Thread: Does the 'Tea Party' movement need a new name?

The only reason the Tea Party would need to rebrand is because liberals have filthy, filthy minds.

The tea party was more about the principle of taxation without representation, a political battle that had by that time been raging for over a decade. The Tea act technically did lower taxes, but it retained the idea that the Parliament had the power to tax without it. The "polishing of the turd" didn't fly with the colonies.

We face a similar issue today. As government systematically creates more and more dependents on handouts, between the big three entitlements, the intentional importation of impoverished foreigners, and the ever growing army of government unionized workers, it won't be long before the tyranny of the majority renders our representation just as virtual.

I highly doubt liberals would stop calling them tea baggers no matter what they did. For them its not about rationale, its about being mean.

And I agree with commoder. The Boston Tea Party may have not had the right response, but they were angry over taxes being applied to them while the British were a far away. And conservative do best when they own their brands. There is no negative connotation to Tea Party. Why would they change it?

They should change their name to "Donkey Punchers", since the donkey is the symbol of the Democrats. And it sounds fierce! Rawr, we're Donkey Punchers!

I immagine the Tea Party could branch off in to smaller, more localized groups. Sub-groups along the Mexican border who are against illegal immigrants could call themselves "Dirty Sanchezes", Sanchez being a Mexican sounding name. Ohio residents may become "Cleveland Steamers", because they're "steamed" at the government, etc. You get the idea.

Originally Posted by Jefe

They should change their name to "Donkey Punchers", since the donkey is the symbol of the Democrats. And it sounds fierce! Rawr, we're Donkey Punchers!

I immagine the Tea Party could branch off in to smaller, more localized groups. Sub-groups along the Mexican border who are against illegal immigrants could call themselves "Dirty Sanchezes", Sanchez being a Mexican sounding name. Ohio residents may become "Cleveland Steamers", because they're "steamed" at the government, etc. You get the idea.

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by jviehe

And I agree with commoder. The Boston Tea Party may have not had the right response, but they were angry over taxes being applied to them while the British were a far away. And conservative do best when they own their brands. There is no negative connotation to Tea Party. Why would they change it?

I wonder if there should be. We lionize it as part of our heritage, but on the surface the Boston Tea Party was the unauthorized destruction of millions of dollars in the private property of a legitimate company, carried out in order to force a change in government policy and/or to scare the Company into not conducting business in Boston. It doesn't take a terrible amount of imagination to see that as "terrorism."

Imagine a crowd, angry over oil company profits and gas taxes, destroying a privately owned refinery. Is destroying the property of a law-abiding private corporation an acceptable way to express either unhappiness with the conduct of that corporation or unhappiness with government taxation/policy? I think most people today would say "no."

Originally Posted by Commodore

I rest my case.

You're just jealous.

I think calling the Tea Party a "movement" is probably an accurate description. An appropriate term since it's really a reactionary movement, rather than a revolution. They should probably change it to something like "Tea Party Reaction" or "Reactionary Proto Fascists of America". Maybe they could have a contest, see if they can come up with a catchy new name.

Originally Posted by Jefe

They should change their name to "Donkey Punchers", since the donkey is the symbol of the Democrats. And it sounds fierce! Rawr, we're Donkey Punchers!

I think that may put a spanner in their whole "we hate Democrats and Republicans" mantra though.

Maybe they could be known as Elephant thumpers or something as well as going after Dems, to add a bit of balance, eh?

Of course that's a slogan you never wanna make a typo on...only outside of KY and WV i don't see many folks voting for a party of self professed "Elephant humpers".

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I wonder if there should be. We lionize it as part of our heritage, but on the surface the Boston Tea Party was the unauthorized destruction of millions of dollars in the private property of a legitimate company, carried out in order to force a change in government policy and/or to scare the Company into not conducting business in Boston. It doesn't take a terrible amount of imagination to see that as "terrorism."

Imagine a crowd, angry over oil company profits and gas taxes, destroying a privately owned refinery. Is destroying the property of a law-abiding private corporation an acceptable way to express either unhappiness with the conduct of that corporation or unhappiness with government taxation/policy? I think most people today would say "no."

Keep in mind that the whole purpose of colonies was to enrich the mother country via mercantilism. To call the British East India company a private company is comical, it got government subsidies, loans, actually ruled large chucks of India, and enjoyed a monopoly in the colonies, and the colonies where forbidden from trading with anyone else, enforced by none other than the Royal Navy.

It was the single payer system of its day.

As an instrument of the Crown, its property was just as legitimate a target of angst as the British soldiers who would be pelted with ice balls.

Originally Posted by Ted

I think calling the Tea Party a "movement" is probably an accurate description. An appropriate term since it's really a reactionary movement, rather than a revolution. They should probably change it to something like "Tea Party Reaction" or "Reactionary Proto Fascists of America". Maybe they could have a contest, see if they can come up with a catchy new name.

No. They are still revolutionaries. Everyone else is a counter-revolutionary.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Keep in mind that the whole purpose of colonies was to enrich the mother country via mercantilism. To call the British East India company a private company is comical, it got government subsidies, loans, actually ruled large chucks of India, and enjoyed a monopoly in the colonies, and the colonies where forbidden from trading with anyone else, enforced by none other than the Royal Navy.

It was the single payer system of its day.

As an instrument of the Crown, its property was just as legitimate a target of angst as the British soldiers who would be pelted with ice balls.

So the crowd's night-time destruction of property was OK because the EIC was semi-public?

What about burning down a Post Office? The Postal Service is semi-public. Is that an acceptable way for a bunch of angry citizens to express their dissatisfaction with government policy or the Postal Service's governmental backing?

Still kinds sounds like terrorism: "we don't like what you're doing, so we'll destroy stuff to make you stop."

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Still kinds sounds like terrorism: "we don't like what you're doing, so we'll destroy stuff to make you stop."

Well, what else does one do with a government unresponsive to the will of the people?

And the precedent had already been set...