The American Revolution-Was it really revolutionary?

[Machine_Gun_Blues]

Princess Creampie

Well, it was revolutionary in a sense that GW charged the British with his fellow men inside a Dodge Charger. biggrin

WRONG.


SO WRONG.



It was a Dodge Challenger SRT edition.

[N3bu]

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

What if I said I wasn't lying?

Shouldn't that in turn tear a hole in the space time continuum?

No, that would just be you admitting your own improbably-complete lack of critical perception.

Society is different cause no king, different rulers, different place, a democracy etc.

Society was controlled by a single king, now it's controlled by a number of things.

Does it matter what you call them?

Um... yeah.

Even if we assume a loose confederation of sneaky corporations that's vastly different from a monarchy with a single obvious overbearing blood-line based king. Even if it's only the illusion of democracy I mean it's a vastly different society- freedom of speech, lots of little things no-one had before, which is what really matters cause like, we act WAY different than we would under a king.

The King wasn't the Head of Government in 1776. In fact the Monarchy hadn't held power in Britain since 1689.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

N3bu

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

What if I said I wasn't lying?

Shouldn't that in turn tear a hole in the space time continuum?

No, that would just be you admitting your own improbably-complete lack of critical perception.

Society is different cause no king, different rulers, different place, a democracy etc.

Society was controlled by a single king, now it's controlled by a number of things.

Does it matter what you call them?

Um... yeah.

Even if we assume a loose confederation of sneaky corporations that's vastly different from a monarchy with a single obvious overbearing blood-line based king. Even if it's only the illusion of democracy I mean it's a vastly different society- freedom of speech, lots of little things no-one had before, which is what really matters cause like, we act WAY different than we would under a king.

The King wasn't the Head of Government in 1776. In fact the Monarchy hadn't held power in Britain since 1689.

The queen still holds power to this day, just not absolute power. confused

[FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-]

redroosters

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

redroosters

Princess Creampie

Well, it was revolutionary in a sense that GW charged the British with his fellow men inside a Dodge Charger. biggrin

I didn't even crack a smile. Just post relevant s**t, it's easier.


Yeah, technically, it was a revolution. Even though not much changed. End of topic.

Not that much changed?

Ceasing the mercantile economic principles of the British Crown was absolutely necessary for allowing the emerging economies of the free colonies to survive.

The Brits had this idea (that we know now to be wrong) that the more exports you had and the more gold your nation accrued, the better off you were. The purpose of the colonies was to pump as much gold into England as possible without giving any real economic freedom to the colonies (internal trade was all that was allowed).

So throwing off that economic landlord was a drastic change, in my opinion.

So, even in those days, government was ruled by business and military concerns were motivated primarily by money?

Absolutely.

Money and constant growth were the only things that kept the 'developed' countries 'developed'.

The whole purpose of the Colonies were to find resources to extort.

Eventually England found out that balanced trade leads to greater efficiency than maximizing exports.

[N3bu]

Suicidesoldier#1

N3bu

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

Society is different cause no king, different rulers, different place, a democracy etc.

Society was controlled by a single king, now it's controlled by a number of things.

Does it matter what you call them?

Um... yeah.

Even if we assume a loose confederation of sneaky corporations that's vastly different from a monarchy with a single obvious overbearing blood-line based king. Even if it's only the illusion of democracy I mean it's a vastly different society- freedom of speech, lots of little things no-one had before, which is what really matters cause like, we act WAY different than we would under a king.

The King wasn't the Head of Government in 1776. In fact the Monarchy hadn't held power in Britain since 1689.

The queen still holds power to this day, just not absolute power. confused

No.
The Queens powers is essentially limited to the vetoing of bills, which largely isn't exercised lest is create a constitutional crisis. The British Parliament has held 99% of British Political & Military power for over 300 years.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

N3bu

Suicidesoldier#1

N3bu

Suicidesoldier#1

redroosters

Suicidesoldier#1

Society is different cause no king, different rulers, different place, a democracy etc.

Society was controlled by a single king, now it's controlled by a number of things.

Does it matter what you call them?

Um... yeah.

Even if we assume a loose confederation of sneaky corporations that's vastly different from a monarchy with a single obvious overbearing blood-line based king. Even if it's only the illusion of democracy I mean it's a vastly different society- freedom of speech, lots of little things no-one had before, which is what really matters cause like, we act WAY different than we would under a king.

The King wasn't the Head of Government in 1776. In fact the Monarchy hadn't held power in Britain since 1689.

The queen still holds power to this day, just not absolute power. confused

No.
The Queens powers is essentially limited to the vetoing of bills, which largely isn't exercised lest is create a constitutional crisis. The British Parliament has held 99% of British Political & Military power for over 300 years.

Let's just say that it was.

It's vastly different than what is present today in the U.S.

[Exoth XIII]

redroosters

Exoth XIII

redroosters

Exoth XIII

redroosters

You literally just made that statistic up. What's more, the internet is the only place you're going to get the real news about what's going on here and abroad. If you actually care about things like freedom and the world and not being oppressed in the near future, it's kind of important.

How so?

The news has a legal right to lie outright. Obviously, falsifying footage and information is not as bad as lying outright, so therefore, they can do that s**t too.

Something to be aware of, the internet is just as likely to lie.

But far more likely to tell the truth than traditional media.

Not so! It's just the truths the traditional media tells are more trivial than they ought to be. I don't think they get paid to cover up certain political issues, or world issues; I think the majority of America is too bored by that sort of thing, which is why they do so much celebrity scandal.

Because there are so many news sites online, they tend to have more variety, and I guarantee you, the ones that DO report relevant things, get embarrassingly few hits.

[baka_grizzlyyybear]

From the Western-European colonial Imperial perspective yes it was revolutionary, from the indigenous inhabits of Northern America it was more of tragedy.

[Princess Creampie]

Machine_Gun_Blues

Princess Creampie

Well, it was revolutionary in a sense that GW charged the British with his fellow men inside a Dodge Charger. biggrin

WRONG.


SO WRONG.



It was a Dodge Challenger SRT edition.

Nuh uh! It was a Toyota Corolla!

[redroosters]

Exoth XIII

redroosters

Exoth XIII

redroosters

Exoth XIII

redroosters

You literally just made that statistic up. What's more, the internet is the only place you're going to get the real news about what's going on here and abroad. If you actually care about things like freedom and the world and not being oppressed in the near future, it's kind of important.

How so?

The news has a legal right to lie outright. Obviously, falsifying footage and information is not as bad as lying outright, so therefore, they can do that s**t too.

Something to be aware of, the internet is just as likely to lie.

But far more likely to tell the truth than traditional media.

Not so! It's just the truths the traditional media tells are more trivial than they ought to be. I don't think they get paid to cover up certain political issues, or world issues; I think the majority of America is too bored by that sort of thing, which is why they do so much celebrity scandal.

Because there are so many news sites online, they tend to have more variety, and I guarantee you, the ones that DO report relevant things, get embarrassingly few hits.

I was planning to murder the conspirators behind the media being ******** bullshit, but looks like I'll need nukes now.

[redroosters]

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

redroosters

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

redroosters

Princess Creampie

Well, it was revolutionary in a sense that GW charged the British with his fellow men inside a Dodge Charger. biggrin

I didn't even crack a smile. Just post relevant s**t, it's easier.


Yeah, technically, it was a revolution. Even though not much changed. End of topic.

Not that much changed?

Ceasing the mercantile economic principles of the British Crown was absolutely necessary for allowing the emerging economies of the free colonies to survive.

The Brits had this idea (that we know now to be wrong) that the more exports you had and the more gold your nation accrued, the better off you were. The purpose of the colonies was to pump as much gold into England as possible without giving any real economic freedom to the colonies (internal trade was all that was allowed).

So throwing off that economic landlord was a drastic change, in my opinion.

So, even in those days, government was ruled by business and military concerns were motivated primarily by money?

Absolutely.

Money and constant growth were the only things that kept the 'developed' countries 'developed'.

The whole purpose of the Colonies were to find resources to extort.

Eventually England found out that balanced trade leads to greater efficiency than maximizing exports.

I had meant the Americans. Seems like the revolution was a business decision.

[God The Holy Father]

redroosters

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

redroosters

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

redroosters

Princess Creampie

Well, it was revolutionary in a sense that GW charged the British with his fellow men inside a Dodge Charger. biggrin

I didn't even crack a smile. Just post relevant s**t, it's easier.


Yeah, technically, it was a revolution. Even though not much changed. End of topic.

Not that much changed?

Ceasing the mercantile economic principles of the British Crown was absolutely necessary for allowing the emerging economies of the free colonies to survive.

The Brits had this idea (that we know now to be wrong) that the more exports you had and the more gold your nation accrued, the better off you were. The purpose of the colonies was to pump as much gold into England as possible without giving any real economic freedom to the colonies (internal trade was all that was allowed).

So throwing off that economic landlord was a drastic change, in my opinion.

So, even in those days, government was ruled by business and military concerns were motivated primarily by money?

Absolutely.

Money and constant growth were the only things that kept the 'developed' countries 'developed'.

The whole purpose of the Colonies were to find resources to extort.

Eventually England found out that balanced trade leads to greater efficiency than maximizing exports.

I had meant the Americans. Seems like the revolution was a business decision.

Lincoln made first executive order as ceasar of the USA and made himself President Dictator and president of the Corporation ending the republic. We have been living under martial law ever since. FDR even passed law that all US Citizens are the enemy of the USA. The US is bankrupt and has been since 1933, The Receivers of the US Bankruptcy is the INT Bankers via the World Bank, UN, and IMF
All US offices, officers and Depts are working under a "de-facto" status only under the emergency war powers. This new form of gmt is known as a democracy(Instead of Republic) being and established communist/socialist order under the "The New Governor of America" - Congressional Record March 17th, 1993, Vol 33, Page H-1303. It is established fact that the US Fed Government has been dissolved under the Emergency Banking Act March 9, 1933 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719 Declared by FDR
Being Bankrupt and insolvent H.J.R. 192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933- Joint Resolution to suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause - Dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the US and the official capacities of all US Gov Offices Officers and Depts and is further evidence the the US Fed Gov only exist today in Name only. US being in Martial Law since 1933 and as far back as civil war Senate Report 93-549 (1973)
Us Citizens Declared Enemies of US By FDR ex ord 2040 and ratified by congress march 9th 1933 48 Stat 1. FDR changed the meaning of TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT of dec 6th 1917 by changing the word "without" to citizens "within"the US. a Legal Name is a "Prisoner of War" Name. Fictitious "nom de guerre" name for a non-living entity: also referred to as the strawman and or transmitting utility. JOHN DOE -Name in all caps which is format called Capitus Dimenutio Maxima
Capitus Diminutio Maxima (Maximum Diminished Status) means that a mans condition changes from freedom to bondage and becomes a slave or item of inventory - Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed. 1968. A fictional persona being surety for the debt as fiction in commerce also known as "Ens Legis" which means "legal entity" It is non-human and "civilly dead". That is not you... unless you are a fiction.

[N3bu]

Suicidesoldier#1

N3bu

Suicidesoldier#1

N3bu

Suicidesoldier#1

Um... yeah.

Even if we assume a loose confederation of sneaky corporations that's vastly different from a monarchy with a single obvious overbearing blood-line based king. Even if it's only the illusion of democracy I mean it's a vastly different society- freedom of speech, lots of little things no-one had before, which is what really matters cause like, we act WAY different than we would under a king.

The King wasn't the Head of Government in 1776. In fact the Monarchy hadn't held power in Britain since 1689.

The queen still holds power to this day, just not absolute power. confused

No.
The Queens powers is essentially limited to the vetoing of bills, which largely isn't exercised lest is create a constitutional crisis. The British Parliament has held 99% of British Political & Military power for over 300 years.

Let's just say that it was.

It's vastly different than what is present today in the U.S.

Not really. The only real difference was your elected representatives were home-grown.

[Exoth XIII]

redroosters

Exoth XIII

redroosters

Exoth XIII

redroosters

The news has a legal right to lie outright. Obviously, falsifying footage and information is not as bad as lying outright, so therefore, they can do that s**t too.

Something to be aware of, the internet is just as likely to lie.

But far more likely to tell the truth than traditional media.

Not so! It's just the truths the traditional media tells are more trivial than they ought to be. I don't think they get paid to cover up certain political issues, or world issues; I think the majority of America is too bored by that sort of thing, which is why they do so much celebrity scandal.

Because there are so many news sites online, they tend to have more variety, and I guarantee you, the ones that DO report relevant things, get embarrassingly few hits.

I was planning to murder the conspirators behind the media being ******** bullshit, but looks like I'll need nukes now.

And that's another reason why I'm not trying to topple the government.
We all know most people are morons, and after we remove the morons from power, who do ya think the morons are going to replace them with?