Conquer Club

Dukasaur, the RP article is available to anyone with google.
I said what I did and posted the way I did because I find people here dont read what they comment on.

This time,Thorthoth thinks the post is something I wrote, he didnt see clearly that it was Ron Paul, even when I state clearly at the top its a Ron Paul comment and at the bottom again, Thorthoth says too bad if people believe me.
(lousy detectives around here lol)

People should stop getting their history from government controlled magazines and movies.
Really people, take the time to look at who owns and controls the media.


As for Iran, should a person actually research a bit, they would find the Iranian army has not left Iran since Xerxes other than to fight Iraq, (iraq/iran war) enter Iraq as the Iraqi government requested and entered Syria, as the Syrian government requested.

Yes Iran supports those that oppose the Zionists and the people committing genocide in Palestine and Yemen of late.
Iran fights ISIS as we and our allies support ISIS.
For that, we call them a terror state.

Iran is evil because they dont like us making money from killing children.

We as a civilized christian nation know beyond doubt that we bomb the poop outta people for their own good.

Heck, it only took us forty years to think about cleaning up the agent orange chemicals we dont use in vietnam.
Recall those "red lines"?

Iran calls us "The Great Satan" for a reason.

use the quotes, armati...

mrswdk wrote:Why is it that a country has to have the same form of government before it’s acceptable for Americans to call them a partner or ally?

Other than preachy American politicians and their shills in Europe, most governments and peoples are perfectly capable of working cooperatively with other nations that have very different systems and values to their own.

”We are an open and tolerant society that will repeatedly condemn and coerce you unless you conform to our values. Woo, freedom!”

Unfortunately, far too many Americans (and really, people in general) are only in favor of freedom and rights for those who agree with them.

patches70 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patches70 wrote:People saying they don't like the NFL players protesting the anthem are not in the slightest way attacking Free Speech you fucking morons.

This is correct. However, when the President of the United States, in the highest position of our Federal Government, suggests that those players should be fired, I think it's reasonable to be concerned about his advocating for such an action, given his position.

So? He can say what the f*ck ever he wants, the owners don't have to listen to him. They are under no legal or moral obligation to oblige Trump. People just gotta "be concerned" about dumb shit all the time.


I'll tell ya when it's time to be concerned. When Trump writes and executive order, or Congress passes a law which states that anyone who doesn't stand for the National Anthem will be fined and/or jailed and the SCOTUS upholds said law/executive order, then yeah, it'll be time to be "concerned".

Until then one can simply ignore the ravings of the Trump's and the chicken little's running around blabbering "OMG my Free Speech is under assault!"

No, it isn't. So far it's all been free speech, from the NFL players, to the fans who boo them, to the calls for the offending players being benched or fired, to the morons who call the NFL players "heroic". It's all free speech. Every bit of it.

It's also moronic. And if you are "concerned", Woodruff, then you sir must also be afraid of the monsters in your closet and the monsters under your bed. If that's all it takes to "concern" you, then you must be a sniveling mass of nerves by now that jumps at his own shadow.

The best thing, the wisest thing, the NFL and the players could have done, what they should have done, was completely ignore Trump. The smartest, wisest thing the antiTrumper's could have/should have done, was to completely ignore Trump. That above anything else would bug Trump the most. It would also be the smartest thing to do because it's a no win situation for the antiTrumpers. To show disapproval for Trump you'd have to appear to show disapproval to the Country and the Flag and all the connotes. This has been pure Trump gold.

Good job morons. You've helped Trump. Give yourselves a big pat on the back for being useful idiots.

Next time, don't sweat the petty stuff, pet the sweaty stuff instead.

Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants were also morons? They were also protesting.

notyou2 wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patches70 wrote:People saying they don't like the NFL players protesting the anthem are not in the slightest way attacking Free Speech you fucking morons.

This is correct. However, when the President of the United States, in the highest position of our Federal Government, suggests that those players should be fired, I think it's reasonable to be concerned about his advocating for such an action, given his position.

So? He can say what the f*ck ever he wants, the owners don't have to listen to him. They are under no legal or moral obligation to oblige Trump. People just gotta "be concerned" about dumb shit all the time.


I'll tell ya when it's time to be concerned. When Trump writes and executive order, or Congress passes a law which states that anyone who doesn't stand for the National Anthem will be fined and/or jailed and the SCOTUS upholds said law/executive order, then yeah, it'll be time to be "concerned".

Until then one can simply ignore the ravings of the Trump's and the chicken little's running around blabbering "OMG my Free Speech is under assault!"

No, it isn't. So far it's all been free speech, from the NFL players, to the fans who boo them, to the calls for the offending players being benched or fired, to the morons who call the NFL players "heroic". It's all free speech. Every bit of it.

It's also moronic. And if you are "concerned", Woodruff, then you sir must also be afraid of the monsters in your closet and the monsters under your bed. If that's all it takes to "concern" you, then you must be a sniveling mass of nerves by now that jumps at his own shadow.

The best thing, the wisest thing, the NFL and the players could have done, what they should have done, was completely ignore Trump. The smartest, wisest thing the antiTrumper's could have/should have done, was to completely ignore Trump. That above anything else would bug Trump the most. It would also be the smartest thing to do because it's a no win situation for the antiTrumpers. To show disapproval for Trump you'd have to appear to show disapproval to the Country and the Flag and all the connotes. This has been pure Trump gold.

Good job morons. You've helped Trump. Give yourselves a big pat on the back for being useful idiots.

Next time, don't sweat the petty stuff, pet the sweaty stuff instead.

Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants were also morons? They were also protesting.

if not for trump nobody would be talking sbout it,glad he started this,these scums bags have no respect for this country

notyou2 wrote:
Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants were also morons? They were also protesting.

You think a mob destroying property is a "protest"? Seriously? And somehow in your mind you draw parallels between that and the NFL players?

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?

A bunch of pro-lifers are protesting an abortion clinic when one of them decides to chuck a firebomb into the clinic, destroying it. It's all good according to NY2 because they are "protesting".

Har!

The NFL players are morons. The optics of the protests show them to be morons.
The people who say "good for you" to the NFL players are morons. These people are playing straight into Trump's little game, like morons.


If the NFL players start destroying the field in "protest", they move from protester to vandal.
The people who criticize the NFL players are using their own free speech rights. If those same people start beating the shit out of NFL players, they move from exercising their rights into criminal assault.

The Boston Tea party, though important in the formation of the US, moved from a protest, where they were able to get people to voluntarily give back the taxed tea, moved into another realm beyond "protesting" when they disguised themselves as Indians, boarded a ship illegally and destroyed the tea aboard, along with the ship I think. That is not protesting, that is destruction of property, arson, vandalism and a whole host of other crimes.

The Boston Tea party played perfectly into the Sons of Liberty's goal. The British reacted harshly and it lead to armed conflict, the rest being history.
This moves from the realm of "protest" into something completely different, not comparable to the moronic NFL players. One player, who is now unemployed and will never play in the NFL again, was the only one who might have had some sort of actual protest, though it was fairly haphazard and most of the NFL just ignored him.
It wasn't until Trump says that NFL players kneeling are unpatriotic, America hating flag disrespectors. The NFL players react with "Oh yeah! If we wanna disrespect the anthem, the flag, the fans then by God it's our right!" and went ahead and did just that, like complete morons.

The players think in their own minds they are protesting Trump. But to everyone else except Trump haters, it's a lot worse than that. Trump says that kneeling during the anthem is disrespectful to America, the flag, vets, etc etc and the NFL players respond by kneeling and proving his point. When ever you have to preface you actions with "Well, I'm not a <insert label here, "racist", "America hater" etc etc> BUT...." then you know you have crawled right out onto the thin ice like a moron.


If you cannot see how this is a no win situation for the NFL players, then I'm afraid there is little hope for you to ever get a clue. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it a great idea to go ahead and do it without considering certain realities. Emotions cloud the mind often, it makes people do moronic things sometimes.

Are you comparing a handegg player kneeling down during the national anthem to someone petrol bombing someone else's business?

mrswdk wrote:Are you comparing a handegg player kneeling down during the national anthem to someone petrol bombing someone else's business?

Of course not, NY2 did that. I was only making fun of his assertion. Apparently he thinks destroying someone else's property as "protest" is acceptable.

Unless he's comparing the NFL players to the colonial separatist, which is also moronic.

I don’t think he said that all.

Are you sleeping well?

patches70 wrote:A bunch of pro-lifers are protesting an abortion clinic when one of them decides to chuck a firebomb into the clinic, destroying it. It's all good according to NY2 because they are "protesting".

Har!

The NFL players are morons. The optics of the protests show them to be morons.
The people who say "good for you" to the NFL players are morons. These people are playing straight into Trump's little game, like morons.


If the NFL players start destroying the field in "protest", they move from protester to vandal.
The people who criticize the NFL players are using their own free speech rights. If those same people start beating the shit out of NFL players, they move from exercising their rights into criminal assault.

The Boston Tea party, though important in the formation of the US, moved from a protest, where they were able to get people to voluntarily give back the taxed tea, moved into another realm beyond "protesting" when they disguised themselves as Indians, boarded a ship illegally and destroyed the tea aboard, along with the ship I think. That is not protesting, that is destruction of property, arson, vandalism and a whole host of other crimes.

The Boston Tea party played perfectly into the Sons of Liberty's goal. The British reacted harshly and it lead to armed conflict, the rest being history.
This moves from the realm of "protest" into something completely different, not comparable to the moronic NFL players. One player, who is now unemployed and will never play in the NFL again, was the only one who might have had some sort of actual protest, though it was fairly haphazard and most of the NFL just ignored him.
It wasn't until Trump says that NFL players kneeling are unpatriotic, America hating flag disrespectors. The NFL players react with "Oh yeah! If we wanna disrespect the anthem, the flag, the fans then by God it's our right!" and went ahead and did just that, like complete morons.

The players think in their own minds they are protesting Trump. But to everyone else except Trump haters, it's a lot worse than that. Trump says that kneeling during the anthem is disrespectful to America, the flag, vets, etc etc and the NFL players respond by kneeling and proving his point. When ever you have to preface you actions with "Well, I'm not a <insert label here, "racist", "America hater" etc etc> BUT...." then you know you have crawled right out onto the thin ice like a moron.


If you cannot see how this is a no win situation for the NFL players, then I'm afraid there is little hope for you to ever get a clue. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it a great idea to go ahead and do it without considering certain realities. Emotions cloud the mind often, it makes people do moronic things sometimes.

Interesting take, but they weren't protesting Trump. Kneeling was a protest against racial injustice.

Trump surely took a side after that, and players responded, but suggesting that the protest was about Trump in the first place seems a little naive, no?

patches70 wrote:

notyou2 wrote:
Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants were also morons? They were also protesting.

You think a mob destroying property is a "protest"? Seriously? And somehow in your mind you draw parallels between that and the NFL players?

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?

I simply asked you a question, no need to get all offensive.

My point is America was founded on protest. All these patriots are up in arms over some people protesting racial injustices, but they forget that America was created from protest. Who are the morons again?

Turns out founding a country based on the value of ‘usurping authority’ wasn’t a very sustainable model.

Another victory for the Beijing Consensus.

racial injustice. imao they are going to far with this chit,what a waste of space they are

notyou2 wrote:Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants were also morons? They were also protesting.

Oh my, an opportunity for an open ended rant against Samuel Adams?

Perhaps sometime later. This is one of the most misunderstood events in all of American history.

In any event, the act of destroying crates of tea, disguised as natives of the Mohawk tribe was not only illegal, but a violation of everything that this nation was founded on (life, liberty, (property), and the pursuit of happiness). It was promoted by Sam Adams Sons of Liberty as well as smugglers of Dutch tea. It was not a protest; it was a terrorist act.

tzor wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants were also morons? They were also protesting.

Oh my, an opportunity for an open ended rant against Samuel Adams?

Perhaps sometime later. This is one of the most misunderstood events in all of American history.

In any event, the act of destroying crates of tea, disguised as natives of the Mohawk tribe was not only illegal, but a violation of everything that this nation was founded on (life, liberty, (property), and the pursuit of happiness). It was promoted by Sam Adams Sons of Liberty as well as smugglers of Dutch tea. It was not a protest; it was a terrorist act.

I don't disagree, but that's not the way your schools teach it.

Dukasaur wrote:

tzor wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Do you believe the Boston Tea Party participants were also morons? They were also protesting.

Oh my, an opportunity for an open ended rant against Samuel Adams?

Perhaps sometime later. This is one of the most misunderstood events in all of American history.

In any event, the act of destroying crates of tea, disguised as natives of the Mohawk tribe was not only illegal, but a violation of everything that this nation was founded on (life, liberty, (property), and the pursuit of happiness). It was promoted by Sam Adams Sons of Liberty as well as smugglers of Dutch tea. It was not a protest; it was a terrorist act.

I don't disagree, but that's not the way your schools teach it.

I agree with Duk. You guys have been tooting your own horn about this event for almost 250 years. Now you call it a terrorist act. Unfuckingbelievable.

Whoa now? What makes you guys think you know how the Boston Tea Party was taught?

I'll give you the real deal of how it went down.

The Sons of Liberty were a separatist group (there were lots of them back in those days, but we are speaking of a very specific group here) that had a membership that was a veritable who's who of the Founding Fathers. John Adams, Patrick Henry, Benedict Arnold (though later he became a traitor, in the beginning he was one of the greatest of heroes which made his betrayal so bad). Even Benjamin Franklin was a member of this particular group.

Anyway, the British in need of funds to keep ruling the world, enslaving peoples, and slaughtering various indigenous peoples around the world, found themselves in want of more funds. So they made a tea tax. What so offended the colonists about this tax is that the colonies had no representation in Parliament so the colonies had no opportunity to legally oppose the taxes in legislation.

The Sons of Liberty whose ultimate goal was the divorce of the colonies from Britain, had a golden opportunity here. This was a very unpopular tax, that even loyal Tories in the colonies would grumble about. So they made an issue of the tax. The Sons went around to every importer and cajoled them into returning any and all tea and refusing anymore shipments of tea, to deny the British their tax. If there is no tea there is no tax to be paid.
However, one importer did not go along with the Sons of Liberty and refused to return his stock of tea but also had plenty more coming in. He was looking to sell the tea of course, and the colonists would buy it tax or no tax. This one guy openly defied the Sons of Liberty . They certainly couldn't let that stand. If others saw this guy ignoring their protests, then other importers would start selling tea and everyone wold soon forget all about the tax and their outrage.

So, in response the Sons of Liberty disguised themselves as Indians and in the middle of the night crept aboard a number of ships that were delivering the next shipment of tea. They were anchored just off shore in Boston harbor due to be unloaded the next day. They pulled all the cargo out, tea and everything else aboard, and tossed it into the harbor, destroying it.

Now this response, this is not protest. This is coercion. There is no other way to look at, if you look at it objectively. The act was specifically intended to draw a response by Britain to further the goals of the Sons of Liberty, which as we recall, was to separate the colonies from British rule. It was also designed to intimidate the other importers as a message to what happens if you go against the Sons of Liberty. I.E. coercion, intimidation, neither of which can in any way be interpreted as "protest".

Samuel Adams is the one who the next day and beyond who defended the act of aggression, who offered that this was a protest, and not a lawless mob act. One must take this with a grain of salt as Samuel Adams was a leader of the Sons of Liberty and most likely helped plan the entire thing. His job after the act was to give legitimacy to it. This is what we'd say today a type of psy-op, propaganda. The Sons of Liberty were desperate to light a fire under the colonists asses to rebel. There is a reason why Boston was chosen for this as well, for just three years before was the Boston Massacre, which still stuck in the craw of many a Bostonian.

The British responded with the Intolerable Acts. One of those acts, which is (in)famous was the Quartering Act. This so pissed off the colonists that the very American constitution specifically bars such actions by the government today. The Intolerable Acts were widely viewed as as usurping the Colonial Charters, that is the Crown reneged on their agreement by not honoring the Colonial charters and effectively negated those charters. The British response did exactly what the Sons of Liberty wanted, they drew people to their cause. Massachusetts was especially hard hit by the Intolerable Acts and the rest of the colonies saw what was happening and feared that Britain would come for them next, thus solidifying, finally, the colonies support for removing themselves from British rule entirely.


The anger grew and by the time Britain figured out it had fallen into the trap the Sons of Liberty had laid for it, tried to reconcile the damage but it was too late. Because of the Intolerable Acts the other colonies pledged to defend Massachusetts if it came to war. In less than a year after the passage of the Intolerable Acts the American Revolution started, the Intolerable Acts being the final straw that broke the camel's back. The Sons of Liberty got their war, got their revolution, got their country. Many of the Sons of Liberty went on to become Congressmen, Presidents and Founding Fathers.


This was not a protest, it was a calculated act meant to push the colonies and the Crown into conflict and it worked perfectly.


Now, if any of you, notyou2, want to compare the NFL players kneeling to the the calculated revolutionary plan of the Sons of Liberty, then I'm afraid you've woefully overestimated the intelligence, the cunning of NFL players and completely ignore the careful planning, tact and cunning of the Sons of Liberty. Their protest isn't unifying people like the Sons of Liberty did, they are dividing people.
Your all's lack of knowledge of these historical facts are appalling. It compels you to make stupid comparisons like the NFL protests to the Boston Tea Party, for instance.

These things are not nearly at the same level. The Sons of Liberty were far from morons, they were some of the smartest, most cunning men of their age and their plan worked. It was risky, it was daring, it was a masterpiece of propaganda before the science of propaganda and truly been developed. I doubt the NFL players are really willing to risk much, they risk nothing but criticism. Hell, most of them can't even come up with a good excuse as to why they beat their wives and girlfriends for Christ's sake.
They aren't putting themselves personally on the line. They aren't risking their fortunes or sacred honor like the Sons of Liberty did. They don't even have a plan or a coherent message. These are not people who are working toward a grand plan like the Sons of Liberty were. The NFL players protests won't even be a footnote in history. There is a reason why we remember the Boston Tea Party, because what it was was something far more than just a "protest". The destruction of the Tea was a tactical move to support a larger strategy to create an actual revolution and start a life and death struggle through the force of arms.

Are you all trying to say that's what the NFL players are trying to do? Seriously?


Hahahahaha!

Deluded fools.

-------Most likely because they are not blinded by fake news taught to American kids by liberals...
-------One The USA was founded on THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION...Ironic ...Two---Blacks should have been freed in 1776,we could have avoided over 250 years of black injustice...But to get France and Spain to aid us,we had to look united...If we tried to free blacks the Southern States were not going to stay part of the rebellion against England...So Jefferson rewrote his protest...To please the Southern states,selling out the blacks the rest is History...That part is not taught in fake news schools....Or the fact that thereal flag of Hate...the stars and stripes,brought slaves to the USA...not the CSA,FOR the SOUTH HAD NO WAY DURING THE CIVIL WAR/UNION BLOCKADE ....THE USA RIPPED OFF HALF OF MEXICO,THEY WOULD HAVE TOOK IT ALL,BUT IN WASHINGTON,THE LAW MAKERS SAID"LEAVE THE MEXICANS SOME LAND WE DON'T WANT THEM ALL HERE!"...THE GLORIOUS LAND OF FREEDOM COMMITTING MASS GENOCIDE AGAINST THE NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE NAME OF MANIFEST DESTINY ,EVERYONE STAND AND BE PROUD OF THE FLAG OF REAL HATE... ....Come on...everyone...instead lets...HALL OUT THAT PICTURE OF STONEWALL,TACK IT UP WITH AN OLD GRAY PIN...RAISE UP THEM STARS AND BARS...THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN... ...When ever they play the national anthem...I stand,put my hand over my heart...Leave my hat on....Sing DIXIE!I don't give a damn,what people around me think... .... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ...In school(Catholic)...We said THE OUR FATHER at games instead of that national anthem,because our glorious county took prayer out of public schools... GOD BLESS AMERICA ....

Dukasaur wrote:I don't disagree, but that's not the way your schools teach it.

Well History has always been bad and in the past few decades has been worse. Most people seem to think it had to do with "high taxes" when in fact the tea in question was exempt from taxes, because the taxes were being used to enforce a monopoly for that particular company. The modern day TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party is derived from this misconception.

From Wikipedia
1764

The Sugar Act (April 5), intended to raise revenues, and the Currency Act (September 1), prohibiting the colonies from issuing paper money, are passed by Parliament. These Acts, coming during the economic slump that followed the French and Indian War, are resented by the colonists and lead to protests.

765

To help defray the cost of keeping troops in America, Parliament enacts (March 22) the Stamp Act, imposing a tax on many types of printed materials used in the colonies. Seen as a violation of rights, the Act sparks violent demonstrations in several Colonies.


The article below is from here:
https://www.bl.uk/the-american-revoluti ... n-timeline

1760s
1763

10 February: Signing of the Treaty of Paris
Ending the Seven Year’s War, also known as the French and Indian War in North America. France ceded all mainland North American territories, except New Orleans, in order to retain her Caribbean sugar islands. Britain gained all territory east of the Mississippi River; Spain kept territory west of the Mississippi, but exchanged East and West Florida for Cuba.

7 October: Proclamation of 1763
Wary of the cost of defending the colonies, George III prohibited all settlement west of the Appalachian mountains without guarantees of security from local Native American nations. The intervention in colonial affairs offended the thirteen colonies' claim to the exclusive right to govern lands to their west.
1764

5 April: Sugar Act
The first attempt to finance the defence of the colonies by the British Government. In order to deter smuggling and to encourage the production of British rum, taxes on molasses were dropped; a levy was placed on foreign Madeira wine and colonial exports of iron, lumber and other goods had to pass first through Britain and British customs. The Act established a Vice-Admiralty Court in Halifax, Nova Scotia to hear smuggling cases without jury and with the presumption of guilt. These measures led to widespread protest.
1765

22 March: Stamp Act
Seeking to defray some of the costs of garrisoning the colonies, Parliament required all legal documents, newspapers and pamphlets required to use watermarked, or 'stamped' paper on which a levy was placed.

15 May: Quartering Act
Colonial assemblies required to pay for supplies to British garrisons. The New York assembly argued that it could not be forced to comply.

30 May: Virginian Resolution
The Virginian assembly refused to comply with the Stamp Act.

7-25 October: Stamp Act Congress
Representatives from nine of the thirteen colonies declare the Stamp Act unconstitutional as it was a tax levied without their consent.
1766

18 March: Declaratory Act
Parliament finalises the repeal of the Stamp Act, but declares that it has the right to tax colonies
1767

29 June: Townshend Revenue Act (Townshend Duties)
Duties on tea, glass, lead, paper and paint to help pay for the administration of the colonies, named after Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. John Dickinson publishes Letter from a Philadelphian Farmer in protest. Colonial assemblies condemn taxation without representation.
1768

1 October: British troops arrive in Boston in response to political unrest
1770s
1770

5 March:

Boston Massacre

Angered by the presence of troops and Britain's colonial policy, a crowd began harassing a group of soldiers guarding the customs house; a soldier was knocked down by a snowball and discharged his musket, sparking a volley into the crowd which kills five civilians.

12 April: Repeal of the Townshend Revenue Act
1772

10 June: Burning of the Gaspee
The revenue schooner Gaspee ran aground near Providence, Rhode Island and was burnt by locals angered by the enforcement of trade legislation
1773

July: Publication of Thomas Hutchinson letters
In these letters, Hutchinson, the Massachusetts governor, advocated a 'great restraint of natural liberty', convincing many colonists of a planned British clamp-down on their freedoms.

10 May: Tea Act
In an effort to support the ailing East India Company, Parliament exempted its tea from import duties and allowed the Company to sell its tea directly to the colonies. Americans resented what they saw as an indirect tax subsidising a British company.

16 December: Boston Tea Party
Angered by the Tea Acts, American patriots disguised as Mohawk Indians dump £9,000 of East India Company tea into the Boston harbour.
1774

May to June: Intolerable Acts
Four measures which stripped Massachusetts of self-government and judicial independence following the Boston Tea Party. The colonies responded with a general boycott of British goods.

September: Continental Congress
Colonial delegates meet to organise opposition to the Intolerable Acts.
1775

19 April: Battles of Lexington and Concord
First engagements of the Revolutionary War between British troops and the Minutemen, who had been warned of the attack by Paul Revere.

16 June: Continental Congress appoints George Washington commander-in-chief of Continental Army
Issued $2 million bills of credit to fund the army.

17 June: Battle of Bunker Hill
The first major battle of the War of Independence. Sir William Howe dislodged William Prescott's forces overlooking Boston at a cost of 1054 British casualties to the Americans' 367.

5 July: Olive-Brach Petition
Congress endorses a proposal asking for recognition of American rights, the ending of the Intolerable Acts in exchange for a cease fire. George III rejected the proposal and on 23 August 1775 declared the colonies to be in open rebellion.
1775-1776


These are just two articles among many detailing the PROTESTS and other events that lead to the creation of the US.

America was founded on protest, yet many of you appear to want the English back.

notyou2 wrote:America was founded on protest, yet many of you appear to want the English back.

I have literally never heard any American say that. It sounds as if you're resorting to that last resort of a scoundrel.

Symmetry wrote:

notyou2 wrote:America was founded on protest, yet many of you appear to want the English back.

I have literally never heard any American say that. It sounds as if you're resorting to that last resort of a scoundrel.

I find the hypocrisy astounding.

notyou2 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

notyou2 wrote:America was founded on protest, yet many of you appear to want the English back.

I have literally never heard any American say that. It sounds as if you're resorting to that last resort of a scoundrel.

I find the hypocrisy astounding.

I kind of feel that you go through life claiming that you find most things that you don't agree with to be astounding, NY2. I think you actually believe that that's a flaw in other people.