The year is 1775,would Obama, Clintons & Hollywood be British Loyalists?

[JoeB131]

You could, and you'd be wrong.

How many democracies were there in 1775? I'm going to guess not many.

Well, that's a misinterpretation. The United Kingdom at that point was a parliamentary democracy.

The US Constitution was ground breaking for its time. It was completely against keeping things the same, which is conservatism (coming from the world CONSERVE).

Conservatism would have been remaining British. There are no two ways around it.

I guess, if you want to be strict. But really, the definition of Conservatism today is "populist reactionary"

 

[Seawytch]

Conservatives wanted to stay with "mother England" and liberals wanted revolution.

that's funny, considering you think you are like the liberal Founders.

you have nothing in common with them

You are mostly correct. I know more than they did. They actually believed black people to be animals and not human. They didn't think women should have a voice or rights.

No, I am not like the Founding Fathers, I'm better...thanks to the progressive government they designed.

And my statement is still true. Conservatives wanted to stay with England and liberals revolted.

The believed in an armed society, you hate the 2nd
small government, vast government
no taxes, higher and higher taxes
free speech, only speech you agree with


you are not better, your tyranny has just been moved from one group to another.

I don't hate it at all. I fully support a well regulated militia.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The founding fathers of America were radical liberals of their time.

Conservatives wanted to keep the crown and the status quo. Cons I know reading is like kryptonite to you but if you never read you come across as ignorant hillbillies. Which is what you are.

 

[Unkotare]

The British freed the slaves. Obama would have had to be really dumb to fight for his slavers.

If I remember correctly, the first person to die in that war was a black man.

The Boston Massacre did not mark the start of the war.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I imagine that the Clintons would have been more concerned with how to play the whole conflict to their own personal advantage, than with sincerely supporting either side.

I find myself thinking of the finale to the first act of the Les Misérables musical, where the Thénardiers are singing “Watch 'em run amok, Catch 'em as they fall; Never know your luck When there's a free-for-all!”, as they look for opportunities to fleece participants on both sides of the violent conflict that is about to occur. It's very easy to imagine Bill and Hillary Clinton fitting very nicely into the roles of Monsieur and Madame Thénardier.

It's difficult imagine how Barack Obama would even have come into existence at that time, the spawn of an American porn star by a deadbeat from Kenya; but if that did somehow happen back then, I doubt he'd have ever amounted to much. If he was born in those days, and survived, he'd probably be a street urchin, making his living by picking pockets and others acts of petty theft.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The British freed the slaves. Obama would have had to be really dumb to fight for his slavers.

This is the dumbest thing that will be posted on the entire internet this day.

Unless Tainted Tommy posts something else today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You could, and you'd be wrong.

How many democracies were there in 1775? I'm going to guess not many.

Well, that's a misinterpretation. The United Kingdom at that point was a parliamentary democracy.

The US Constitution was ground breaking for its time. It was completely against keeping things the same, which is conservatism (coming from the world CONSERVE).

Conservatism would have been remaining British. There are no two ways around it.

I guess, if you want to be strict. But really, the definition of Conservatism today is "populist reactionary"

Yes, the UK was a parliamentary democracy.

How many British citizens in the Americas got to vote?

There was a General Election in 1774.

Many of the MPs were elected without a fight.

The Election of 1774 in the County of Warwick

Here's one election in 1774 where the was a fight.

"Here, we look at the 1774 election for the county of Warwick (a rare contest among a series of elections where the candidates were returned unopposed) from the perspective of the media used to conduct the election campaign."

Here's the result

The result
Thomas George Skipwith 2954
Sir Charles Holte 1845
John Mordaunt 1787

So, 6,700 people, more or less, were able to vote in that one constituency.

Both Thomas Skipwith and Charles Holte ended up in parliament as MPs for Warwickshire.

Warwick also had two seats. Both of them were taken by people called Greville. The Grevilles were the Earls of Warwick, owning Warwick Castle (It's still there, one of the best castles you'll you find) and they owned the castle up until 1978.

Warwick | History of Parliament Online

Seems they didn't even vote on the election until 1780.

"Warwick was virtually a scot and lot borough."

Scot and lot - Wikipedia

"In Gatten, however, only two people qualified under scot and lot; since burghs received 2 MPs, this meant that each MP for Gatten represented exactly 1 voter. "

So, while the UK was, officially a democracy, the reality was something rather different. MPs were put into parliament, some of them were elected by a small number of rich people, others merely went unopposed and were put into the House of Commons by default.

The US system on the other hand had proper elections. Yes, people were prohibited from voting, women, blacks, Native Americans etc, but it was definitely a move forward.

The introduction of a Bill of Rights that concerned most people was also revolutionary. In Britain there were rights from the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, but the reality was they concerned only rich people.

 

[Lumpy 1]

mmm .. considering how Obama screwed over Blacks and everyone else during his presidency, (Democratic Party ghettos only got worse). I figure he'd be one of the many oppressive Black slave owners of the time..

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You could, and you'd be wrong.

How many democracies were there in 1775? I'm going to guess not many.

Well, that's a misinterpretation. The United Kingdom at that point was a parliamentary democracy.

The US Constitution was ground breaking for its time. It was completely against keeping things the same, which is conservatism (coming from the world CONSERVE).

Conservatism would have been remaining British. There are no two ways around it.

I guess, if you want to be strict. But really, the definition of Conservatism today is "populist reactionary"

Yes, the UK was a parliamentary democracy.

How many British citizens in the Americas got to vote?

There was a General Election in 1774.

Many of the MPs were elected without a fight.

The Election of 1774 in the County of Warwick

Here's one election in 1774 where the was a fight.

"Here, we look at the 1774 election for the county of Warwick (a rare contest among a series of elections where the candidates were returned unopposed) from the perspective of the media used to conduct the election campaign."

Here's the result

The result
Thomas George Skipwith 2954
Sir Charles Holte 1845
John Mordaunt 1787

So, 6,700 people, more or less, were able to vote in that one constituency.

Both Thomas Skipwith and Charles Holte ended up in parliament as MPs for Warwickshire.

Warwick also had two seats. Both of them were taken by people called Greville. The Grevilles were the Earls of Warwick, owning Warwick Castle (It's still there, one of the best castles you'll you find) and they owned the castle up until 1978.

Warwick | History of Parliament Online

Seems they didn't even vote on the election until 1780.

"Warwick was virtually a scot and lot borough."

Scot and lot - Wikipedia

"In Gatten, however, only two people qualified under scot and lot; since burghs received 2 MPs, this meant that each MP for Gatten represented exactly 1 voter. "

So, while the UK was, officially a democracy, the reality was something rather different. MPs were put into parliament, some of them were elected by a small number of rich people, others merely went unopposed and were put into the House of Commons by default.

The US system on the other hand had proper elections. Yes, people were prohibited from voting, women, blacks, Native Americans etc, but it was definitely a move forward.

The introduction of a Bill of Rights that concerned most people was also revolutionary. In Britain there were rights from the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, but the reality was they concerned only rich people.

Dunny on the Wold

 

[frigidweirdo]

You could, and you'd be wrong.

How many democracies were there in 1775? I'm going to guess not many.

Well, that's a misinterpretation. The United Kingdom at that point was a parliamentary democracy.

The US Constitution was ground breaking for its time. It was completely against keeping things the same, which is conservatism (coming from the world CONSERVE).

Conservatism would have been remaining British. There are no two ways around it.

I guess, if you want to be strict. But really, the definition of Conservatism today is "populist reactionary"

Yes, the UK was a parliamentary democracy.

How many British citizens in the Americas got to vote?

There was a General Election in 1774.

Many of the MPs were elected without a fight.

The Election of 1774 in the County of Warwick

Here's one election in 1774 where the was a fight.

"Here, we look at the 1774 election for the county of Warwick (a rare contest among a series of elections where the candidates were returned unopposed) from the perspective of the media used to conduct the election campaign."

Here's the result

The result
Thomas George Skipwith 2954
Sir Charles Holte 1845
John Mordaunt 1787

So, 6,700 people, more or less, were able to vote in that one constituency.

Both Thomas Skipwith and Charles Holte ended up in parliament as MPs for Warwickshire.

Warwick also had two seats. Both of them were taken by people called Greville. The Grevilles were the Earls of Warwick, owning Warwick Castle (It's still there, one of the best castles you'll you find) and they owned the castle up until 1978.

Warwick | History of Parliament Online

Seems they didn't even vote on the election until 1780.

"Warwick was virtually a scot and lot borough."

Scot and lot - Wikipedia

"In Gatten, however, only two people qualified under scot and lot; since burghs received 2 MPs, this meant that each MP for Gatten represented exactly 1 voter. "

So, while the UK was, officially a democracy, the reality was something rather different. MPs were put into parliament, some of them were elected by a small number of rich people, others merely went unopposed and were put into the House of Commons by default.

The US system on the other hand had proper elections. Yes, people were prohibited from voting, women, blacks, Native Americans etc, but it was definitely a move forward.

The introduction of a Bill of Rights that concerned most people was also revolutionary. In Britain there were rights from the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, but the reality was they concerned only rich people.

Dunny on the Wold

That more or less sums it up.

 

[JoeB131]

It's difficult imagine how Barack Obama would even have come into existence at that time, the spawn of an American porn star by a deadbeat from Kenya; but if that did somehow happen back then, I doubt he'd have ever amounted to much. If he was born in those days, and survived, he'd probably be a street urchin, making his living by picking pockets and others acts of petty theft.

Do you have any proof that she was a porn star, or do you just hate, hate, hate the thought of a white woman having sex with a black man.

 

[rightwinger]

I believe they would. George Washington would have had a fight on his hands as these Loyalists worked hard to place their new Queen on the throne in the U.S Monarchy they founded...

The founding fathers were liberals

Conservatives followed the money and supported the king.......just like today
Only difference is capitalists replaced the monarchy in their eyes

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's difficult imagine how Barack Obama would even have come into existence at that time, the spawn of an American porn star by a deadbeat from Kenya…

Do you have any proof that she was a porn star, or do you just hate, hate, hate the thought of a white woman having sex with a black man.

ann dunham porn - Google Search

 

[JoeB131]

It's difficult imagine how Barack Obama would even have come into existence at that time, the spawn of an American porn star by a deadbeat from Kenya…

Do you have any proof that she was a porn star, or do you just hate, hate, hate the thought of a white woman having sex with a black man.

ann dunham porn - Google Search

So not a credible source, then.

With ‘Dreams From My Real Father,’ Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?

What matters here is not that a lone crank made a vulgar conspiracy video, one that outdoes even birther propaganda in its lunacy and bad taste. It’s that the video is finding an audience on the right. Gilbert claims that more than a million copies of Dreams From My Real Fatherhave been mailed to voters in Ohio, as well between 80,000 and 100,000 to voters in Nevada and 100,000 to voters in New Hampshire. “We’re putting plans in place, as of next week, to send out another 2 [million] or 3 million, just state by state,” he told me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's difficult imagine how Barack Obama would even have come into existence at that time, the spawn of an American porn star by a deadbeat from Kenya…

Do you have any proof that she was a porn star, or do you just hate, hate, hate the thought of a white woman having sex with a black man.

ann dunham porn - Google Search

So not a credible source, then.

If a Google search turning up dozens of sources—admittedly some more or less credible than others, some with actual pornographic images of the woman in question—is not a credible source, then it is difficult to imagine what source you would acknowledge as credible.

Of course, I doubt there were porn stars, as such, back in 1775. More likely, in that time period, she'd have just been a common prostitute.

 

[JoeB131]

If a Google search turning up dozens of sources—admittedly some more or less credible than others, some with actual pornographic images of the woman in question—is not a credible source, then it is difficult to imagine what source you would acknowledge as credible.

Well, first, it would be nice if you had pictures that were what they represented them as.

We are shown a grainy picture of a woman they claim is Obama's mom, but it doesn't even look like her.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The British freed the slaves. Obama would have had to be really dumb to fight for his slavers.

Many blacks fought the stinking limey in that war. Read history.

he cant it would hurt his world view

--LOL

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The British freed the slaves. Obama would have had to be really dumb to fight for his slavers.

Many blacks fought the stinking limey in that war. Read history.

he cant it would hurt his world view

--LOL

Im sure that some did under duress.They were still slaves. those that fought for the British were freemen, fighting slave owners.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The British freed the slaves. Obama would have had to be really dumb to fight for his slavers.

Many blacks fought the stinking limey in that war. Read history.

he cant it would hurt his world view

--LOL

Im sure that some did under duress.They were still slaves. those that fought for the British were freemen, fighting slave owners.

no such thing as a "free man" under British rule ya subject

 

[Darkwind]

This has no business being in politics..

Sorry, I had just woken up, it was 7 am here. Why you need to take such an approach?

The question still stands, would they fight for American Independence, or be British Loyalists?!

The first thing you did was get online and post something about the Democrats on a political message board?

If so, maybe you should think about that.