• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My compromise.

Rich2018 said:
In the case of the Revolutionary War and the US Civil War, the "father" was mostly greed and the love of the $$$
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that money plays a role in these matters. Among other factors.
 
Rich2018 said:
No they didn't, they chose to be governed by the middle classes in Philadelphia and later Washington DC.
Click to expand...

lol a distinction without a difference
 
haymarket said:
and that lack of consent of the governed was a reason for the war.
Click to expand...

American colonials didn't even try for war, they wanted to spilt peacefully but the king sent his armys to suppress and the colonials and they fought back.
 
jdog21 said:
American colonials didn't even try for war, they wanted to spilt peacefully but the king sent his armys to suppress and the colonials and they fought back.
Click to expand...

Anyone who actually believes that Britain would not try to hold America is guilty of being severely naive.
 
haymarket said:
Anyone who actually believes that Britain would not try to hold America is guilty of being severely naive.
Click to expand...

Like the North tried (and succeeded) in holding on to the South.

Giving lie to the notion that US states are "sovereign states"
 
haymarket said:
I imagine you would not.

Who has said there was no government?
Click to expand...

Has someone even claimed that someone said there was no government?

Now here is your answer to one of my questions with the question added on for context:

I imagine you would not absolve yourself from allegiance if the allegiance wasn't there prior.
 
Rich2018 said:
Like the North tried (and succeeded) in holding on to the South.

Giving lie to the notion that US states are "sovereign states"
Click to expand...

good point.
 
RF667799 said:
Has someone even claimed that someone said there was no government?

Now here is your answer to one of my questions with the question added on for context:

I imagine you would not absolve yourself from allegiance if the allegiance wasn't there prior.
Click to expand...

You might as well ask me if I would get sick if I ate a ten pound jeez donut even though I have never eaten such an item.

You are committing the sin of playing with words and jumping to conclusions. The Declaration of Independence listed the importance of consent of the governed but somehow and someway you just cannot accept that.
 
Rich2018 said:
So this silly notion about fighting for freedom is BS?
Click to expand...

I chose to say governed by themselves and you chose to say governed by middle class Philadelphians. I see no difference between the two.
 
haymarket said:
Anyone who actually believes that Britain would not try to hold America is guilty of being severely naive.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone making that assertion.
 
jdog21 said:
I chose to say governed by themselves and you chose to say governed by middle class Philadelphians. I see no difference between the two.
Click to expand...

I see no difference between being governed by far off London and far off Philadelphia if you're a Georgia dirt farmer in the late 18th century.
 
jdog21 said:
I don't see anyone making that assertion.
Click to expand...

It is right here

Quote Originally Posted by jdog21 View Post
American colonials didn't even try for war, they wanted to spilt peacefully but the king sent his armys to suppress and the colonials and they fought back.
Click to expand...
 
jdog21 said:
I chose to say governed by themselves and you chose to say governed by middle class Philadelphians. I see no difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Dirt farmers didn't govern themselves, they were governed by others.
 
Rich2018 said:
I see no difference between being governed by far off London and far off Philadelphia if you're a Georgia dirt farmer in the late 18th century.
Click to expand...

Well since Georgia ratified the new US constitution in 1788 they were fine with having a federal government based in Philadelphia
 
haymarket said:
You might as well ask me if I would get sick if I ate a ten pound jeez donut even though I have never eaten such an item.

You are committing the sin of playing with words and jumping to conclusions. The Declaration of Independence listed the importance of consent of the governed but somehow and someway you just cannot accept that.
Click to expand...

Did I say it wasn't important?

I've been asking you when the colonists withdrew their consent. Was it when they issued the Declaration or when they took up arms prior to that?

You've been spinning circles and snapping at your own butt like a flea-bit dog to avoid answering. You must really hate the question.
 
jdog21 said:
Well since Georgia ratified the new US constitution in 1788 they were fine with having a federal government based in Philadelphia
Click to expand...

Ah but say some on the right, they claim Britain signed the peace of Paris with the free sovereign states.

"I think you need to go back and re read your history. When the States signed the Declaration of Independents they became Sovereign States and stood on even ground with England. Each of these States had the power to engage in war, peace treaties just as sovereign Nations (States) do."


Should the Senate be Eliminated


They're wrong of course.
 
Last edited:
RF667799 said:
Did I say it wasn't important?

I've been asking you when the colonists withdrew their consent. Was it when they issued the Declaration or when they took up arms prior to that?

You've been spinning circles and snapping at your own butt like a flea-bit dog to avoid answering. You must really hate the question.
Click to expand...

I answered your question earlier. The colonists in the mid 1700's never gave their consent in the first place.
 
RF667799 said:
Did I say it wasn't important?

I've been asking you when the colonists withdrew their consent. Was it when they issued the Declaration or when they took up arms prior to that?

You've been spinning circles and snapping at your own butt like a flea-bit dog to avoid answering. You must really hate the question.
Click to expand...

Exactly who issued the DOI ?

It sure as hell wasn't the dirt farmers who paid little or no tax to the UK.
 
haymarket said:
I answered your question earlier. The colonists in the mid 1700's never gave their consent in the first place.
Click to expand...

Spinning again, eh?

How did they absolve themselves from allegiance if the allegiance was never there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom