Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Cecilie1200Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.
Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.
Is there any evidence to back this claim up?
Hey, it's free tea. Not even he could pass up something like that.Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
I'm thinking if poor ol' Ben could see what American citizens consider acceptable protest NOW, he'd faint and fall back in it.
(Sorry, I had to.)
I'm assuming you were referring to the water in Boston Harbor.
sure they do, you're messed in the head.Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.
Hey, it's free tea. Not even he could pass up something like that.Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
I'm thinking if poor ol' Ben could see what American citizens consider acceptable protest NOW, he'd faint and fall back in it.
(Sorry, I had to.)
I'm assuming you were referring to the water in Boston Harbor.
No, not really. It's one of my mom's Southernisms, "faint and fall back in it". It means "be completely shocked and disbelieving".
Committing a crime because you were lied to is not a defense. Her past showed her to have anger management problems coupled with impulse control issues. Unfortunately, she was just the kind of person that Trump counted on to do his bidding while he went back to the WH to watch the show.Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.
That's not true.
Spare us all your broad brushing of police.
The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.
Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.
Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.
Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?
Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it
No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.
Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it
Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.
Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.
But you can't compare Ashi Babbitt with Kyle Rittenhouse.
Ashli had good intent in that she believed there was election fraud people need to be told about.
I disagree with her, but she brought nothing to indicate harmful intent.
Kyle on the other hand brought an AR-15, which seems overtly provocative to me.
Fair enough.Cecilie1200Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.
Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.
Is there any evidence to back this claim up?
You mean aside from the many times the Founding Fathers repeatedly expressed their belief that private property ownership was sacrosanct?
I mean, since Rigby seems willing to dismiss what they actually said in favor of, "Oh, but I'm sure they were just bullshitting for cynical political reasons, because I REALLY want to believe it", I'm not sure what proof would suffice.
Cecilie1200Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.
Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.
Is there any evidence to back this claim up?
You mean aside from the many times the Founding Fathers repeatedly expressed their belief that private property ownership was sacrosanct?
I mean, since Rigby seems willing to dismiss what they actually said in favor of, "Oh, but I'm sure they were just bullshitting for cynical political reasons, because I REALLY want to believe it", I'm not sure what proof would suffice.
I am not aware of there being any one harmed at the riots and protests except those harmed or killed by police?
I continue to condemn all rioting, looting, burning, and vandalism by any and all groups....left or right. And now, I've just done it again. And, of course, you will ignore it again. Maybe if I threw around your N-word, you'd notice.Did I? Feel free to show where I did so.N-word again....cha-ching!Wow!If only she'd complied...Speaking for that poor avatar of mine, what he is attempting to convey to the poster 'Kaz' is that.......you haven't offered proof of your assertion that the elections was stolen.Chillicoath says, no it isn't, no it isn't, no it isn't
If you have, well, we haven't seen it.
If you have.....may we ask you to link us to it so we can read the quality of your proofs and, either side with you, or state that you are wrongheaded.
Be our sherpa here, poster 'kaz'........are we wrong on your lack of substance on 'the Steal', or do you have substance, after all?
Batter up, mein freund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Had I pulled my weapon and shot an unarmed suspect, I would have gone to prison."
Well, that may be. You know your prior record and reputation better than this forum.
However, in the case of the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt, well, who knew she was 'unarmed'? Did the cop? Did her compatriots on the other side of the barricaded door? She and they battered it down, she jumped into the breach despite being warned by the cops --and her compatriots. She still jumped.
It's on her.
May her family be comforted.
Something you never say when it's a black shot by the cops.
You support her death because of your politics, just like you are against the cops every other time because of your politics.
Own your actions and stop lying
You know so much about me!
Well, it's not like you post your racist Democrat Nazi shit all over the site every day. Oh wait, you do ...
Wait, weren't people like you referring to Bush and Trump as Hitler?
Where are you going with this, exactly?
It's like finding your condemnation of violence when it's done by leftist groups like antifa and BLM, huh? It's like it doesn't exist, no one can find it. Including you.
What letter does "Fish" start with? Do you know?
Yet you can't say you condemn rioting from leftist groups like antifa and BLM. You won't say the words. You just piss in the air and hope no one will notice.
I condemn rioting by LEFTIST groups, including antifa and BLM.
It's pretty easy to say, yet you won't.
When you asked, I immediately said I condemn rioting, including by Trump supporters on January 6 and I condemn anyone who went into the Capital whether they rioted or not.
See how easy that is? Yet you simply can't do it
Anyone who condemns rioting when warranted, is wrong and complicit in perpetuating the original crime the rioting is about.
Is rioting warranted over the murder of Ashli?
Of course it is.
The fact she was of the right and I am of the left is irrelevant.
She was conducting protected political expression, and was not a lethal threat to anyone.
Anyone who could pull the trigger on an obviously unarmed woman, is sick and a clear and present danger to the entire society.
Anyone who could protect or endorse such a murder is a dangerous individual who should not be allowed any power or weapons.
No, peaceful demonstrations are warranted. And leftists don't just riot, you loot and set fires and destroy the property of innocent people.
Note all the silence from other leftists while you actually call for violence
Committing a crime because you were lied to is not a defense. Her past showed her to have anger management problems coupled with impulse control issues. Unfortunately, she was just the kind of person that Trump counted on to do his bidding while he went back to the WH to watch the show.Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.
That's not true.
Spare us all your broad brushing of police.
The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.
Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.
Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.
Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?
Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it
No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.
Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it
Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.
Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.
But you can't compare Ashi Babbitt with Kyle Rittenhouse.
Ashli had good intent in that she believed there was election fraud people need to be told about.
I disagree with her, but she brought nothing to indicate harmful intent.
Kyle on the other hand brought an AR-15, which seems overtly provocative to me.
Here are the results so far Several people died. 80 Capital police were injured. 60 Metro police were injured. Approximately 500 insurrectionists have been arrested and are awaiting charges and trials, some while sitting in jail. Trump got off scot-free. That last sentence is what I would call a miscarriage of justice.
Cecilie1200Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.
Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.
Is there any evidence to back this claim up?
You mean aside from the many times the Founding Fathers repeatedly expressed their belief that private property ownership was sacrosanct?
I mean, since Rigby seems willing to dismiss what they actually said in favor of, "Oh, but I'm sure they were just bullshitting for cynical political reasons, because I REALLY want to believe it", I'm not sure what proof would suffice.
If the founders thought property rights were sacrosanct, then they would just have shut up and payed their taxes.
The French and Indian war had cost a bundle, and they were morally obligated to pay it back.
But they correctly felt that representation for fairness in taxation was more important, so they went with armed rebellion instead. That is proof I am right and you are wrong. In fact, most of the founders went broke financing the armed rebellion. So clearly property rights were not at all sacrosanct. They must have held other values to be more important, as they willingly gave up their property to finance the rebellion.
wow! are you ok? you have significant issues.sure they do, you're messed in the head.Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.
Wrong.
Go back to basics.
The source of all legal authority in a democratic republic comes from the defense of inherent rights, not from government.
Government is inferior delegated authority we give it when we create it.
So then police can not have any legal authority greater than the individuals who decided to create and hire police departments.
If you think police have any authority above anyone, you are totally and completely wrong.
As hired employees, they have less authority, not more.
I am not aware of there being any one harmed at the riots and protests except those harmed or killed by police?
No. But property was indeed destroyed. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.
The funny part though is how the Sons of Liberty swept the decks of those ships clean before they stole back into the city that night.
However, the Intolerable Acts passed by the monarchy in response to that form of protest was a step too far.
The Battle of Lexington and Concord ensued a year later I believe.
Cecilie1200Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.
Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.
Is there any evidence to back this claim up?
You mean aside from the many times the Founding Fathers repeatedly expressed their belief that private property ownership was sacrosanct?
I mean, since Rigby seems willing to dismiss what they actually said in favor of, "Oh, but I'm sure they were just bullshitting for cynical political reasons, because I REALLY want to believe it", I'm not sure what proof would suffice.
If the founders thought property rights were sacrosanct, then they would just have shut up and payed their taxes.
The French and Indian war had cost a bundle, and they were morally obligated to pay it back.
But they correctly felt that representation for fairness in taxation was more important, so they went with armed rebellion instead. That is proof I am right and you are wrong. In fact, most of the founders went broke financing the armed rebellion. So clearly property rights were not at all sacrosanct. They must have held other values to be more important, as they willingly gave up their property to finance the rebellion.
But throwing 342 cases of tea into the harbor was not "armed rebellion" though...
wow! are you ok? you have significant issues.sure they do, you're messed in the head.Cops have no more legal authority to shoot than anyone does.
Wrong.
Go back to basics.
The source of all legal authority in a democratic republic comes from the defense of inherent rights, not from government.
Government is inferior delegated authority we give it when we create it.
So then police can not have any legal authority greater than the individuals who decided to create and hire police departments.
If you think police have any authority above anyone, you are totally and completely wrong.
As hired employees, they have less authority, not more.
hysterical, stop, my sides are splitting from laughing so hard.Cecilie1200Correct.Oh come on. Would you condemn the Boston Tea Party because it was rioting and looting, or would you say it was justified due to the unfair taxation without representation?
No. Because that was a victimless form of protest. No British harmed or killed.
Although it's relevant to note that some of the Founding Fathers DID condemn it at the time, feeling that destruction of other people's property was inappropriate to their cause. Notably, Benjamin Franklin insisted that the British East India Company should be reimbursed for the loss of their cargo.
"
LONDON, Feb. 2, 1774
Gentlemen: I received the Honour of your Letter dated Decr. 21, containing a distinct Account of the Proceedings at Boston relative to the Tea imported there, and of the Circumstances that occasioned its Destruction. I communicated the same to Lord Dartmouth, with some other Advices of the same import. It is yet unknown what Measures will be taken here on the Occasion; but the Clamour against the Proceedings is high and general. I am truly concern’d, as I believe all considerate Men are with you, that there should seem to any a Necessity for carrying Matters to such Extremity, as, in a Dispute about Publick Rights, to destroy private Property; This (notwithstanding the Blame justly due to those who obstructed the Return of the Tea) it is impossible to justify with People so prejudiced in favour of the Power of Parliament to tax America, as most are in this Country.
As the India Company however are not our Adversaries, and the offensive Measure of sending their Teas did not take its Rise with them, but was an Expedient of the Ministry to serve them and yet avoid a Repeal of the old Act, I cannot but wish & hope that before any compulsive Measures are thought of here, our General court will have shewn a Disposition to repair the Damage and make Compensation to the Company. This all our Friends here wish with me; and that if War is finally to be made upon us, which some threaten, an Act or violent injustice on our part, unrectified, may not give a colourable Pretence for it. A speedy Reparation will immediately set us right in the Opinion of all Europe. And tho’ the Mischief was the Act of Persons unknown, yet as probably they cannot be found or brought to answer for it, there seems to be some reasonable Claim on the Society at large in which it happened. Making voluntarily such Reparation can be no Dishonour to us or Prejudice to our Claim or Rights, since Parliament here has frequently considered in the same Light similar Cases; and only a few Years since, when a valuable Saw-mill, which had been destroyed by a Number of Persons supposed to be Sawyers, but unknown, a Grant was made out of the Publick Treasury of Two Thousand Pounds to the Owner as a Compensation—I hope in thus freely (and perhaps too forwardly) expressing my Sentiments & Wishes, I shall not give Offence to any. I am sure I mean well; being over with sincere Affection to my native Country, and great Respect to the Assembly and yourselves,
Gentlemen, Your most obedient and most humble Servant
B. FRANKLIN,
Honble Thomas Cushing, Sam’l Adams, John Hancock, William Phillips, Esquires."
More likely is that Franklin was doing double speak.
He likely supported and encouraged the Boston Tea Party, but was keeping open negotiation channels with the wealthy elite by sounding supportive of their losses.
Franklin was well aware of the value of economic warfare, and supported it whenever there was an advantage to it.
Is there any evidence to back this claim up?
You mean aside from the many times the Founding Fathers repeatedly expressed their belief that private property ownership was sacrosanct?
I mean, since Rigby seems willing to dismiss what they actually said in favor of, "Oh, but I'm sure they were just bullshitting for cynical political reasons, because I REALLY want to believe it", I'm not sure what proof would suffice.
If the founders thought property rights were sacrosanct, then they would just have shut up and payed their taxes.
The French and Indian war had cost a bundle, and they were morally obligated to pay it back.
But they correctly felt that representation for fairness in taxation was more important, so they went with armed rebellion instead. That is proof I am right and you are wrong. In fact, most of the founders went broke financing the armed rebellion. So clearly property rights were not at all sacrosanct. They must have held other values to be more important, as they willingly gave up their property to finance the rebellion.
But throwing 342 cases of tea into the harbor was not "armed rebellion" though...
It must have been actually.
There are armed guards at harbors, and the only way they could have done the Boston Tea Party is through the threat of arms, even if no shots were fired.
Apparently, being a conservative nowadays means a complete and total rejection of objectivity and common sense.old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.
That's not true.
Spare us all your broad brushing of police.
The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.
Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.
Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.
Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?
Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it
No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.
Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it
Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.
Yeah, show me a conservative on a jury and a conservative defendant who's accused of committing a crime (like Ashli nutcase Babbitt or Kyle Rittenhouse) and despite overwhelming evidence that points all the other jurors to vote guilty, I have no problem believing that the conservative juror will not only vote not guilty, he'll also throw them a parade.
old rigby believes you and I should die because floyd died. he just said so. wow!!!!Police deliberately make situation as dangerous as possible, for no good reason.
That's not true.
Spare us all your broad brushing of police.
The broad brush is deserved because when one cop does something bad or wrong, the other cops don't condemn it.
That makes them all complicit after the fact. It prevents fixing things so will cause the next murder.
Oh my, you are mentally ill, my friend.
Or just blissfully ignorant of how police are trained.
Don't you love some white guy screaming racist, racist, racist in your face because you're white and then thinking how great that makes him and all the free shit he should get for it?
Rigby5 should apologize for being in the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and segregation instead of crowing about it
No, what I said is that you and I should have to pay for broken windows because we did not change the illegal way we know the police are being trained and protected.
Again you're lying and portraying a tiny fraction of police as the standard. You're the white guy who cried racist and saying how wonderful you are and you want free shit for it
Wrong.
Although police do rarely pull the trigger to murder people illegally, they illegally point guns at people all the time, and do not condemn illegal murders by other police.
Which makes them accomplices.
The murder of Ashli is proof.
Police illegally shoot unarmed people who are no threat, and the rest of the police say nothing.
Which ensures it will be repeated.
If police were responsible, they would all admit the shooting of Ashli not only was illegal for killing her, but endangering everyone else, including the 2 cops standing next to her.
Actually, police rarely point guns at people. Turn off the TV and go out into the real world once in a while
Wrong.
I am wealthy enough to be above the radar of the police normally, but I am self employed so do everything myself.
That include remodeling and dump runs in the old rusty pickup truck.
And whenever I do that, or anything that makes me appear poor, the police are stopping me and pointing guns.
Happened over 30 times or so.
Not stopped once with the newer car, even though I drive it 99% more.
