105 replies to this topic

[Corp]

-Mr_Fess-, on 13 January 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

Those with right on their side still found a way to pull it off. Who cares if it was sloppy? It still got done. Please don't make me make fun of Canada again for its mediocrity. I really likes ya guys but you have no bragging rights about anything except maybe hockey and in the grand scheme of things sports aren't important.

Yes they pulled it off because they brought in French and Prussian officers to train them to fight like a regular army instead of an armed mob. And given one of the causes of the Revolution was that the British wanted the colonists to stop fighting the Natives and trying to take their land the issue of right is quite debatable. Not sure where the hell the Canada rant came from. Sorry if historical fact doesn't fit with your cultural myths but that's just the way things are.

Yamato, on 13 January 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

So the birth of the US amounted to nothing more than a few seats in Parliament so think you and questionmark.

Actually the core issue of the Revolution was a question of representation. The British felt that members of Parliament spoke for all subjects no matter where they were, while the colonists wanted to have their own members. If the colonies had been given representation in the form of seats in Parliament there's a good chance that the Revolution might never have happened, or would have taken on a much different form.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Corp, on 14 January 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

that the Revolution might never have happened, or would have taken on a much different form.

If the King had given then some seats in the commons and a thrown a lordship or two at the colonies, then in a few years the American Colonies would have simply federated themselves like Australia did in 1900.

[F3SS]

Wearer of Hats, on 14 January 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

If the King had given then some seats in the commons and a thrown a lordship or two at the colonies, then in a few years the American Colonies would have simply federated themselves like Australia did in 1900.

Possibly, but you were ruled by some dumb king 10,000 miles away and we went on to form the greatest country the world has ever known and that's not just a personal opinion. That's historical fact.

[Yamato]

Corp, on 14 January 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

Actually the core issue of the Revolution was a question of representation. The British felt that members of Parliament spoke for all subjects no matter where they were, while the colonists wanted to have their own members. If the colonies had been given representation in the form of seats in Parliament there's a good chance that the Revolution might never have happened, or would have taken on a much different form.

Oh I see, so that's what it is. And you've even further unwittingly justified the 2nd Amendment by admitting that sometimes governments do not represent us adequately.   That is a very fine reason to have the right to bear arms.

Does the Congress represent the interests of the American people today?    Do I think my Congress represents my best interests?   My best interests are to pay my bills and live and love in peace with my fellow man.   Even people who live across an arbitrary line drawn by government.

[F3SS]

Yamato, on 14 January 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

And you've even further unwittingly justified the 2nd Amendment by admitting that sometimes governments do not represent us adequately.  

That was perfect!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

-Mr_Fess-, on 14 January 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Possibly, but you were ruled by some dumb king 10,000 miles away and we went on to form the greatest country the world has ever known and that's not just a personal opinion. That's historical fact.

Other then the Greatest Nation bit, obviously.

[F3SS]

Wearer of Hats, on 15 January 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

Other then the Greatest Nation bit, obviously.

Don't be jelous.

[Sakari]

The Silver Thong, on 12 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

The cops right now that abuse there power to an extent that is well, gross and well protected. To think the Second Amendment will save you from a govermental force of that of the United States is fooling onesself.  The Second Amendment is so out dated that it has become pointless as to what it was intended to do.  You see well organized malitials should also have black hawk helo`s and tanks and Jets, everything needed to defend against a tyrant. As we see there is absalutely no opposition to a tyrant type government such as the US if the goverment wanted to cruch private gun owners they could no matter what pea shooter one has.

Hey, I saw Red Dawn..........    ( the original )

Edited by Sakari, 15 January 2013 - 12:59 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

-Mr_Fess-, on 15 January 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Don't be jelous.

why would I be jealous of a country where I'd be paid moneky feed, have no support, no syllabus, 40 kids in a poorly resourced classroom... at least the only things teying to kill me in my country are the wildlife and the weather - not my government or neighbours.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Yes they pulled it off because they brought in French and Prussian officers to train them to fight like a regular army instead of an armed mob. And given one of the causes of the Revolution was that the British wanted the colonists to stop fighting the Natives and trying to take their land the issue of right is quite debatable. Not sure where the hell the Canada rant came from. Sorry if historical fact doesn't fit with your cultural myths but that's just the way things are.

Where did you learn your history ? The Revolution War was fought over Taxation without representation first and then over several other issues. Read the damn Declaration of Independence and it mentions nothing about fighting Indians except when the  British engaged them to fight Americans.. But indeed the colonization of America does have several dark nasty chapters but most of those werent by believers of freedom but federal policies. Next your gonna tell me the Civil War was about slavery.

Incase youve never read it it explains why we split from England and theres some very accurate books that describe this pre Revolution episode in great detail.

http://www.archives....transcript.html

Edited by AsteroidX, 15 January 2013 - 10:20 AM.

[F3SS]

Wearer of Hats, on 15 January 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

why would I be jealous of a country where I'd be paid moneky feed, have no support, no syllabus, 40 kids in a poorly resourced classroom... at least the only things teying to kill me in my country are the wildlife and the weather - not my government or neighbours.

Man you got it all wrong. Yea some places are like that but most places aren't. As for pay, don't listen to the occupiers. Noone is working for monkey feed unless they choose too. You really should come visit.. Seems that the foreign propaganda against us is working.

[Yamato]

Wearer of Hats, on 15 January 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

at least the only things teying to kill me in my country are the wildlife and the weather - not my government or neighbours.

How cemented over does the world's parking lot have to get before we stop worrying about "wildlife" walking in from the last vestiges of nature it has left?    People kill tens of millions of animals every single day in the world so us consumers can have that breast or filet on our plate.   Those animals are unlucky as all hell they're not as cute as Jennie's pretty kitty cat.   It's animals who need to worry about us because we're destroying the natural environment.  Worry about jellyfish sandwiches, and other such things that a humanist might have the moral capacity to care about.

[Corp]

Wearer of Hats, on 14 January 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

If the King had given then some seats in the commons and a thrown a lordship or two at the colonies, then in a few years the American Colonies would have simply federated themselves like Australia did in 1900.

My American History prof held to the theory that without the Revolution that America would have broken up into several nations. So New England, Virginia, Pennslyvania, and whatever the Borders had. Seems the cultural groups that settled the US did not like each other.

Yamato, on 14 January 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

Oh I see, so that's what it is. And you've even further unwittingly justified the 2nd Amendment by admitting that sometimes governments do not represent us adequately.   That is a very fine reason to have the right to bear arms.

Does the Congress represent the interests of the American people today? Do I think my Congress represents my best interests?   My best interests are to pay my bills and live and love in peace with my fellow man.   Even people who live across an arbitrary line drawn by government.

...what are you talking about? The whole point of the debate was that the British believed they were representing the colonialists. The Americans disagreed and wanted their own people in Parliament. This argument disolved into a shooting match. I'm not sure what you do but when I feel a representive isn't holding to my best interests I vote them out. I don't need a gun to do that.

AsteroidX, on 15 January 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Where did you learn your history ? The Revolution War was fought over Taxation without representation first and then over several other issues. Read the damn Declaration of Independence and it mentions nothing about fighting Indians except when the  British engaged them to fight Americans.. But indeed the colonization of America does have several dark nasty chapters but most of those werent by believers of freedom but federal policies. Next your gonna tell me the Civil War was about slavery.

Incase youve never read it it explains why we split from England and theres some very accurate books that describe this pre Revolution episode in great detail.

http://www.archives....transcript.html

You need to read my post again. I very clearly stated that the core issue of the Revolution was about representation. But since you know so much about the causes of the rebellion you'd know that the Quebec Act, which blocked off the rapid western expansion of American settlers, was noted as one of the Intorlerable Acts. Having the right to seize Native land and stop French settlers to be able to follow their religion and laws doesn't strike me as very noble. Plus it wasn't always federal policy that drove forward those dark periods but individual settlers or states that then when running to the federal government for help when the Native fought back. Though federal governments did set out some rather nasty policies when it came to the Natives. Such as the government of Thomas Jefferson.

There's been a lot of myth building around the American Revolution and while some hold some truth to them, others go against historical facts. There often seems to be a desire to paint the Founding Fathers and those behind the Revolution as saints and pure hearted men. This wasn't always the case. They were still just men and many looked to make a profit on the quest to freedom.

[Yamato]

Corp, on 15 January 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

...what are you talking about? The whole point of the debate was that the British believed they were representing the colonialists. The Americans disagreed and wanted their own people in Parliament. This argument disolved into a shooting match. I'm not sure what you do but when I feel a representive isn't holding to my best interests I vote them out. I don't need a gun to do that.

Yes, we disagree and want good representation, and then we rise up and reach for it, and get it.  That's what I'm talking about.   Even before the 2nd Amendment existed, we had the right to rise up and blow those British crooks away.   Don't dream this imaginary dream that we don't have that right now, with the 2nd Amendment representing.

Now there's a shooting match going on in Syria, as there was in Libya.  As there could have been in Egypt but thankfully there was not.  In every case it's the spirit of '76.  Some people call it "the Arab Spring" because they just had to jam their little ethnic group rhetoric in there.   It doesn't matter what personal characteristic someone has, it's all the same for everyone in the world, always has been, still is today.  

How can we be this comprehensively ignorant of every case of government killing its own people throughout the history of mankind?   It's happening right under our noses, will you wake up please?    The US government is the most warmaking government in the world today.  Why this blind faith in government sir?  What is the source of this trust?   Do you understand that the biggest slaughterer of American life is the US government sir?   Do you understand what the US government did to her own people in the Civil War, the divine right to legally put us to our deaths depending on a trial by often-paranoid peers.   Do you understand what the US government did to the Native Americans living on this soil?   To people with different colored skin.   To millions of foreigners now dead and buried because they lived under bureaucrats our government didn't find politically agreeable.  

We're worried about the wildlife outside our door, and the weather?    I am astonished.

[questionmark]

Corp, on 15 January 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

My American History prof held to the theory that without the Revolution that America would have broken up into several nations. So New England, Virginia, Pennslyvania, and whatever the Borders had. Seems the cultural groups that settled the US did not like each other.

He probably is not so wrong. America before 1770 was all but homogeneous, colonies were directed by half a dozen different denominations of pretty radical ( to not say fanatic) bible thumpers, additionally there were the liberals who wanted some more breathing space than what Europe could offer and political refugees like the Irish Scots. If  they could not find a common enemy I doubt they would have found common ground.