that you fear so many you imagine would fight this revolution. Your imagination is quite active, many members are aware of this, and it is arguable that you have allowed this overactive imagination of yours to enter into websites of movements you were not in support of to begin with only to find evidence to condemn that movement.

You are entitled to your opinions, but increasingly these opinions are shrill and histrionic, and only seek to divide rather than unite and work together to fix the very government you pretend to support while simultaneously pretending to revile that government. This paradoxical nature you reveal suggests a psychosis, or at the very least, a neurosis. It seems it is the very same people who have become so comfortable with spewing accusations of racism and sexism who desperately need racism and sexism to exist in order to laud the terms as their trump cards whenever confronted with truth. Like a bad magician who drops all his cards, you hope to misdirect your audience by pointing to imaginary racists and sexists. Only the loving and tolerant parents of a childlike backyard magician would applaud such bumbling and stumbling. No one is forcing you to be a member of the Tea Party, and there is no call to incite violence against them.

reply to post by Misoir


Ohh Misoir.

You remind me of the french term Misere, which is misery..

Why would you allow yourself to be given such a narrow label? You've really just gone and put yourself, your countrymen and the the political system in a box.

A very small box, where there is NO middle ground, no fringe, just 2 things.

Either violent anti-government extremism, or red necks as you so eloquently put it.

Or violent, pro-government extremism.

Both these scenarios are extremely poor.

The problem with politics today is that we've allowed ourselves to take sides of a party, instead of OUR side. The taxpayer side.

Politics should be an evolving process, where it constantly changes and reforms itself to meet the current world climate and societal structure.

I don't even know why we have static party's. The actual party system itself is a tool used to control you, and you've feel right into it.

You are smarter than that. Everybody here who argues that one or the other are better, are flat wrong. They are both the different sides of the same coin.

A tool used to control and divide you so that you cannot see what is being done in the VIP section.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It of course makes sense that a self avowed socialist would attack Libertarians as Libertarians advocate free market principles,

I don't mean to jump off topic here.

But there is no mutual distinction between Socialism and Libertarianism. The two are not mutually exclusive, and it is in fact possible to be a Libertarian Socialist, which quite accurately describes my own political disposition.

Also, it is worth mentioning that:

when 77% of the Tea Partiers voted for John McCain

and 74% identify themselves as members of the Republican party

Politico

it is absolutely disingenuous to claim that the majority (or even a significant percentage) of the Tea-Partiers are libertarian. The Republican party (much like the Democratic party) has delivered naught but heavily-Authoritarian leadership for decades, and John McCain has an extensive Authoritarian voting record.








[edit on 6-6-2010 by drwizardphd]

reply to post by drwizardphd


What is absolutely disingenuous is to pretend I presented the Tea Party Movement as being primarily members of the Libertarian Party. It is also absolutely disingenuous to pretend there is no such thing as a Libertarian Party:

www.lp.org...

It is disingenuous to attempt to hijack that political parties efforts by claiming the term Libertarianism belongs to socialists. I referred to the Libertarian Party, and did so several times in my posts, and will not even acknowledge these disingenuous games of semantics as having any validity. The Libertarian Party has been and continues to be a political party in the U.S. that is steadfast in their advocacy of free market principles. Thus, when a self avowed socialist is attacking Libertarians, it is not so much a stretch of imagination to understand who that socialist is referring to.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


What is absolutely disingenuous is to pretend I presented the Tea Party Movement as being primarily members of the Libertarian Party.

Actually it was Misoir who claimed the Tea Party was predominantly Libertarian. I was simply providing a correction.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is also absolutely disingenuous to pretend there is no such thing as a Libertarian Party:

www.lp.org...

It is disingenuous to attempt to hijack that political parties efforts by claiming the term Libertarianism belongs to socialists.

I'm not going to step into a debate here, as it does not fit the topic of the OP. However, I must ask if you are misinterpreting my post on purpose, or are simply confused.

Libertarianism is simply the advocacy of the natural rights we enjoy as Humans. It cannot "belong" to Socialists, just like it cannot "belong" to the official Libertarian party.

The US Libertarian party actually has very little claim over the term 'Libertarian', and exists as somewhat of a political oxymoron. They have openly supported the wars overseas, spoken out against abortion rights, and perhaps most damningly ran Bob Barr (who has voted against homosexual rights and religious freedom in the military, and supported the first patriot act) during the last election.

reply to post by drwizardphd


You hit the reply button to one of my posts, you quote me, did not at all distinguish when you began this accusation of absolute dis ingenuousness that you were referring to something the O.P. stated, which of course I was aware of, and then have the gall to ask if I am confused. You claim you are not going to step into a debate, but you clearly are looking for an argument. Further, I do not see the O.P. advocating natural rights at all, I see that member attacking political ideologies he does not agree with and calling them insane, and racist and sexist. Even further, your issue truly seems to be with the O.P. and not me, but it is me you seem to want to argue with. Could this be because you too are a socialist, and you take issue with anyone who would take the socialist to task for their wild rhetoric?

The worst thing of all, and utter and absolute dis ingenuousness is your claim that the Libertarian Party supports foreign wars, as the amount of Libertarian Party members in Congress that actually approved wars overseas is so ridiculously slight as to make your claims read like outright lies. The wars overseas that the U.S. are involved in are conflicts that have been approved by Congress which are indeed overwhelmingly Democrats and Republicans. That is the fact of the matter, contrasted with your wild rhetoric attempting to discredit a political party that has no political power to speak of.


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Misoir
The Revolutionaries/Patriots were violent rebels that were mostly what we call today 'Rednecks'. The Tories were educated, upper class officials.

Interesting view upon the over generalization between the two and quite ignorant in the assumption that patriots of late 1700s were ‘rednecks’ as you put it. You have torpedoed your own argument in that assessment alone.

It's not that I am against the founding fathers, the reasons for the revolution or the constitution. It is that I believe at the time it was unnecessary. We could have fought against the British without it being violent rebellion, we could have forced them to listen to us and come to some sort of peace agreement. We did not support compromise of any kind.

There were attempts to fight the Crown using politics and they failed on a consistent basis. Attempts to receive equal representation within the Parliament were met with underhanded dealings and contempt. Compromises were dealt from the Crown in the form of unjust taxes, targeted acts towards the colonies of America, non-representation of the American Colonies and use of military force to enforce those policies.

- The Iron Act
- The Currency Act
- The Sugar Act
- The Stamp Act
- The Intolerable Act

Those don’t seem like compromises, but rather means of forcing a people to succumb to the power of what was the most powerful nation on Earth at the time.

…Patriot(Anti-government, Tea Partier) or a Loyalist(Pro-government, anti-Tea Partier).

Here is how you have fallen for the propaganda being put forth. Most patriots, or even those that ascribe to the Tea Party movement are not anti-government. While their sentiments are being amplified, they are for limited government, not an abolishment of government on a whole. John Adams was a patriot, who having full belief in the rule of law, regardless took up defense of British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre.

So which would you be? A Tory/Loyalist or a Patriot/Revolutionary?

I would choose liberty over loyalty any day of the week. I am loyal to the Constitution, as under oath I have committed myself willingly to its supreme standing and to the defense of it. By doing so, that also seems to place me as a Patriot. Call me a loyal patriot.

I don't think the french will be happy at being called redneck