Tweet
Originally posted by Kidicious
Protection money like extortion?
Protection money like extortion?
-
Exactly. -
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The colonies were not represented in Parliament, and disagreed that Parliament had any authority over them. They believe all authority over them came from the colonial governments.
It might not have been full, fair representation, but I do believe Benjamin Franklin went to London in the 1760s and 1770s as a representative not only for Pennsylvania in the British Parliament, but also for several other colonies.A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
-
Exactly bull****. They taxed the colonies.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Exactly.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
They gave their "protection" in return for compelling the colonies to pay taxes when they had no representation in Parliament. The colonies thought that only the colonial assemblies had the right to tax the colonies.
It was as if we went and liberated France from Nazi Germany in WWII, and then imposed a national income tax on them.Comment
-
So even though Benjie was a colonial representative in the parliament, it was not true representation?A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
-
Do we tax Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa. If so it's the same thing. Of course we'd be glad to get rid of them
No one answered my initial question. Did the french use any legal excuse to help the colonies?Accidently left my signature in this post.Comment
-
Has nothing to do with an English textbook.Originally posted by David Floyd
Not really - get an English textbook.
And more to do with your own personal beliefs and biases.We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham LincolnComment
-
that clause is the most important part of the amendment
It isn't. It's obviously the dependant clause, which makes it less important than the other clause (ie, the independant clause).“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Cool! Let's just ignore it then!
If it wasn't important it wouldn't be in there.We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham LincolnComment
-
It's function is as of an explanitory clause. Hell, if the preamble to the Constitution wasn't important it wouldn't be there, but we don't use it for anything.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Explanatory clause!
That's the whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham LincolnComment
-
Except, apparently, in Texas vs. White.Hell, if the preamble to the Constitution wasn't important it wouldn't be there, but we don't use it for anything.
TS,
Really? So you admit, then, that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect the individual right to bear arms?Explanatory clause!
That's the whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
We tax youth under 18 too....Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Do we tax Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa. If so it's the same thing. Of course we'd be glad to get rid of them
What is the topic here?
Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - RahComment
-
So you admit that the clause was to protect the individual right to bear arms and the reason they wanted that protection because they believed an armed populace (militia back then meaning all men from 18-60) was a good idea?Originally posted by Ted Striker
Explanatory clause!
That's the whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!
The important part is the individual right to bear arms. The militia part isn't as important anymore because the federal government took over the militia (though if you want to argue that is unconstitutional).“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
When Imran and I agree on something, we're probably right, Ted
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
Comment