Forum Post: The America Revolution was the largest act of wealth redistribution the world has ever known.
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 20, 2012, 6:53 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The Crown invested billions of today’s dollars and hundreds of years into the colonies. The colonies pasted down through the family like any other trust fund asset. There is no doubt that legally. Internationally recognized, King George owned America. The Founding Fathers stole this country from him; they had some crazy idea that because they had built this country with their sweat and blood, they had more right to it than the person who had made it all possible with billions in investment, imagine that. Well I think we might be getting close to needing another revolution.
Erm........actually, several generations had lived in the colonies dealing with Kings that didn't speak English. So, all of a sudden they had a King that did speak English and that put an end to a few shenanigans.
The colonies were like the biggest welfare drama queens of the day. They wanted things like protection but they didn't want to pay for it. The majority of the Founding Fathers were rather rich compared to most people and held positions prior to the "revolution". A large portion of people living at the time thought that they were trading one crown for another.
It wasn't a "social revolution" either.
And when it was all over the US actually whined and cried for trade relations to be restored.
When you refer to "welfare drama queens" is that a reference to the billions of investment that I also refer to?
Not unless you are counting the soldiers as protection and paying the people to run it.
I was simply referring to money spent for all reasons, it seems you jump to attack before thinking, a common problem.
The clock is a tickin'. You wanted to oversimplify shit because it suited you at the time. That's the problem.
What if you don't want to present a four year program you can't refer to the American Revolution?
So not having any problems with the FACTS of the post you decided to jump in just to spout off bullshit?
I presented facts. The ones that you seem to want to oversimplify because it suited you at the time. Kind of like the NRA attempt to twist history.
Clocks a tickin', what else do you have?
You presented a rant that could be said about anyone at anytime really.
You have not once address the central position of the post which that the King owned America.
I had thought you were at least intellectually honest, beginning to doubt that now.
Great way to miss the entire point, speak much American?
Perfectly, it's the bullshit that I can do with out.
Bullshit like this?
2 points by GirlFriday (14113) 1 year ago Erm........actually, several generations had lived in the colonies dealing with Kings that didn't speak English. So, all of a sudden they had a King that did speak English and that put an end to a few shenanigans. The colonies were like the biggest welfare drama queens of the day. They wanted things like protection but they didn't want to pay for it. The majority of the Founding Fathers were rather rich compared to most people and held positions prior to the "revolution". A large portion of people living at the time thought that they were trading one crown for another. It wasn't a "social revolution" either. And when it was all over the US actually whined and cried for trade relations to be restored.
Nope, bullshit like you twisting history for your own propaganda.
So it is your position that the King did not own America under the Law at that time?
If you don't understand my position then read the paragraph again.
So I read it and did not see how it applies to the post really, but getting to the post. Do you hold that the King did not own America? Since you did call the post bullshit and all I was interested in your thinking.
Then read it again. I mean, you dug up a year old post not because you want to understand my thinking behind it but because you wanted to argue.
Assigning motives to others is often a failed project.
Your comment seems more a reflection on people (in rant form) in general rather than the subject of the post.
Clock is a tickin'. Assigning motives to others is often a failed project
But, not in this case.
What else do you have?
Maybe I just wanted to bump the post, I didn't give a shit if you argued or not, maybe I wanted to see if you had undergone any personal growth in the past year, there could be any number of reasons.
I have already ask you do you disagree with the position that the King owned America?
Ya, because personal growth on my part would somehow make you less of a douche bag. Later.
We've no fear of ever finding out.
What's to find out? You're a douchebag. What makes it even better is that you cannot stand that there are other conversations taking place. You are about as transparent as they get. Now, run along little creepy thing.
Here, let me make this real simple for you. You have made an attempt to justify a revolution by oversimplifying events for the redistribution of wealth while playing to both sides. It's bullshit. It was a bullshit thread a year ago and it's a bullshit thread now.
You have completely misread the post and it's intent, I'm not surprised you seem to have a rather closed mind the few times we have chatted.
Your desire to judge is exceeded only by your incompetence.
You are a dolt. You wanna have a petty ass fight? Let's go. You have the next 10 minutes of my time for you to act like a big ass jack off. Let's roll.
Are you like covered in nothing but BUTTONS?
A towel and a t-shirt. I just got out of the shower, hence, the 10 minutes.
Your 10 minutes are up, asshole.
It was enough to KICK YOUR ASS
You didn't do anything but make yourself look like a bigger scumbag then you already did. But, thanks for playing.
When was the last time you actually kicked someone's ass? Actually got in a real fight?
are you coming back?
ummm, OK, I thought I might be getting into some history here, off hand I don't see anything in your post I would really disagree with.
So if you would allow me, my point here is that the GOP has stolen the Revolution for their own propose, (freedom for the rich to do as they wish) this is something their think tanks started long ago, making the Revolution only about “freedom”. I just wish to point out that the Revolution was about many things including if it was stealing the King's property to rebel.
LOL.Ah, crap....... I knew I should have drank another cup of coffee.
I agree. They have stolen it and it seems a repetitive fight that we must have. Vigilance.
No problem they been setting that hook as long as most us been alive, maybe longer.
[Removed]
So let's give all the land back to the Native Americans? Problem is, they aren't around any more. There are people who are their descendants, and we (many of us) are the descendants of those who stole the land from them. There is no one to give the land back to, except the dead.
From what I understand, the Native Americans did not practice the concept of land ownership. The "theft" of land by the europeans was more like an extermination of the native people in order to institute and protect property rights in this country. There are two ways in which property can be obtained: Trade and conquest. The property of this country (land) was obtained by the Europeans through conquest of the native people. The property was then obtained by the ex-European Americans through conquest of the portion of this country belonging to Europe, who quitclaimed this land in the peace treaty ending the revolutionary war.
It is true that this country had a bloody beginning and that the bloodshed continues. Now it is the corporate US, obtaining ownership and control of land and people through dubious contracts. When that beings to fail, they will surely turn to war.
You predict a violent revolt by Americans against American Corporations? A civil war?
Not American corporations, but the private corporation dba the United States. And I hope it does not come to that. They are militant in nature and have daunting resources at their disposal. It would not be pretty.
The private corporation doing business as the United States? I am trying to understand.
You predict that private corporations that have influence over the US government are militant? That they are powerful and will turn that militancy on the people of the US?
nope. Read here: http://teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm
But be sure to do your own research to verify this. Some of the information in this history (and on the rest of the site) is inaccurate. But the overall history is correct.
Not yet.
It's the "they will surely turn to war" part that I am trying to understand. A statement with the certainty of "the sun will rise tomorrow".
sorry I jumped in, not my words, so I will step back.
I do like that last part, please read on to get my gest.
Or option three, you could "buy" property, acquire title, and thereby own it. I mean, territory has always been important to humans, even primitive tribes recognized forms of territorial autonomy (and often fought to defend it). Every attempt in recent history to divest property owners of their property, has failed miserably. What we're talking about isn't a revolution against an outside force. Divesting people of property ownership would require endless infighting among ourselves. Who gets to decide how many square feet someone's house should be? Will it be the mob?
Yeah, there's more injustices in history than I can count, there's more injustices on earth today than I can count, capitalism (as it's practiced today) does have a very exploitative tendency. Yet, most of the arguments I hear are largely emotional. They ignore the nuance of history, the finer details, the benefits of scientific innovation (and the role of capitalism in spurring those innovations and delivering them to consumers), they paint with a broad brush, etc.
How about some concrete proposals? Former lobbyist (convicted in a scandal involving an Indian casino), has come up with a great list of proposals (like shutting the revolving door, ending all gifts to members of congress, etc.). There's one or two merit worthy Constitutional amendment proposals floating around the Senate (to overturn Citizens United), restore Glass Steagall & trade reform (both of which have been proposed by members of congress), more stimulus, expanding Pell Grants, student loan forgiveness (at least up to a reasonable amount), a "homeowner bailout" ... etc.
If we want to give employee owned companies a chance, why not create a small business loan program specifically designed to lend money to employee owned enterprises, co-ops, non-profits, and similar entities? If we want more participation in our democracy, instead of allowing congressmen to hold private meetings with lobbyists, why not require them to hold regularly scheduled public meetings in their home districts (and for that matter, enact term limits, so there's a robust rotation in congress, making entrenched corruption less likely)? Also, why not enact better protections for labor unions (so we unionize a much larger share of our workforce)?
I mean, there are concrete things we can fight for ... that could actually induce change (as opposed to complaining about remote history or the behavior of far away countries that we have no control over).
I don't recall mentioning the Native Americans, I was referring to international law at the time.
found this in the declaration of independence
at the bottom of the list of grievances with King George
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Do you think the whole “crusade” endeavor that Bush took us on was an attempt at this?
Of course as unpopular as it might be to point out, the Founding fathers only represent one side of the augment. (history being written by the winners and all) I am sure you are aware of the many other opinions held at the time. Not that I think the FF got it wrong, just pointing out that the revolution was more complicated than just freedom.
the list of grievance starts with the colony government being unable to govern
because King George will not sign the laws the colony governors pass
.
True enough, honest real democratic representation was at the core of the fight.
Weird, don't know where I picked the Native Americans bit up. Looks like it might have been from the post below by thunderclap, actually.
Life is a learning process, I have learned that if you use the word "stole" and "America" thinking people everywhere, think about the Native American plight. I will have to remember this the next time I want to get thinking people thinking. I hope that if you look through this thread you will see my intent more clearly. Thank you stopping by.
Trevor claims Goldman paid for this.
Free Trade as practiced today is the largest wealth distribution scheme the world has ever known. Manufacturing which was the mainstay of the American and European Middle Classes was moved to India and Asia, transferring wealth to those sectors and decimating the US and European Middle Classes, creating more poverty here and greater wealth for the corporations that own the manufacturing plants... the 1%
Capitalism is method to funnel money to the top, by design.
government should serve the people, people are who put government into existance, people sure as hell shouldnt serve the government, as the government didnt put people into existance.
I agree this concept that the Revolution was just about freedom, without talking about representation. Anything that weakens the one person one vote, equal access to all is a violation of the intent of the Founding Fathers. The Citizens United was clearly wrongly decided because it conflicts with this clear intent of the Founding Fathers. The Robert’s Court has decide that it their will and their judgment that should rule the land, not the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
Here's an opportunity to have government take a step back in the right direction.
208,244 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 10:04am central time 02/27/2012
http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100081904.557411.411&gen=1&mailing_linkid=34578
Read it and find out. What it is all about.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Saving-American-Democracy.pdf
Revolution 2.0 - Direct Democracy to return power to the people.
http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
"I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it."
Love me some Jefferson. Thanks!!
I see you're still selling lies on this forum.....
Just to correct you, again.....that quote is not from Thomas Jefferson, it is from Alexander Woollcott, not even in the same century.......
I am sure you DON"T love Jefferson, as his, and your, philosophies are 180 degrees out of phase....
Here is Jefferson, tell me how you love this:
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it."
or this:
"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
or this:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."
or this:
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
or this:
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
or this:
The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.
See.....I "DO" love and respect Thomas Jefferson, and his stand on individual liberty......
You are the proven lair. So these guys got it wrong huh or are you just lying again?
http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
you're not only a liar, but you're dumb too.......
Spend a day in a library...huh? you'll be better for it....
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. Ronald Reagan.....
that's your proof? a single use in a website created by a clearly troubled person......
try googling the quote, genius.....
here, I'll help you:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22I%27m+tired+of+hearing+it+said+that+democracy+doesn%27t+work.+Of+course+it+doesn%27t+work.+We+are+supposed+to+work+it.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22I%27m+tired+of+hearing+it+said+that+democracy+doesn%27t+work.+Of+course+it+doesn%27t+work.+We+are+supposed+to+work+it.%22+&pbx=1&oq=%22I%27m+tired+of+hearing+it+said+that+democracy+doesn%27t+work.+Of+course+it+doesn%27t+work.+We+are+supposed+to+work+it.%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=26421l26421l3l34244l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=9d4857f28bb4caf5&biw=1251&bih=560
Wikipedia? Hmmm I like Wikipedia, looks like you might be useful in research, you have no talent for debate or policy.
you seem to have no talent for anything but parroting idea's that have been debunked over and over again since the dawn of time........
you are a fool, and a proud one at that.......how unfortunate.....
oh please, you're too kind, but now go on let the debunking begin...
history has already shown the failure of your idea's of uniformity masquerading as "equality", the tyranny of attempting to equalize outcome, and the foolishness of demonizing achievement.....all one needs to do is to spend a day in a library to understand it...
You do seem to have a lot of opinions about things I've never said, but hey you can have all the opinions you want.
Hey slammer comfrimed it you got this one right, it was Alexander Woollcott's quote, damn important concept no matter who said it.
"I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it." - Alexander Woollcott not Thomas Jefferson
Hey Sparky is this guy right?
I see you're still selling lies on this forum.....
Just to correct you, again.....that quote is not from Thomas Jefferson, it is from Alexander Woollcott, not even in the same century.......
Yes it's true - It is Alexander Woollcott's quote. They change their web site recently - it's a typo !! The meaning of the words are more important than when they were said or who said them. It's about applying past thoughts to present issues. The failure your friend is speaking of is that of a representative republic. If HE ever visits the library; he will learn that a direct democracy has never been tried here.
Np, I just try to my stuff straight, if you look around here you might even see me saying opps, I got that wrong. Of course the righties can never do that because once they did people would expect it all the time and that's all they would be doing. Thanks for the update, keep up the good work!
If all they have to pick on is a typo - they sure don't have many arrows in their quiver :)
it's all debate tatic, right now they talking about R. Santorum on MSNBC pointing out that he has a B.A, M.B.A. and a J.D. yet comes off as blue collar everyman. Politics may be performance art, however nothing say that art can't tell the truth as easy as fiction. That's our job :).
Humanity needs revolutions every time.
I trust that this time, with the tools the Founding Fathers gave us, it will be without blood.
[Removed]
This land was originally stolen from Native Americans (Indian tribes) and then claimed to be owned by George through his own creation of land deeds as proof of ownership, right? So the colonists "stole" the land from someone who'd received stolen property. There truely is no honor among thieves.
I feel the right has framed the America Revolution as purely a "fight for freedom". This plays to their belief of the freedom of the wealthy is its greatest accomplishment, freedom to do as they wish in their lives as well as their control of our government. The arguments presented by the GOP today regarding the sanctity of private property were presented long ago by those that supported the King, and his rightful ownership of America. They spoke of how ungrateful and immoral it was to attempt to steal the King’s property With this post I was addressing the legal situation at the time more than the moral one.
FRF, you no doubt have already read this at some point. For others reading along here's a link I found concerning the Royal Proclamation:
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/royal-proclamation-1763.html
Thank you for the link, I actually wrote this off the cuff from what I remember from high school history, but this AM I will invite a friend with an advanced degree to join us. This document concerns "unsettle lands" I think, would need to look into that. I can see how my use of the word "stole" has invoked much discussion of the Native American plight. A subject worthy of many discussion points. My intent here is trying to point out that the American Revolution was not just about "freedom" this concept is actually one that has been promoted by think tanks from early on.
Terrific stuff. Thanks. I'll look forward to the continuation of this topic here.
Thank you for stopping by, I like your stuff too, I feel we must change the mindset, if we are to reach minds. The right has spent many decades instilling the ideas that support their policies that the rich should be "free" to do as they wish, by making the revolution about freedom not representation. I thought I would just jump right to their “your stealing” argument and point out it is not the first time that one has been used.
definitely bring in the guy with an advanced degree. i advise you to have her start a different topic because this one appears to be about how the white man stole this land from the indians, despite your intent
sent the email, don't know if he will stop by, having a life and all, but hey it's fun here, right?
its fun for like 5 minutes and then its like, fuck this
yes i am also alive
I understand your position, if you don't mind let me ask you this, do you ever get frustrated by simple positions that really make no sense if you think about them 5 minutes? Are you a liberal? I find that there is a creative process here, that I hope one day will match the power of their “think tanks” it may just seem like shouting, but for some of us, we have heard these shouts for many years.
honestly, i am not very easily frustrated by humans and their positions; i find it hard to blame people for being what they are... everything is genetics and experience and while we can change our experience to some degree, there is NO three-year-old who can do it and when you're three, thats when you learn the most about the world. jaded, abusive, loving, hateful, or beautiful, if you're exposed to these things early its almost impossible to get away.
some of my ingrained positions, if i think about them for more than 5 minutes, are weak, simplistic, motivated by jealousy or fear, etc. so why shouldnt other people be allowed to be idiots, ruled by things over which they have no control, if i am allowed to be one : )
i think instead of categorizing myself a liberal, i am just empathetic. and theres nothing i can do about it; it is my upbringing to care about others who are hurting, and i really have no say in the matter. i actually dont want to be this way because sometimes it is painful.
also, in my opinion, humans are happiest when creating new facts, rather than living by the established ones. because of this, i see no other way but up for us. and if many many people do not agree with me, that makes my creation more pertinent and more beautiful.
Stole? capture is not theft...... to the victor go the spoils...
another of histories lessons the collectivists think they can ignore......
right or wrong, it just is the fact of the world.....
ownership belongs to those who can defend it, nothing more......
Well, I think most Native Americans found the concept of land ownership quite strange, no?
[Removed]
[Removed]
You really should read this:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html
It's a bit suspect since most Americans never owned guns, which is how it starts.
From the same chapter in Howard Zinn's book:
The best evidence shows maybe as high as 50% of families had guns, quite a few, more than today, but I don't know about the words "about every"
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr
Half of households is a lot. But what's your point exactly?
Granted, half is a lot, truth is I was still stuck with some old thoughts, that would have put the number lower, I like to save time by going with the most widely accepted data, so it did somewhat change my point, given that there has been updated sources.
So giving the paper a better read, I think the gist is that the people in general were not so hot for the war. I would have to say that would agree with my memory from school and what not. In whole I think there were many factors as well as a confluence of certain people that led to this experiment in democracy.
Howard Zinn's version of the story is that the revolution was actually all about the interests of the 1%. He traces the dominance of the elite all the way back to even before the revolution. IMHO, the "People's History of the United States" should be required reading for all Occupiers.
Certainly a focus on the “freedom” aspects plays into the hands of the 1% today. The GOP pushes the idea that the Revolution was all about freedom, then they go on to say that the freedom of the wealthy to do as they please is its greatest accomplishment. I am not a history buff or expert, this is just my recollections from H.S. history and a bit of reading. I do welcome those who wish to open the examination of the Revolution up to see if lessons can be learned there to help us here. The general concept that those with wealth and power tend to be at the fore front of lasting change is probably true today. As we move forward, we will find more and more friends among the 1% as they become aware that this is truly the only way to maintain any kind of stability in the country. We must ensure that we get the lasting changes that we need to ensure that it is always the best ideas that command the most attention not the most money.
Howard Zinn:
Interesting look at the economic factors around the Revolution, what do you draw from this?
the property owners needed self rule
because rule all the way over in England was not addressing local issues
and the property owners wanted to keep their land
Good summary, thanks Matt.
For months I've been trying to point out that the anarchist faction within Occupy that aspires to unify the 99% behind the idea of "revolution" will fail, because most Americans don't want to burn the whole system down. For exactly the reasons that Howard Zinn outlined. Most Americans are invested in the system. Although they have their complaints about how things work, the system does enough for most middle-class Americans to win a broad base of support. Most of us know that the elite 1% wield far more power than we do, but this is not Bahrain.
What that means is that in order to unify the 99% behind the idea of making changes, Occupy must work within the existing democratic framework. The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is possible to work within the system to make government more responsive to your concerns. When people on the left complain about the Tea Party hijacking Congress and forcing issues, they're acknowledging that it is possible to work within the system and get results.
Electing candidates is the way to achieve change. Not encampments, or shutting down ports, or throwing glitter on people, or interrupting events with 'mic checks'. And the way to elect candidates that truly represent the concerns of the 99% is to focus on common-ground issues that transcend the left/right dichotomy.
This may seem like a strange thing to bring up, but Comedy Central understands this already. The rally that thay had in response to the Tea Party rally was not about left-leaning ideals. It was about unity. Common sense. Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert make fun of BOTH sides of the aisle, because their commercial interests require them to appeal to a broad base of support. So Colbert is educating America about Super PACs, which is not a partisan issue. Likewise, corruption from the influence of lobbyists is not a partisan issue.
Occupy needs to understand the need to build a broad base of support. They need to stop demonizing "Repelicans" and stop talking about wedge issues like labor unions and environmental regulations. They need to find the discipline to avoid turning Occupy into a cornucopia of traditional liberal issues. They need to find the strength to empathize with conservatives, to find a political platform that they can use to win support from all kinds of different voters. Not just radical leftist activists. Even radical liberal activists groups like Earth First have the discipline to focus like a laser beam on one specific issue. If Occupy's one issue is representing the concerns of the 99% in the context of their relative lack of power compared with the 1%, then they need to learn to really represent all of the 99% so that they can get something accomplished.
Getting arrested and getting an un-focused leftist message on the nightly news is not an accomplishment, if the goal is to represent the 99%. Because, as Howard Zinn pointed out, most Americans actually support the cops. Not radical leftist protesters. Because even though we might be suspicious of the 1% having too much power, our cops and our system do enough for most of us that we support it. Even if there are things that we would like to change about it.
I too am unwilling to throw out the Constitution; I could not trust what might follow. I also feel that voting is an important, if not the most important, act. However I do feel that the GAs and their actions are what gets our concerns into the public discussion so I support them. I also feel that voting for anyone, or failing to vote against anyone, who wants to keep the 1% safe from tax increases goes directly against our goals.
I personally disagree. I do think that the very wealthy can probably afford to pay more in taxes. But I see that as a distraction from fighting for the interests of the 99%. We're fighting FOR the 99%, not necessarily AGAINST the 1%.
To protect the retriement of the 99%, taxes will have to be rased on the 1%, those unwilling to take on that fight can hardly say they support the 99%.
That would only be true if it were a zero-sum game. It's not. The interests of the 99% are hopelessly intertwined with the interests of the 1%.
I wonder how Native Americans would feel about that opinion. I think taking their land was probably a bigger redistribution of wealth.
Howard Zinn covered that, too:
No doubt the Native American plight desevers much discussion, I am not surprised using "stole" and "America" in the same post it was bound to happen. This is my intent here:
My point here is that the GOP has stolen the Revolution for their own propose, (freedom for the rich to do as they wish) this is something their think tanks started long ago, making the Revolution only about “freedom”. I just wish to point out that the Revolution was about many things including if it was stealing the King's property to rebel.
As well as only allowing white land owning males the right to vote...might not be the type of revolution you want associate your self with.
That's OK, as imperfect as it was I'll take the American Revolution as an overall good thing.
[Removed]
This was the first of the "fundamental" posts really.
Least we forget.
come out come out where ever you are....
What school taught you that garbage? do you feel that gandhi stole india from the british?
America was stolen from the Native Americans so whats your point?
the indians never had a chance. . they advanced from nothing to nothing for centuries.
thats because they had it made already. a much preferable existence than ours; certainly harder but without cunts like you.
This is also not related to your original comment so who is deflecting now? Why won't you explain your point about Gandhi stealing India? Is it because the Native American argument destroys your weak metaphor?
By the way, the Native Americans excelled at agricultural and architectural technologies. They did not excel at war technology but its a far cry from 'nothing'. Did you fail high school?
if you think the indians excelled at architecture where does that leave the romans who where building masterpieces thousands of years ago?
Still deflecting from your original comment because you have been proven wrong?
wrong about what? the romans invented the arch thousands of years ago. their roads and aqueducts still exist. ever seen or been in the pantheon? a marvel of architecture and engineering.
"do you feel that gandhi stole india from the british?" If you are done playing dumb and deflecting, whats your point here?
So I gather you never studied American history?
regarding india , did gandhi steal it from the british?
I don't actually live in India.
you could apply the same " arguement" you made about the usa to india. " I don't actually live in India",................ to use an old phrase, is a cop out.
How about we talk about America instead?
I think I see the "cop" but he an't out yet.
I asked you about your "arguement " in relation to gandhi and india. If you defend gandhi, you would defending the founders of the usa, so you keep deflecting.
Ok so what was your question in regards to the American Revolution, I have no interest in your strawman.
you won't give an honest answer because it would ruin your "arguement" about america.
Hey I don't really want you to go away, I guess you know quite a bit about the American Revolution, that's why you don't ask questions about it, you know already that my statement (post) is true.
Why don't you take your strawmann and see if someone else wants to defend it
the strawman argument falsely equates a proposition with a superficially similar proposition (the strawman)
the strawman argument refutes the strawman while claiming to have refuted the proposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Strawman arguments
falsely equate a proposition to a similar proposition
& refute the "strawman"
while claiming to refute the proposition.
Thanks Matt, I'm starting to think you don't take sides, so much as ref. We need that goodness knows. Thought I was going to make your "you" list for a minute there, I hope you understand I have a point of view, I'm honest in defending it and doing the best I can.
"starwmann"? new word?
[-]2 points by MattLHolck (5080) 1 day ago
the strawman argument falsely equates a proposition with a superficially similar proposition (the strawman)
the strawman argument refutes the strawman while claiming to have refuted the proposition
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
the word you posted was "starwmann"
Thank you.
Your whole premise to compare the Revolutionary War to the East Indian retaking of their society/country from British conquest....... Is how one would say laughable.
factsfun, my little dumbbell friend....I assume you wish to return America to it's rightful owner...King George?
You OWS assholes are really funny
Thank you for the feedback.
We are in that needed revolution, "HERE" and "NOW". Revolution need not be bloody to be successful. It just needs support of the population. This is also about proper economic distribution.
We are moving forward!
I agree, I believe it was Asimov who said “violence is the last recourse of the incompetent”. Thank you for stopping by.
Like I said a good post for stirring up consideration about where we came from and where we are trying to go.
I feel the American Revolution has been framed purely in the terms of "freedom", but at the time it was very much a question of property.
Proper representation, and the fight against corruption. Yeah pretty much like today.