On 9/16/2021 10:31 AM, Tom Kunich 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.
>
> 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.
>

There are plenty of first-person accounts, including POW and
escapee Winston Churchill.

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

On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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?

I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.

But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.

On 9/16/2021 11:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> 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....

Wow. Yet another torrent of misinformation.

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/slaves-who-gained-freedom

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 8:52:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 10:31 AM, Tom Kunich 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> There are plenty of first-person accounts, including POW and
> escapee Winston Churchill.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Sherman as a directly experienced soldier said "War is Hell". Do you suppose that under any circumstances things have changed?

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 11:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:53:14 PM UTC-7, russell...@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....
>
> Wow. Yet another torrent of misinformation.
>
> https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/slaves-who-gained-freedom

OK Frank - give us the records of how many slaves escaped Monticello and were recaptured. I'll be waiting for your vastly knowledgeable retorts.

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 10:46:43 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:53:14 PM UTC-7, russell...@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

Oh My. I love how you Trumper Republicans spin facts and the truth into lies. What you just wrote sounds exactly like Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson saying the January 6 riot at the Capital was a "largely peaceful protest". Oh My. According to you people, slavery was a good thing. Helpful to the poor slaves. You made them better. Blame the victim.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/554548-ron-johnson-jan-6-capitol-riot-was-largely-peaceful-not-an-insurrection

"even the founders and owners of those Plantations admitted that slavery was a crime against humanity."
This is your quote. By your Trumper Republican logic (HaHaHa) if a criminal, lets say Dylann Roof who killed nine blacks at a South Carolina church, said he was sorry and regretful after the crime and knew it was wrong. Then by your logic you would say he is a good outstanding person and should be free. You Trumper Republicans would probably rationalize it by saying the blacks were criminals and needed to be killed because they were attending church without the permission of their slave master's ancestor's permission..

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 12:32:23 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 10:46:43 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:53:14 PM UTC-7, russell...@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
> Oh My. I love how you Trumper Republicans spin facts and the truth into lies. What you just wrote sounds exactly like Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson saying the January 6 riot at the Capital was a "largely peaceful protest". Oh My. According to you people, slavery was a good thing. Helpful to the poor slaves. You made them better. Blame the victim.
>
> https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/554548-ron-johnson-jan-6-capitol-riot-was-largely-peaceful-not-an-insurrection
> "even the founders and owners of those Plantations admitted that slavery was a crime against humanity."
> This is your quote. By your Trumper Republican logic (HaHaHa) if a criminal, lets say Dylann Roof who killed nine blacks at a South Carolina church, said he was sorry and regretful after the crime and knew it was wrong. Then by your logic you would say he is a good outstanding person and should be free. You Trumper Republicans would probably rationalize it by saying the blacks were criminals and needed to be killed because they were attending church without the permission of their slave master's ancestor's permission.

Why don't you tell us again how you're a conservative as you spit your Democrat talking points all over the group. Tell us all - what is a "Trumper Republican"? I actually was born and grew up in Oakland. I NEVER lived anywhere where blacks weren't the majority around me except in the Air Force and there the most important people in the shop were the two black sergeants that actually repaired the equipment and they did it correctly.

Why don't you tell me about all of the blacks you lived around and how many were in the schools you went to?

Why dem slaves hated those evil slave owners so much that most of them took the names of their masters.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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?
>
>I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
>was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
>disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
>lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
>
>But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
>the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
>bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
>
>Here's a brief article:
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 08:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@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.
>
>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.

Reality certainly isn't one of Tommy's strong points... or perhaps
history is wrong?

The First Boer War was fought between the British Empire and the so
called "Trekboers" who had settled in the Transvaal. This ended in the
Boers victory and the eventual independence of the South African
Republic.

The Second Boer war was fought between the British Empire and South
African Republic (Republic of Transvaal) and the Orange Free State
when the Boers attacked Ladysmith, Kimberley, and Mafeking in early
1900. This war ended when the Boer leadership surrendered and accepted
British terms with the Treaty of Vereeniging in May 1902.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/16/2021 7:08 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
>> was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
>> disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
>> lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
>>
>> But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
>> the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
>> bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
>>
>> Here's a brief article:
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html
>
> I wonder... After all the colonies were essentially British and I
> believe it is estimated that roughly a third of the "colonists" were
> pro "The Motherland" so it does seem likely that British forces, who
> had been fighting in the "new world" for about 20 years before the
> "Great Mutiny" might have become aware of the various sicknesses that
> were common.
>
> I only did a very quick look but it appears that Smallpox was seen as
> the greatest danger and both the British and Colonists (at a later
> date) inoculated their troops against it.
>
> But, who knows now. So much utter foolishness has been written about
> wars that nearly 250 years later who knows what actually happened (:-)
>

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 19:52:31 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/16/2021 7:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
>>> was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
>>> disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
>>> lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
>>>
>>> But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
>>> the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
>>> bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
>>>
>>> Here's a brief article:
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html
>>
>> I wonder... After all the colonies were essentially British and I
>> believe it is estimated that roughly a third of the "colonists" were
>> pro "The Motherland" so it does seem likely that British forces, who
>> had been fighting in the "new world" for about 20 years before the
>> "Great Mutiny" might have become aware of the various sicknesses that
>> were common.
>>
>> I only did a very quick look but it appears that Smallpox was seen as
>> the greatest danger and both the British and Colonists (at a later
>> date) inoculated their troops against it.
>>
>> But, who knows now. So much utter foolishness has been written about
>> wars that nearly 250 years later who knows what actually happened (:-)
>>
>
>Having read quite a bit of period writings, yes smallpox was
>a big problem, especially in Boston in 1775.
>
>It's unclear to me that anyone at the time understood
>mosquitos as disease vectors but Frank makes a good point
>about humid dank low areas near water, probably a fungible
>difference. Whether either army behaved/maneuvered
>differently with that in mind is not at all clear to me.
>Maybe, maybe not.
>
>Mahon credits the French navy at Yorktown for turning the
>final victory, something skipped over in schoolbooks.

Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.

So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?

Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:52:34 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 7:08 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@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?
> >>
> >> I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
> >> was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
> >> disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
> >> lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
> >>
> >> But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
> >> the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
> >> bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
> >>
> >> Here's a brief article:
> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html
> >
> > I wonder... After all the colonies were essentially British and I
> > believe it is estimated that roughly a third of the "colonists" were
> > pro "The Motherland" so it does seem likely that British forces, who
> > had been fighting in the "new world" for about 20 years before the
> > "Great Mutiny" might have become aware of the various sicknesses that
> > were common.
> >
> > I only did a very quick look but it appears that Smallpox was seen as
> > the greatest danger and both the British and Colonists (at a later
> > date) inoculated their troops against it.
> >
> > But, who knows now. So much utter foolishness has been written about
> > wars that nearly 250 years later who knows what actually happened (:-)
> >
> Having read quite a bit of period writings, yes smallpox was
> a big problem, especially in Boston in 1775.
>
> It's unclear to me that anyone at the time understood
> mosquitos as disease vectors but Frank makes a good point
> about humid dank low areas near water, probably a fungible
> difference. Whether either army behaved/maneuvered
> differently with that in mind is not at all clear to me.
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Mahon credits the French navy at Yorktown for turning the
> final victory, something skipped over in schoolbooks.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>
> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>
> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.

On 9/17/2021 9:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:52:34 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/16/2021 7:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@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?
>>>>
>>>> I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
>>>> was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
>>>> disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
>>>> lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
>>>>
>>>> But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
>>>> the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
>>>> bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a brief article:
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html
>>>
>>> I wonder... After all the colonies were essentially British and I
>>> believe it is estimated that roughly a third of the "colonists" were
>>> pro "The Motherland" so it does seem likely that British forces, who
>>> had been fighting in the "new world" for about 20 years before the
>>> "Great Mutiny" might have become aware of the various sicknesses that
>>> were common.
>>>
>>> I only did a very quick look but it appears that Smallpox was seen as
>>> the greatest danger and both the British and Colonists (at a later
>>> date) inoculated their troops against it.
>>>
>>> But, who knows now. So much utter foolishness has been written about
>>> wars that nearly 250 years later who knows what actually happened (:-)
>>>
>> Having read quite a bit of period writings, yes smallpox was
>> a big problem, especially in Boston in 1775.
>>
>> It's unclear to me that anyone at the time understood
>> mosquitos as disease vectors but Frank makes a good point
>> about humid dank low areas near water, probably a fungible
>> difference. Whether either army behaved/maneuvered
>> differently with that in mind is not at all clear to me.
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> Mahon credits the French navy at Yorktown for turning the
>> final victory, something skipped over in schoolbooks.
>
> Don't let anyone like John tell you someone was "inoculated" against Smallpox. This was "achieved" by rubbing the powdered scabs of recovering smallpox victims into open wounds of the "inoculated" and caused as much smallpox and it supposedly prevented. John and his moronic reading of history from the Internet is why actual books by scholars were written.
>

On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>
>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>
>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>

WTF?

Article I, sec 8:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/

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

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:43:02 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 9:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:52:34 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2021 7:08 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@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?
> >>>>
> >>>> I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
> >>>> was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
> >>>> disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
> >>>> lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
> >>>> the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
> >>>> bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's a brief article:
> >>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html
> >>>
> >>> I wonder... After all the colonies were essentially British and I
> >>> believe it is estimated that roughly a third of the "colonists" were
> >>> pro "The Motherland" so it does seem likely that British forces, who
> >>> had been fighting in the "new world" for about 20 years before the
> >>> "Great Mutiny" might have become aware of the various sicknesses that
> >>> were common.
> >>>
> >>> I only did a very quick look but it appears that Smallpox was seen as
> >>> the greatest danger and both the British and Colonists (at a later
> >>> date) inoculated their troops against it.
> >>>
> >>> But, who knows now. So much utter foolishness has been written about
> >>> wars that nearly 250 years later who knows what actually happened (:-)
> >>>
> >> Having read quite a bit of period writings, yes smallpox was
> >> a big problem, especially in Boston in 1775.
> >>
> >> It's unclear to me that anyone at the time understood
> >> mosquitos as disease vectors but Frank makes a good point
> >> about humid dank low areas near water, probably a fungible
> >> difference. Whether either army behaved/maneuvered
> >> differently with that in mind is not at all clear to me.
> >> Maybe, maybe not.
> >>
> >> Mahon credits the French navy at Yorktown for turning the
> >> final victory, something skipped over in schoolbooks.
> >
> > Don't let anyone like John tell you someone was "inoculated" against Smallpox. This was "achieved" by rubbing the powdered scabs of recovering smallpox victims into open wounds of the "inoculated" and caused as much smallpox and it supposedly prevented. John and his moronic reading of history from the Internet is why actual books by scholars were written.
> >
> After Jenner, inoculations used cowpox pus.
>
> https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest..
> >>
> >> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >>
> >> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> > Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >
> WTF?
>
> Article I, sec 8:
> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/

Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.

Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.

On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>
>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> Article I, sec 8:
>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>
> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>
> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>

'a select group' ?
Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!

Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
then and now.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion

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

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >>>>
> >>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> >>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >>>
> >> WTF?
> >>
> >> Article I, sec 8:
> >> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >
> > Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >
> > Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >
> 'a select group' ?
> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>
> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> then and now.
>
> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion

As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >>>>
> >>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> >>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >>>
> >> WTF?
> >>
> >> Article I, sec 8:
> >> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >
> > Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >
> > Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >
> 'a select group' ?
> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>
> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> then and now.
>
> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion

Tobacco, gas, airline tickets, etc., etc. Excise taxes are typically paid by business and passed on in the price of goods, and obviously they only affect the consumers of those goods -- and with some excise taxes, only a small group of consumers may be affected, like for indoor tanning. Those poor, oppressed tan people. I feel so sorry for them. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/indoor-tanning-services-tax-center#:~:text=Many%20businesses%20offering%20indoor%20tanning,Quarterly%20Federal%20Excise%20Tax%20Return. Do you think we'll see the Tan People Rebellion? They can join with the smokers and drinkers. Their spokesman: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bb/73/e1/bb73e182ca6f1fbf8efe33a113a0a13e.png I'm sure they could bring him back with CGI.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tom Kunich wrote: "Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?"

Excise taxes are perfectly legal and constitutional, and always have been. Indeed, our founding fathers envisioned and contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Imagine if the 16th Amendment had never been ratified, and our federal government were still financed largely by excise taxes: it certainly would be a lot smaller than it is today.

Almost-the-first federal building in San Francisco, the Customs House located at 555 Battery Street, was built in 1854 in order to collect excise taxes from ships entering S.F. bay. The federal tax collector viewed the bay through his spyglass from a turret at the top of the building, and when he saw a promising-looking ship come sailing into the bay, he'd order some of his underlings to row a dinghy out to the ship, demand to see its manifest, go on board and inspect the cargo if they felt it necessary, and assess and collect the excise tax on it. The ship wouldn't be allowed to moor until the captain paid the excise tax. That sounds like a pretty lousy job to me..

555 Battery was rebuilt in 1906, but remained a pretty sleepy building filled with fairly low-level and unimportant federal offices and agencies until 9/11, after which the government totally rebuilt, fortified and secured it, and installed a lot of Homeland Security-type offices in it. The agencies that had previously occupied it had to flee to strip malls in the suburbs..

On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
>>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
>>>>>
>>>> WTF?
>>>>
>>>> Article I, sec 8:
>>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
>>>
>>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
>>>
>>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
>>>
>> 'a select group' ?
>> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
>>
>> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
>> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
>> then and now.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
>
> As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
>

Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.

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

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:24:50 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote: "Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?"
>
> Excise taxes are perfectly legal and constitutional, and always have been.. Indeed, our founding fathers envisioned and contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Imagine if the 16th Amendment had never been ratified, and our federal government were still financed largely by excise taxes: it certainly would be a lot smaller than it is today.
>
> Almost-the-first federal building in San Francisco, the Customs House located at 555 Battery Street, was built in 1854 in order to collect excise taxes from ships entering S.F. bay. The federal tax collector viewed the bay through his spyglass from a turret at the top of the building, and when he saw a promising-looking ship come sailing into the bay, he'd order some of his underlings to row a dinghy out to the ship, demand to see its manifest, go on board and inspect the cargo if they felt it necessary, and assess and collect the excise tax on it. The ship wouldn't be allowed to moor until the captain paid the excise tax. That sounds like a pretty lousy job to me.
>
> 555 Battery was rebuilt in 1906, but remained a pretty sleepy building filled with fairly low-level and unimportant federal offices and agencies until 9/11, after which the government totally rebuilt, fortified and secured it, and installed a lot of Homeland Security-type offices in it. The agencies that had previously occupied it had to flee to strip malls in the suburbs.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why the Supreme Court overturned it then? Just like any moron, you run on about bullshit. Of course excise taxes are legal when they are for a specific purpose. But NOT TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT. But invent more words. You're getting better at it by the moment.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 11:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2021 11:40 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 9/17/2021 9:46 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 5:49:36 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, Tom, I believe I do understand what an excise tax is. I took two semesters of tax law in law school and also some "Mandatory Continuing Legal Education" courses on tax law. But maybe you went to a better law school than I did. I went to one of the U.C. law schools. I'll bet you went to Harvard or Yale, you corker, and just haven't told us because you're so modest.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So if a commie and a conservative agree that the sky is blue, does that mean that the conservative is a commie?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, I view U.S. history as a play with quite a few acts. Even though the first act was pretty phony, there is plenty of time for the play to redeem itself. And I will admit that every time I have traveled abroad, I kissed the ground I walked upon, figuratively speaking, when I returned to U.S. soil. We're just discussing our country's original sin that the revolution was ginned up (not to mention the original sin of slavery), but the real meaning of the story is probably in the salvation from that sin.
> >>>>> Then explain to us why you think that an excise tax would not be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Show us all that vast legal knowledge of yours which would put the load for paying for government upon a select and weaker minority and tell us that you're a Conservative again.
> >>>>>
> >>>> WTF?
> >>>>
> >>>> Article I, sec 8:
> >>>> https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_1/
> >>>
> >>> Andrew, ask Jay what that means. They are saying that it is legal to use taxes as a method of regulation. It doesn't say that the government may obtain its income from a select group whose power to respond is limited.
> >>>
> >>> Now indeed, the means by which the government has assigned the levels of taxation more or less does the same thing with the top 10% of income earners paying something like 80% of the taxes but this in effect is the overwhelming majority of income earners since last time I checked, the bottom end of that top 10% was $116,000 or a sanitation worker that works overtime often. And most government workers.
> >>>
> >> 'a select group' ?
> >> Such as whiskey producers & whiskey drinkers? Big group!
> >>
> >> Alcohol excise tax started on Day One under our
> >> Constitution. You can bitch and moan but that's how it is,
> >> then and now.
> >>
> >> https://www.britannica.com/event/Whiskey-Rebellion
> >
> > As I said, the government DOES have the ability to tax specific groups to CONTROL NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. They do not have the ability to fund themselves only via small groups.
> >
> Peruse Art I sec 8 again and maybe rephrase that.

Andrew, you are not a Constitutional lawyer. In the manner you're interpreting that there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to overthrow the attempt to support the majority of the population by taxing a minority.. So think about that. Taxes are legal We know that. And taxes can be exercised by virtually any means. But you may not screw some minority for your own benefit. The present means of taxation of the rich could probably be challenged in court but the rich are willing to carry the load up to this point. But we presently have a 22 Trillion dollar national debt and it isn't going to be too long before large tax increases are coming and the rich aren't going to agree to carry that much additional load.