This is a real question and one that should be in discussion everywhere. People with Children are usually safe bets but Biden with his dementia may ot even be aware of his own children all of the time. "They tell me I have to leave"?? Who the hell are "they"?

Again I have to note the accuracy of the statement, "If you voted for Biden because you didn't like Trump, that is like eating a turd because you don't like Brussels Sprouts."

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 9:07:38 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is a real question and one that should be in discussion everywhere. People with Children are usually safe bets but Biden with his dementia may ot even be aware of his own children all of the time. "They tell me I have to leave"?? Who the hell are "they"?
>
> Again I have to note the accuracy of the statement, "If you voted for Biden because you didn't like Trump, that is like eating a turd because you don't like Brussels Sprouts."
..
Heh-heh! The first President Bush: "I'm the President. I don't have to eat brussels sprouts." First Lady Barbara Bush: "The Brussels Sprouts Growers Association endorsed you." President Bush: "Make it a small serving."
..
But at least there are no mean tweets from the White House.
..
Andre Jute
Maybe Sleepy Joe would make more sense on Twitter than behind a microphone; it wouldn't be possible to make less sense.

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 2:48:50 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 9:07:38 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This is a real question and one that should be in discussion everywhere.. People with Children are usually safe bets but Biden with his dementia may ot even be aware of his own children all of the time. "They tell me I have to leave"?? Who the hell are "they"?
> >
> > Again I have to note the accuracy of the statement, "If you voted for Biden because you didn't like Trump, that is like eating a turd because you don't like Brussels Sprouts."
> .
> Heh-heh! The first President Bush: "I'm the President. I don't have to eat brussels sprouts." First Lady Barbara Bush: "The Brussels Sprouts Growers Association endorsed you." President Bush: "Make it a small serving."
> .
> But at least there are no mean tweets from the White House.

My younger union brother continually told me he didn't like Trump because of what he said. But he could never supply even one example. Not being a member of Twitter I never saw any "mean tweets" and doubt there ever were any. I know that the Lame Stream Media misquoted Trump in a constant barrage of propaganda.

Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.

You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.

Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?

Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.

What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.

Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?

Biden yelling at the "Fuck you, Biden!" protesters who appeared at all 3 of his 9/11 appearances last week:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYqbjPuYeU0Bwpm9kjc9D5fAOEjKgiOp/view?usp=sharing

Note how the Clintons, Biden's wife, Barack Obama and everyone else looks shocked at what he is doing. The guy has lost it completely.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>
> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>
> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>
> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>
> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?

Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > > Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
> > You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
> >
> > Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
> >
> > Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
> >
> > What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
> >
> > Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.

Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.

"As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.

Explanation:
As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.

However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).

They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."

This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."

These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.

"American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."

This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony.. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.

Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > > > Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
> > > You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
> > >
> > > Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
> > >
> > > Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
> > >
> > > What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
> > >
> > > Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
> > Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
>
> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
>
> Explanation:
> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
>
> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
>
> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
>
> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."
>
> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
>
> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
>
> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
>
> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?

I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>
>
>You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know
about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles
away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still
had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of
history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in
this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed
THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from
which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea
that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the
right to self determination.
>
>Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>
>Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when
it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of
90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied
up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything
about it.
>
>What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>
>Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?

"People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about
it" ???

You are certainly correct (:-)

But the tea dumped in Boston Harbor was, due to changes in the British
tea tax, to have been sold for a lower price then existing stores of
tees smuggled into America from Holland by America ship owners.

And, the above isn't a secret. In fact there are very detailed
accounts of the British tea business complete with the various taxes
that applied available on the Internet.

As for being farmers... Well, John Hancock was a wealthily ship owner,
Samuel Adams was the son of a wealthy merchant and was educated at
Harvard Collage. Thomas Jefferson? father owned a large plantation in
what is now Virginia, George Washington, well "The Washington family
was a wealthy Virginia planter family that had made its fortune
through land speculation and the cultivation of tobacco."

Hardly poor farmers.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT), William Crowell
<retroguybilly@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> > Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>>
>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>>
>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>>
>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>>
>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>
>Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.

Don't try to confuse Tommy with facts. He is "bullet proof" from that
direction (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>>>>
>>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>>>>
>>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
>> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
>>
>> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
>>
>> Explanation:
>> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
>>
>> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
>>
>> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
>>
>> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."
>>
>> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
>>
>> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
>>
>> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
>>
>> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
>
> I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
>

Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
took 2d place nonetheless.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
> >>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
> >>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
> >> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
> >>
> >> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
> >>
> >> Explanation:
> >> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
> >>
> >> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
> >>
> >> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
> >>
> >> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."
> >>
> >> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
> >>
> >> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
> >>
> >> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
> >>
> >> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
> >
> > I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
> >
> Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
> khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
> invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
> successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
> Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
> took 2d place nonetheless.

The book _The Mosquito_ by Winegard claims that mosquitos were one of the most important factors in the
success of the American revolution. The traitorous revolutionaries were much more knowledgeable about
when and where the mosquitos spread malaria, yellow fever, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

On 9/15/2021 4:13 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> "People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about
> it" ???

Undoing the damage done by Trump will take at least a decade. Even if
Biden runs for, and wins, a second term, it will be the president after
him (if he or she is a Democrat) that will be tasked with contining to
repair the damage Trump did to the country.

On 9/15/2021 8:29 PM, sms wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 4:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> "People who don't read history should not be telling us
>> anything about
>> it" ???
>
> Undoing the damage done by Trump will take at least a
> decade. Even if Biden runs for, and wins, a second term, it
> will be the president after him (if he or she is a Democrat)
> that will be tasked with contining to repair the damage
> Trump did to the country.

Full employment, low inflation, strong military all
unpopular in Santa Clara I assume. Out here in USA it looks
very different than from your perspective.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>> >>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>> >>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
>> >> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
>> >>
>> >> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
>> >>
>> >> Explanation:
>> >> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
>> >>
>> >> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
>> >>
>> >> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
>> >>
>> >> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."
>> >>
>> >> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
>> >>
>> >> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
>> >>
>> >> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
>> >>
>> >> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
>> >
>> > I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
>> >
>> Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
>> khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
>> invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
>> successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
>> Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
>> took 2d place nonetheless.
>
>The book _The Mosquito_ by Winegard claims that mosquitos were one of the most important factors in the
>success of the American revolution. The traitorous revolutionaries were much more knowledgeable about
>when and where the mosquitos spread malaria, yellow fever, etc.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

And Washington, in 1777 ordered that the members of the Continental
forces be vaccinated against smallpox.

But, mosquito's? I would wonder as the British had by the late 1700's
been active in tropical countries such as India and China for some
time and must have been familiar with mosquito's, and was the
relationship between mosquito's and sickness realized in the 1700's?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:13:13 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
> >
> >
> >You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know
> about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles
> away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still
> had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of
> history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in
> this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed
> THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from
> which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea
> that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the
> right to self determination.
> >
> >Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
> >
> >Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when
> it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of
> 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied
> up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything
> about it.
> >
> >What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
> >
> >Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>
> "People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about
> it" ???
>
> You are certainly correct (:-)
>
> But the tea dumped in Boston Harbor was, due to changes in the British
> tea tax, to have been sold for a lower price then existing stores of
> tees smuggled into America from Holland by America ship owners.
>
> And, the above isn't a secret. In fact there are very detailed
> accounts of the British tea business complete with the various taxes
> that applied available on the Internet.
>
> As for being farmers... Well, John Hancock was a wealthily ship owner,
> Samuel Adams was the son of a wealthy merchant and was educated at
> Harvard Collage. Thomas Jefferson? father owned a large plantation in
> what is now Virginia, George Washington, well "The Washington family
> was a wealthy Virginia planter family that had made its fortune
> through land speculation and the cultivation of tobacco."
>
> Hardly poor farmers.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

But John, back in them thar good old days, plantation owners were considered farmers. The fact the plantation owner bought and sold slaves and had slave masters or slave whippers making the slaves do the farming does not matter. He was a farmer. With his hands in the dirt. Or at least his slave's hands were in the dirt.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:13:13 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> >> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>> >
>> >
>> >You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know
>> about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles
>> away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still
>> had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of
>> history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in
>> this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed
>> THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from
>> which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea
>> that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the
>> right to self determination.
>> >
>> >Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>> >
>> >Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when
>> it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of
>> 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied
>> up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything
>> about it.
>> >
>> >What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>> >
>> >Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>>
>> "People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about
>> it" ???
>>
>> You are certainly correct (:-)
>>
>> But the tea dumped in Boston Harbor was, due to changes in the British
>> tea tax, to have been sold for a lower price then existing stores of
>> tees smuggled into America from Holland by America ship owners.
>>
>> And, the above isn't a secret. In fact there are very detailed
>> accounts of the British tea business complete with the various taxes
>> that applied available on the Internet.
>>
>> As for being farmers... Well, John Hancock was a wealthily ship owner,
>> Samuel Adams was the son of a wealthy merchant and was educated at
>> Harvard Collage. Thomas Jefferson? father owned a large plantation in
>> what is now Virginia, George Washington, well "The Washington family
>> was a wealthy Virginia planter family that had made its fortune
>> through land speculation and the cultivation of tobacco."
>>
>> Hardly poor farmers.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>But John, back in them thar good old days, plantation owners were considered farmers. The fact the plantation owner bought and sold slaves and had slave masters or slave whippers making the slaves do the farming does not matter. He was a farmer. With his hands in the dirt. Or at least his slave's hands were in the dirt.

Hardly, and while slavery was a perfectly legal and relatively common
practice (and had been throughout human history) I hardly think that
an individual with a net worth of $587 million (in today's dollars)
and owning some 8,000 acres of farm land was to be classified as a
"common farmer" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 1:15:24 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> > I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
> >
> Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
> khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
> invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
> successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
> Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
> took 2d place nonetheless.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I know a little something of the Anglo-Boer War -- I grew up with tales of "Great-Aunt Agatha killed by the perfidious British in their concentration camp." Until I was well into my twenties, there were still men who'd fought in that war alive and compos. Indeed, one of the commanders who signed the Peace of Vereeniging was my lawyer. Some of my grandmother's diaries are in the Smuts Papers down the road here. Smuts's assault on Okiep, a copper-and-diamond-mining town (the war was basically fought because the British coveted the diamonds and the gold in the two Afrikaner Republics of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal) convinced the British, who by then knew they couldn't win the war outright and were embarrassed by the failure of the greatest empire the world had ever seen -- against two pinprick nations! --, to offer a ceasefire. Less than ten years later the British decided that Afrikaners are simply smarter than other nations, and it was clearly better to have them onside, and gave Smuts and his master, Louis Botha (Smuts, though a killer negotiator and an experienced statesman, was still just 40, in those days a boy among the men with yes-power), back the two Afrikaner Republics, plus the two British provinces of the Cape and Natal, and after the war the German territory of South West Africa (rich in diamonds) as well. Smuts was the only man to serve in the British War Cabinet in both wars, and the only man to sign both the Versailles Treaty and the UN Charter, of which he wrote the first draft of the prologue. He was made a field marshal in the British Army in 1941. Among other great deeds he performed for the British, he was the founder of the RAF. On the cusp of the twentieth century, the Boer commandos were the world's leading guerrilla fighters, and Smuts wasn't even their finest example, that probably being Koos de la Rey, Smuts's first commander; in the beginning they had only five hundred men (men joined the best commanders voluntarily), running a British army of 20,000, lavishly equipped and supplied, ragged all over the Western Transvaal. It was because the British couldn't pin them them down to their preferred style of battle, complete with marching bands, that Kitchener invented the concentration camps to herd their women and children into as hostages, and the scorched earth behind the British Army was also intended to break their spirit. Both were mistakes that did the British more harm than good, the concentration camps to their reputation, the scorched earth to their supply trains as the Afrikaner commandos simply took whole trains, and so the British had to bring in more troops than the entire population of the two Afrikaner Republics (including women and children) to protect their supply trains over thousands of miles. It was a miserable lesson for an empire that was accustomed to slaughtering little brown men to be on the receiving end of fighters who knew they lay of the land and were accustomed to counting their bullets and making every bullet count double, and who included a very large proportion of leaders with brains and initiative.

Andre Jute
Charm offensive

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 2:35:28 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 8:29 PM, sms wrote:
> >
> > Undoing the damage done by Trump will take at least a
> > decade. Even if Biden runs for, and wins, a second term, it
> > will be the president after him (if he or she is a Democrat)
> > that will be tasked with contining to repair the damage
> > Trump did to the country.
> Full employment, low inflation, strong military all
> unpopular in Santa Clara I assume. Out here in USA it looks
> very different than from your perspective.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I thought Scarfie was making a satirical comment, and laughed aloud. If he's serious, he's straight-up nuts, and blind as a bat besides, as well as in need of a humor transplant.

Andre Jute
But just think, no mean tweets!

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
> >>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
> >>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
> >> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
> >>
> >> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
> >>
> >> Explanation:
> >> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
> >>
> >> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
> >>
> >> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
> >>
> >> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."
> >>
> >> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
> >>
> >> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
> >>
> >> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
> >>
> >> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
> >
> > I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
> >
> Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
> khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
> invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
> successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
> Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
> took 2d place nonetheless.

Uh, Andrew, the Boers were a minority group fighting against their OWN government as well as the Brits who merely supplied the firepower and supplies that the Boers were unable to obtain.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:15:09 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The book _The Mosquito_ by Winegard claims that mosquitos were one of the most important factors in the
> success of the American revolution. The traitorous revolutionaries were much more knowledgeable about
> when and where the mosquitos spread malaria, yellow fever, etc.

Malaria most certainly disables armies but yellow fever is a rapidly multiplicative virus that causes a very rapid reaction in the immune system so that people are generally only disabled for perhaps a week at most. Battles would rarely hinge on that sort of thing.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:29:24 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 4:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > "People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about
> > it" ???
> Undoing the damage done by Trump will take at least a decade. Even if
> Biden runs for, and wins, a second term, it will be the president after
> him (if he or she is a Democrat) that will be tasked with contining to
> repair the damage Trump did to the country.
Scharf, why do you continue to make those false statements without so much as mentioning what sort of "damage" Trump did and how? We've been waiting for you to at least attempt to support your bullshit.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:53:14 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>.
> But John, back in them thar good old days, plantation owners were considered farmers. The fact the plantation owner bought and sold slaves and had slave masters or slave whippers making the slaves do the farming does not matter. He was a farmer. With his hands in the dirt. Or at least his slave's hands were in the dirt.

You cannot stop yourself from the utterance of lies beyond lies can you? Slave were expensive, 90% of slave owners had a single slave that often was nothing more than a farm hand that ate at the same table in the same hovel as the farmer/owner. You do not "beat" your slaves into ill health as you seem to think. Plantations treated slaves as farm workers and the pictures of scarred backs and such were almost always of escaped slaves and those almost entirely from the Texas cotton plantations and not the more northern areas where even the founders and owners of those Plantations admitted that slavery was a crime against humanity. Jefferson ended up freeing all of his slaves. And it wasn't uncommon for a plantation owner to allow his own slaves to inherit their land upon his death if he didn't have any survivors which was very common since death was common in young people then. Perhaps you should write a book filled with your idiotic distortions of history. You could get John to write a forward to it

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:19:22 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 2:35:28 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/15/2021 8:29 PM, sms wrote:
> > >
> > > Undoing the damage done by Trump will take at least a
> > > decade. Even if Biden runs for, and wins, a second term, it
> > > will be the president after him (if he or she is a Democrat)
> > > that will be tasked with contining to repair the damage
> > > Trump did to the country.
> > Full employment, low inflation, strong military all
> > unpopular in Santa Clara I assume. Out here in USA it looks
> > very different than from your perspective.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> I thought Scarfie was making a satirical comment, and laughed aloud. If he's serious, he's straight-up nuts, and blind as a bat besides, as well as in need of a humor transplant.

How many times have I asked him to supply am example and he can't? Only a coward reacts like Scharf.