Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously, you didn't live in the 1770's, and neither did your "conservative" history teacher, who sounds more like one of today's "liberals" in terms of his attitude toward the colonists. How often do we hear (on this very forum) "liberals" accusing conservatives as being nothing but a bunch of crybabies?
The "Declaration of Independence" lays out the case for independence, and it doesn't sound like the colonists were merely crybabies. Certainly, the King saw the colonists as recalcitrant, if not rebellious, and sought to punish them through punitive measures, such as unreasonable taxes and also by failing to protect them on the high seas.
As stated in the Declaration, "Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
The colonists had suffered long under the abuses of the King's despotism. They could no longer tolerate such abuses (though many were still unwilling to go so far as to declare Independence).
Crybabies, they were not.
Welp, it was not that long ago that I had him. He always defended Bush tooth and nail, even though none of us really cared, so he is most certainly not a liberal.
The taxes were not unreasonable, and were not to punish them. They were to pay for the Seven Years' War mostly. The proposed taxes would have only been a fraction of what those on the main isles paid. They would not have been stifling at all. It was mostly out of principle that they revolted.
A better grievance would have been the restrictions on trade, though the restrictions were no different than any other European colony. The colonists (correctly) believed they were being held back by Britain by only being allowed to trade with Britain directly.
There's no question that America was better off separate from Britain, but as far as tyranny goes, that was mainly hogwash and rhetoric.
Welp, it was not that long ago that I had him. He always defended Bush tooth and nail, even though none of us really cared, so he is most certainly not a liberal.
Oh, well that certainly qualifies him as a "conservative!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELR123
The taxes were not unreasonable, and were not to punish them. They were to pay for the Seven Years' War mostly. The proposed taxes would have only been a fraction of what those on the main isles paid. They would not have been stifling at all. It was mostly out of principle that they revolted.
A better grievance would have been the restrictions on trade, though the restrictions were no different than any other European colony. The colonists (correctly) believed they were being held back by Britain by only being allowed to trade with Britain directly.
There's no question that America was better off separate from Britain, but as far as tyranny goes, that was mainly hogwash and rhetoric.
The spirit of independence had been with the colonists for a long time, and they resented the Crown's interference in their trade (viewed as 'smuggling') with such as the French West Indies. Their ships were boarded, and their goods confiscated and sold at auction.
The Crown also established a standing army, which the colonists viewed as a means of keeping them in check, not for their "protection" as was claimed.
In short, the entrepreneurial spirit of the Americans (which is alive and well today) was being stifled, they felt (and they were correct), but worse they were being called to abandon lands which they had settled and built cabins, and thier cabins were burned by the King's men.
Many other acts led to the Revolution. Were they just "crybabies?" I don't think so.
When was the last time we had to defend the USA? 1812
When was the last time congress declared war, from an attack of our military? 1941
So, we have been on offense, in some foreign nation ever since.
I don't call that defense. I call that conquering the world a little at a time.
Skrew leading the free world, there is a fight to rule it right now.
What do you call the attacks of 9/11/2001 on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and the attempted attack on our nations capital by Muslims?
What do you call the Muslim attack on the USS Cole?
These were all acts of war against the United States. Are you telling me that these attacks did not warrant a response? These attacks were direct threats to our Liberty, as it is the goal of Islam to bring the United States down (as well as all of Western civilization).
Were we to simply say, "Oh, well?"
The attack by the Japanese on Pear Harbor in 1941 was also an act of war against the United States.
What do you mean, we don't have to defend ourselves? What fantasy world do you live in?
Give me your vision of the World without American military power. What do you think the state of the world would be? What would America look like today?
What do you call the attacks of 9/11/2001 on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and the attempted attack on our nations capital by Muslims?
retribution for killing their people
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
What do you call the Muslim attack on the USS Cole?
retribution for killing their people
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
These were all acts of war against the United States. Are you telling me that these attacks did not warrant a response? These attacks were direct threats to our Liberty, as it is the goal of Islam to bring the United States down (as well as all of Western civilization).
The direct attacks on our liberty were caused by our government. Since when is it called Liberty when we invade and occupy sovereign nations and murder their people. Over 175+ children in Yemen and Pakistan have been murdered by drones since Obama has been in office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Were we to simply say, "Oh, well?"
We should look in the mirror.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
The attack by the Japanese on Pear Harbor in 1941 was also an act of war against the United States.
As was our attack on Iran in 1953 when we helped overthrow their government with their democratically elected leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
What do you mean, we don't have to defend ourselves? What fantasy world do you live in?
Give me your vision of the World without American military power. What do you think the state of the world would be? What would America look like today?
The Towers would still be standing. The two Million Iraqi children killed by our sanctions, from the Bush 1 era, would be alive today. Everyone of our military personnel who gave their lives in the Middle East would have had a chance to live a full life instead of having it taken from them defending other nations borders instead of our own.
“The drones are killing our people, killing our children, and destroying our homes,” one man said, as he sat among the sheared rebar and crumbled concrete that was once his village. “The drones don’t differentiate between people,” he added, “they just kill.” Another man who spoke to Hakim related that he and two children “live in constant fear of drone strikes.” And, according to his story, it’s not without good reason. After he picked up his daughter from school to take her to a doctor’s appointment, Hellfire missiles fired from U.S. drones destroyed the clinic. He grabbed his daughter and ran back to the school to take cover. Before he got there, though, the school was obliterated by a second missile. His daughter was struck in the back of the head by debris and she bled to death in his arms. “What did my daughter ever do to them?” he cried. “She was eight years old.”
I keep hearing this from the Progressive squawk is, " they want to take us back to the 1850's", or the 1870's, when talking about the Constitutionalist, like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the real conservatives in Washington. The fear is put out there like it is the GOD's truth.
A belief in liberty, equal justice for all, and moving forward under the framework of non-aggression is not a reactionary ideology - it is an ideology designed to move us forward into a better future, and I believe it's the only ideological framework that is capable of it. Those of us who believe in liberty want to take us forward to the 22nd century, whereas those who believe in total control by the state want to take us back to the Dark Ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
The "Declaration of Independence" lays out the case for independence, and it doesn't sound like the colonists were merely crybabies. Certainly, the King saw the colonists as recalcitrant, if not rebellious, and sought to punish them through punitive measures, such as unreasonable taxes and also by failing to protect them on the high seas.
As stated in the Declaration, "Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
The colonists had suffered long under the abuses of the King's despotism. They could no longer tolerate such abuses (though many were still unwilling to go so far as to declare Independence).
Crybabies, they were not.
Exactly. The legal system that was imposed on the colonists was oppression, plain and simple, the best outline of this being the grievances laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The colonists attempted to redress it by peaceful means for years but failed, and the oppression got worse over time. Eventually the only viable option was to rebel and seek independence. The rebellion was both justified and prudent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
When was the last time we had to defend the USA? 1812
When was the last time congress declared war, from an attack of our military? 1941
I'd say the last defensive or just war was 1941, since the U.S. was attacked by another country's military. Even then, the events leading up to World War II probably would not have occurred if the terms of the Treaty of Versailles weren't so harsh to the Central Powers, which was a situation only made possible once the Americans broke the stalemate of World War I. The Spanish-American War was aggression, and the Civil War was, at best, unnecessary. The Mexican-American War could have been avoided if Polk had not occupied the disputed area in Texas (even if America was entitled to it). So, if the United States had followed a policy of armed neutrality similar to Switzerland it's likely America would have been at peace from 1815 to the present day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
The direct attacks on our liberty were caused by our government. Since when is it called Liberty when we invade and occupy sovereign nations and murder their people. Over 175+ children in Yemen and Pakistan have been murdered by drones since Obama has been in office.
I agree with the concept of blowback, and I believe it is the primary cause of the events leading up to the current conflicts between the U.S. and certain factions in the Middle East. However, leaving aside truther theories, in the case of 9/11 it is al-Qaeda that bears responsibility for the attack, not the U.S. government. They were the ones who orchestrated the attack, and killing 3000 innocent civilians is unjustified even during a war of self-defense.
As for 9/11, it was caused by a group of people acting outside any government, so attacking and occupying an entire country or attacking any foreign government was unjustified. The men responsible should have been captured and brought to trial, which is a situation that is more a criminal/police work matter than a war/military matter. Ron Paul was on the right track with his marque and reprisal proposal, in that the specific terrorists should have been hunted down, captured, and tried, instead of waging war against the entire Muslim world.
I keep hearing this from the Progressive squawk is, " they want to take us back to the 1850's", or the 1870's, when talking about the Constitutionalist, like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and the real conservatives in Washington. The fear is put out there like it is the GOD's truth.
For just a second, has anyone stepped back and looked at where the Progressives are taking us to?
THE 1770's.
Tyranny is abound and the Police state with all the kings men running amuck, with full power to destroy anyone they feel like.
King George would be proud of his New World..... ORDER
The U.S. is no more a police state under Obama than it was under Bush, except that conservatives didn't complain about it under Bush.
On strict constitutionalism, the conservative supreme court decided that corporations have the rights that individuals have, even though the concept of corporations didn't exist when the constitution was written. Conservatives are no more strict to the Constitution, they just believe what they want is protected and what liberals want is not. It was evident when conservatives tried to yank jurisdiction from Florida to the federal government during the Terry Schiavo case.
Conservatives DO want to take us back to a previous era -- an era that didn't have civil rights protections, labor protections, environmental protections, consumer protections, a social safety net, etc. Essentially, that's taking us back to the late 1800s -- a time when companies can distribute tainted canned food; dangerous or ineffective drugs; can exploit their workers and subject them to hazards.
The conservatives will argue that the constitution doesn't allow these but many Supreme Court decisions disagree. It is within the boundaries of Congress' power.
Personally, I like the fact that the government inspects my food, prevents companies from dumping into the air and water and that drug companies must pass rigorous testing before they can market a new drug. Senior citizens, who previous lived in poverty without access to medical insurance, love Social Security and Medicare. I also like the idea that my bank deposits are insured by the FDIC.
Freedom should be the future and no reason that freedom should be considered 1870's. With time we have lost some freedoms and gained freedoms for others.
It is the mind that wants liberty that should be timeless!
Yes, that's why the vice presidential nominee in 2008 was a woman and the favorite Tea Party candidate for the 2012 race was a black main. And today one of the Republican front runners for 2016 is hispanic.
I'm at a point where I don't think even most people like you really believe that crap anymore. I think you just realize that it's effective propaganda for John Q Public who doesn't take the time to look into things. For someone today who is actually interested in politics to honestly believe in their heart that conservatives are racist and sexist en masse they would have to be complete bonehead. And while I disagree with liberals politically, I don't question their intelligence. So I have to conclude they are using race as a political tactic.
Another piece that goes to support this is how liberals denigrate any and all evidence of conservatives not being racists. If they were sincere in their beliefs, then logic dictates they would welcome something like Nikki Haley - a woman and a minority - being in the Republican party and being elected governor of a southern state. But they don't. It really gives the lie to liberals who claim to want the advancement of minorities. They just want the advancement of themselves and want minorities to be their issue. They thrive on identity politics.
^This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Part of the reason for this is that we have a media that will not do the job that was entrusted to them by the founders; in fact, the very reason that we have Freedom of the Press was to allow for the voice of dissent without fear of retribution.
But what we call the "mainstream media" has become the State controlled media. They are afraid to voice any opposition to the State's position or objectives, because they love the prestige and privileges they enjoy by being 'partners' with the administration in getting it's message out. They collude with the administration rather than risk what Fox News has become, outcasts, accused of promoting "conspiracy theories," and creating "phony scandals."
Fox News contributors don't get invited to State dinners, and they are vilified openly by the President himself.
I never thought conservatives wanted to take us back to the 1870s. I think they want to take us back to the good old glorious 1950s, when white men ruled the world and women and minorities knew their place.
Anyone who believes that is a democratic dream and a weak woman who has already submitted. If I thought for one second that conservatives wanted to take us back to that time I would jump ship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
