Political Theory

Jesus wrote:

Not really France was too occupied doing other things, they didnt even defended they're territory back then they wouldn't have invaded over here.

That's probably the reason for the existance of places like Louisiana, New Orleans and Quebec...

Jesus wrote:

G-B just had they're ass kicked utterly they wouldn't try and grab it back.

Yeah, they immediately recognized USA's independance and didn't engage in further wars with USA...

Jesus wrote:

And Spain well wtf spain? they didnt even covered all the south america so... you could add mexicans you're arguing would be even more credible

Actually, no. By the time of USA's independance Mexico was still 40 years away from being independent. So it would have been Spain.

Mind me telling you that around 27% of actual USA's territory once belonged to Spain. Spain controlled from the Patagonia to Arizona, and that is a pretty large extension of land.


But all of that is irrelevant to the discussion for a simple reason: Once USA got its independance... what would ensure European powers wouldn't try submitting it again? Why wouldn't USA grow stronger? Since USA proclaimed its independence all it has been doing is to expand and strengthen.

The point is simple, they didn't just revolt for "unfair taxation", there was a much larger scope objective behind that revolt.

Jesus wrote:

Wow you really fail they're. The reason it existed is because YES THEY MADE COLONIES. But they didnt defended them for 2 Cents. Does that mean people will stop talking french ? No you suck

So you admit they had colonies. If they didn't defend them, or they defended them in a mediore way is absolutely irrelevant: those teritories were claimed to belong to European powers and it was imposible to determine wether they'd have defended them more in the future or expand them.

And when the hell did I claim people would stop to speak French? What does that have to do with anything?

Jesus wrote:

G-B just had they're ass kicked utterly they wouldn't try and grab it back.

Yeah, they immediately recognized USA's independance and didn't engage in further wars with USA...

Jesus wrote:

Exactly

Actually, NO.

They engaged in a 6 year lasting war and then fought a second war in 1812.

Jesus wrote:

Well right after the americans took it away.

Right after what?

60 years passed before USA conquered all of what was once possesed by Spain.

Jesus wrote:

it's not because you possess a territory that there is a lot of people in it.... just look at New France they're was like 70000 people over a territory larger than the US

And who the hell claimed that?

Jesus wrote:

Huhhh because no one really gave a fuck about a colony like that? Colonies are basically ressource boxes. for most countries

What the hell? Indeed, no one gave a fuck about colonies... right... they just sent their armies there conquered those territories and fought wars for fun.

The British, French and Spanish monarchies had nothing to do so they just decided to conquer territories they didn't give a fuck about all over the world even until the 1950s...

Jesus wrote:

Well no! they didnt really cared about who they belonged to or what, they just wanted representation at the british parlementary and they had none which caused they're angryness!

Yeah, sure, all they wanted was some repressentation in the British parlament and absolutely nothing more that's probably what the declaration of Independece is all about probably... really come on.

We're not discussing one of the reasons that served to start USA's revolutionary war, we're discussing what USA was intended to be and it was intended to be an independent country which would have to defend itself from the imperial powers, strengthen and become an empire irself.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Wow you really fail they're. The reason it existed is because YES THEY MADE COLONIES. But they didnt defended them for 2 Cents. Does that mean people will stop talking french ? No you suck

So you admit they had colonies. If they didn't defend them, or they defended them in a mediore way is absolutely irrelevant: those teritories were claimed to belong to European powers and it was imposible to determine wether they'd have defended them more in the future or expand them.

And when the hell did I claim people would stop to speak French? What does that have to do with anything?

Are you dope? when they made the peace treaty they openly gave New France to keep a bunch of southerns islands, they really didnt cared about that place

Jesus wrote:

G-B just had they're ass kicked utterly they wouldn't try and grab it back.

Yeah, they immediately recognized USA's independance and didn't engage in further wars with USA...

Jesus wrote:

Exactly

Actually, NO.

They engaged in a 6 year lasting war and then fought a second war in 1812.

1812? what the fuck you talking about? of course they engaged in a war but right after they recognized them.

Jesus wrote:

Well right after the americans took it away.

Right after what?

60 years passed before USA conquered all of what was once possesed by Spain.

60 years. that's not alot. dude to claim a territory you just gotta have 50 asswipes putting a flag on a land that's nto very hard.

Jesus wrote:

it's not because you possess a territory that there is a lot of people in it.... just look at New France they're was like 70000 people over a territory larger than the US

And who the hell claimed that?

French people putting flags everywhere they could.

Jesus wrote:

Huhhh because no one really gave a fuck about a colony like that? Colonies are basically ressource boxes. for most countries

What the hell? Indeed, no one gave a fuck about colonies... right... they just sent their armies there conquered those territories and fought wars for fun.

The British, French and Spanish monarchies had nothing to do so they just decided to conquer territories they didn't give a fuck about all over the world even until the 1950s...

Of course you dumbshit they didnt fucking cared about the colony themselves, they just wanted the ressources, precious ressources, which New France didnt possesed. Same shit for USA.

Jesus wrote:

Well no! they didnt really cared about who they belonged to or what, they just wanted representation at the british parlementary and they had none which caused they're angryness!

Yeah, sure, all they wanted was some repressentation in the British parlament and absolutely nothing more that's probably what the declaration of Independece is all about probably... really come on.

We're not discussing one of the reasons that served to start USA's revolutionary war, we're discussing what USA was intended to be and it was intended to be an independent country which would have to defend itself from the imperial powers, strengthen and become an empire irself.

Well if you look at what they wanted in the first place, yes they never would have made a revolution, less taxes and good representation would have pleased the majority of the population.

Jesus wrote:

Well if you look at what they wanted in the first place, yes they never would have made a revolution, less taxes and good representation would have pleased the majority of the population.

And... what does this have to do with wether USA was intended to be an independent country which would evolve into a plutocratic empire or not?

I'm not talking about the causes of the revolutionary war, I'm talking about the intention of USA's independist movements which were nothing but to create a government separate from the Great Britain.

Once the idea of independant governance was formulated, it was not as an attempt to gain representation within the British parliament but as an attempt to utterly split from the United Kingdom and create a new nation.

nice topic....

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Well if you look at what they wanted in the first place, yes they never would have made a revolution, less taxes and good representation would have pleased the majority of the population.

And... what does this have to do with wether USA was intended to be an independent country which would evolve into a plutocratic empire or not?

I'm not talking about the causes of the revolutionary war, I'm talking about the intention of USA's independist movements which were nothing but to create a government separate from the Great Britain.

Once the idea of independant governance was formulated, it was not as an attempt to gain representation within the British parliament but as an attempt to utterly split from the United Kingdom and create a new nation.

No wtf are you talking about? Yes it have to do with wether USA or not has intended to be an independant country. If they would have what they claimed, they would have probably evolved more silentely like Canada

Jesus wrote:

No wtf are you talking about? Yes it have to do with wether USA or not has intended to be an independant country. If they would have what they claimed, they would have probably evolved more silentely like Canada

Jesus, why the hell is the sequence "read-reply" so hard? I'll quote myself again hoping that this time you grasp the idea:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm not talking about the causes of the revolutionary war, I'm talking about the intention of USA's independist movements which were nothing but to create a government separate from the Great Britain.

Once the idea of independant governance was formulated, it was not as an attempt to gain representation within the British parliament but as an attempt to utterly split from the United Kingdom and create a new nation.

I'm not talking about the causes of the war, nor the reasons of the discontent. I'm talking about the intentions of (and read very well please) the independentist movements.

Hope you've got it now.

Ok let's clear something you obviously don't understand you stupid fuck. It doesn't mean because they wanted to be independant, that they couldn't be part of the UK in any way. The UN is a living proof.

I'm not talking about the causes of the revolutionary war, I'm talking about the intention of USA's independist movements which were nothing but to create a government separate from the Great Britain.

WoW you dumb fuck. Causes of the revoluntionary war are the same who created the independist movement!

Once the idea of independant governance was formulated, it was not as an attempt to gain representation within the British parliament but as an attempt to utterly split from the United Kingdom and create a new nation.

Not really, they just wanted to be ruled by themselves and not by Londonl. If they are correctly representated in the british parlement they are ruled by themselves in a certain way.

Yes, Karl is rite Zealot.

Jesus wrote:

Ok let's clear something you obviously don't understand you stupid fuck. It doesn't mean because they wanted to be independant, that they couldn't be part of the UK in any way. The UN is a living proof.

What the fuck?

First of all, quit the insult shit. It doesn't give at all more validity to your arguements and renders you actually as an irascible retard. It's better for you. I don't care if someone like you considers me stupid or not, our reputation through our arguements precedes us and it will be clear to anyone that reads this who the idiot is and who isn't.

So now, don't use paralellisms. One thing is the United Kingdom and other the United Nations. They're completely different kinds of organisms. In no way does the existance of United Nations proves that the intention of being independent from part of the colonies didn't mean they couldn't be part of UK.

This is as well irrelevant for we're not discussing wether they could have been independent and form part of the UK but the intentions of the independist movement which were to dissociate totally from the United Kingdom of the Great Britain.

Jesus wrote:

WoW you dumb fuck. Causes of the revoluntionary war are the same who created the independist movement!

Man, you better get some english lessons, learn to use a dictionary or by any means avoid discussion in english until you learn how to understand texts in english.

I'm talking about the intentions and objectives of the independist movement. Not the causes for the disconent or the revolutionary war.

Intentions are not the same as causes. Got it?

Else, the causes for the initial revolutionary movement do differ from the causes that lead to the independist movement.

The causes that lead colonists to revolt initially were lack of repressentation, the high taxation and so on.

The causes for the independist movements were the continuation and strengthening of those policies alongside with British repression and the impossibility to negociate with Britain as declared by the independists.

Jesus wrote:

Not really, they just wanted to be ruled by themselves and not by Londonl. If they are correctly representated in the british parlement they are ruled by themselves in a certain way.

You are confusing two kinds of movements. One was a movement for conciliation with Great Britain while other, the one that prevailed, was for independence.

The independist movements within the colonies did not search to form parft of the United Kingdom. They wanted to be completely separated.

Have you heard of the declarations of independence?

There it is very well stated that the British crown was unfit to rule over the 13 colonies and so they had to be separated.


Now, lets check an excerpt from the Preamble and Resolution of the May 15th 1776 Virginia convention:

"In this state of extreme danger, we have no alternative left but an abject submission to the will of those overbearing tyrants, or a total separation from the Crown and Government of Great Britain, uniting and exerting the strength of all America for defence, and forming alliances with foreign Powers for commerce and aid in war:-Wherefore, appealing to the Searcher of hearts for the sincerity of former declarations expressing our desire to preserve the connection with that nation, and that we are driven from that inclination by their wicked councils, and the eternal law of self-preservation:

Resolved, unanimously, That the Delegates appointed to represent this Colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain; and that they give the assent of this Colony to such declaration, and to whatever measures may be thought proper and necessary by the Congress for forming foreign alliances, and a Confederation of the Colonies, at such time and in the manner as to them shall seem best: Provided, That the power of forming Government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of each Colony, be left to the respective Colonial Legislatures."


The whole phenomenon can be divided in two movements:

1. A protest movement that fought for the rights of the colonies within the United Kingdom and which sought for conciliation with Britain.
2. The independist movement.

You argued that the Independist movement devolved from being originally conciliatory to independist having the revolutionaires forgotten the original intentions of the movement.

That assertion is wrong for one thing is the movement that sought to conciliate with Britain and other the one that sought for independance. Once the first failed and lost popular support the second took the upper hand and prevailed.

Quote :

"In this state of extreme danger, we have no alternative left but an abject submission to the will of those overbearing tyrants, or a total separation from the Crown and Government of Great Britain, uniting and exerting the strength of all America for defence, and forming alliances with foreign Powers for commerce and aid in war:-

With this, they mean that either they accept to be under the tyranic rule of Britain or they separate from it.

Quote :

Wherefore, appealing to the Searcher of hearts for the sincerity of former declarations expressing our desire to preserve the connection with that nation, and that we are driven from that inclination by their wicked councils, and the eternal law of self-preservation:

This expresses that originally there was will to conciliate with Great Britain but that they have realized that said conciliation is imposible for what they consider the "wicked" and brutal nature of Britain and, in order to follow the search for the protection of their integrity (law of self-preservation) they must separate from Britain. Hence the independist movement adopted by abandoning the conciliatory movement.

Quote :

Resolved, unanimously, That the Delegates appointed to represent this Colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain;

The intention to separate expressed with all clearness.

Quote :

and that they give the assent of this Colony to such declaration, and to whatever measures may be thought proper and necessary by the Congress for forming foreign alliances, and a Confederation of the Colonies, at such time and in the manner as to them shall seem best: Provided, That the power of forming Government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of each Colony, be left to the respective Colonial Legislatures."

This is the approval of the declaration by the colony and its concurrence with the idea that the congress should determine affairs such as foreign alliances and confederative (inter-colonial) affairs while acknowledging each colony has a respective autonomous legislative body.


As a summary:

One thing was the struggle for conciliation and other the struggle for independence.

The intentions of the independist movement gained strength and popular support after the conciliatory movement was proven uneffective and abandoned.

One movement was abandoned for other movement.

The intentions of the independist movement were always for the creation of governing bodies completely dissociated from the United Kingdom of the Great Britain.


Hope it is clear to you now.

Liche wrote:

Yes, Karl is rite Zealot.

No shit Liche! Is that so?

I'd understand it from Jesus, it's not his obligation to know USA's history and English is not even his native tongue... But you Liche? Wow.

Well he is right about why the war was started. And the fact that if those things happened the US wouldn't have gone to war. For a while GB agreed to those terms, but the taxation increased. Because of that, the US declared its independence. Great Britain basically thought it was a joke and sent one regiment of soldiers. In turn, Prussia sent a General to help the colonists, and France secretly sent a Naval battalion.

So, with a bunch of Farmers and a Prussian General the British army figured they had nothing to lose. The American army however managed to push them back, and when the British went back to there ships, they found that the French had a blockade set up.

Jesus wrote:

Sorry i meant the EN not the UN. and btw dude... the intentions, yes that concerns wether or not they would have sayed in the UK.

What EN? Do you probably mean the EU?

And, you definitely have a hard time understanding English don't you?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So now, don't use paralellisms. One thing is the United Kingdom and other the United Nations. They're completely different kinds of organisms. In no way does the existance of United Nations proves that the intention of being independent from part of the colonies didn't mean they couldn't be part of UK.

This means that it is irrelevant wether they could have been independent and be part of UK or not. And you know why it is irrelevant? Because we are not guessing wether "independentist" in this context means "be independent within UK's framework" or be "independent in full dissociation from UK", there are official documents proving the latter.

Jesus wrote:

Causes creates intentions GOT IT?!!!

And who is talking about that? We're talking EXCLUSIVELY about intentions, not the causes. The causes are pretty obvious, what you don't seem to grasp is the intention of the colonists that supported the independist movement.

Else, the causes for the initial revolutionary movement do differ from the causes that lead to the independist movement.

I wrote:

The causes that lead colonists to revolt initially were lack of repressentation, the high taxation and so on.

The causes for the independist movements were the continuation and strengthening of those policies alongside with British repression and the impossibility to negociate with Britain as declared by the independists.

Once again.

I should add up these two causes for the independist movement though:
1. Dissapointment with the British people for dishearing them
2. Consideration of the British Crown as an unfit and tyranic ruler.

Which basically are intertwined with the "impossibility to negociate" part.

Jesus wrote:

Not really it's pretty much the same. Problem is, that IF the G-B would have actually agreed to do some representations. Not enough americans would have made the revolution. Too many people would have stayed loyal to London because they actually gave them what they wanted.

And who the fuck is talking about that "what if" scenario?

We're talking concretely about the intentions of the independist movement.

One thing was the movement that sought for conciliation with Great Britain expecting that said Metropoli would change its policies towards them so they would remain part of the UK with the rights they demanded.

Since that move failed, a new movement, an new set of ideas, the independist one gained the upper hand. They sought for a complete dissociation from Great Britain.

Jesus wrote:

YOU LEARN TO READ A TEXT AND STOP DODGING AND SAYING YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE BEING AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN A 2 WAY CONVERSATION

It's pretty obvious that it's you who are dodging the whole focal point of the debate and who is being unable to understand texts.

Your whole arguement since the begining of the conversation was that the US independentists had forgotten the original objective of their movement which was of conciliation with Great Britain. While I'm sustaining that the independist movement did not have the intention anymore of remaining within the UK.

The early revolutionaires did want to remain within the United Kingdom but they were not independentists. All they wanted was Britain to change its policies towards them and have repressentation in the British Parliament. But they didn't want to dissociate from Great Britain.

After most people learnt about the impossibility of negociating a change of policies with Britain they sought the independentist alternative which was complete dissociation from Great Britain.

Jesus wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Have you heard of the declarations of independence?

There it is very well stated that the British crown was unfit to rule over the 13 colonies and so they had to be separated.

[color=white]Ok that sentence is just plain stupid. You really think they would have put in the constitution. Well oh yeah guys they're another less violent and more stable way to do things but oh fuck it! Let's separate from GB

That is an utterely idiotic hyperbole.

My point is that the Declaration of Independence (not to confuse with USA's constitution) expresses very well the intentions of the independist movement to separate from Great Britain.

The preamble of the Declaration states that so long as the government is destructive to the people the people have the right to change or destroy that government by any means they consider correct. It argues that when a government is despotic it is within the right of the people to abolish that despot's governance.

The following section is a series of charges against King George, 18 charges to be exact, to serve as foundations that King George was a tyrant, a despot, and as such was unfit to rule over the peoples of the Colonies. Implying thus that this subject's rule was eligible for removal and that dishearing his Authority and disacknowledging the crown were therefore reasonable actions.

The following section expresses dissapointment with the Brittish people who "were deaf" to the pleads of the colonists. And expresses regret for the failure of a peaceful resolution to the conflict as well as dissapointment that the peaceful way had failed thus having to recur to this more drastic alternative.

And what follows addresses directly your idiotic hyperbole. I'll let the founding fathers of the USA reply to you directly:

The founding fathers wrote:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

In case you didn't get what that means, well, I'll summarize it for you:

1. The United States are free and completely independent from the United Kingdom of the Great Britain and there is no political bond between them.
2. That they are free to declare war, get to peace, ally with whom they want and commerce with whom they want and basically do what they decide to do. This implies that they may recurr to war with Great Britain if they deem it necesary, which is implied in te rest of the declaration and other official documents such as the previously quoted May 15th 1776 Virginia Convention's preamble and resolution.
3. They're recognizing God and only god as a supreme authority and, since they consider their actions to be righteous they plead to the protection of God.
4. They state that they'll mutually assist in defense of this declaration, once again implying that if UK opposes (which it did) they'll resort to the protection of these principles by any means possible.

So, yeah, they actually said that peaceful means and all attempts at reconciliation with Britain had failed so there was no option but to completely separate from UK and resort to violence in case Britain opposed.

Jesus wrote:

Well they're pretty much the same people. Just taking greater mesures.

I didn't argue that they were different people, I argued that it was a different movement and a different set of ideas. One thing was the movement and current of ideas that sought to conciliate with Britain and other the independist movement which is the one that prevailed and which sought complete dissociation from Great Britain.

I've been arguing that the intentions of the independist movement were to completely separate from the United Kingdom and guess what? That is precisely what things like this document and the declaration of Independence of United States express.

They deemed attempts at peaceful resolutions and reconciliation completely futile and they deemed the British Crown unfit to rule over them, thus they intended to separate from it.

Jesus wrote:

Quote :

"In this state of extreme danger, we have no alternative left but an abject submission to the will of those overbearing tyrants, or a total separation from the Crown and Government of Great Britain, uniting and exerting the strength of all America for defence, and forming alliances with foreign Powers for commerce and aid in war:-

With this, they mean that either they accept to be under the tyranic rule of Britain or they separate from it.

No shit. I tought the constitution was talking about cheeze and wine trading!

Which constitution? Are you even reading or are you just randomly sectioning parragraphs and replying between them?

That excerpt is not from the constitution but from the May 15th 1776 Preamble and Resolution of the Virginia convention.

And you have implied the whole discussion that independentists didn't intend to separate from Great Britain, a statement they seem to disagree with as per their official documents.

Well, I shouldn't be surprised of your confusion though as you confuse the preamble and resolution of this cconvention with the Constitution of the United States.

Jesus wrote:

ZK wrote:

Wherefore, appealing to the Searcher of hearts for the sincerity of former declarations expressing our desire to preserve the connection with that nation, and that we are driven from that inclination by their wicked councils, and the eternal law of self-preservation:

This expresses that originally there was will to conciliate with Great Britain but that they have realized that said conciliation is imposible for what they consider the "wicked" and brutal nature of Britain and, in order to follow the search for the protection of their integrity (law of self-preservation) they must separate from Britain. Hence the independist movement adopted by abandoning the conciliatory movement.

Well Of course. But still. That's not the point don't you understand? THEY STILL MADE A REVOLUTION BECAUSE THEY HAD NO REPRESENTATION AND THAT GREW INTO A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IF WE GAVE THEM REPRESENTATION THEY WOULDNT HAVE ACTED IN SUCH A WAY.

No, we're not discussing about the causes of the revolution and we're not discussing about that "what if" scenario.

We're discussing about the intentions of the independist movement. You say they didn't intend to separate from Great Britain, they say in their documents they intended to do so.

Their reasons to want that separation are that they've found any attempt of negociation with the crown futile, that they've realized they were dissociated from the British People since the latter had disheard them and that they deemed teh British Crown completely unfit to rule over them.

Did they have the intention to separate? Yes. In case you have any doubt I'll quote them again:

The Founding Fathers of the USA wrote:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;

Jesus wrote:

I certailnly know better than you do. Mr. Salsa

So, after being confronted with a bunch of documented evidence of the independist movement's intentions and being proven wrong by them, and, after confusing the US constitution with two different documents all you have left to say is that you know more than me and call me names?

Needless to say, your statement is nil. Also, idiotic.

Proven wrong? Where do you live Under a rock? It's not because you believe you're right and you believe what you says proove you're self that it actually does!

Jesus wrote:

Proven wrong? Where do you live Under a rock? It's not because you believe you're right and you believe what you says proove you're self that it actually does!

Now you've given me the right to call you "idiot".

Read the fucking declaration and those fucking documents and shut up if you have nothing intelligent to say.

Look let's sum it up cuz it has no relation with what we we're talking about at the beginning.

The fact that american we're not representated but taxed caused the revolution, because the UK wouldn't give it. IT CAUSED THE REVOLUTION.And they're intention was to get more representation for less taxation.

And for aquiring that, they became independant.

Jesus wrote:

Look let's sum it up cuz it has no relation with what we we're talking about at the beginning.

The fact that american we're not representated but taxed caused the revolution, because the UK wouldn't give it. IT CAUSED THE REVOLUTION.And they're intention was to get more representation for less taxation.

We were talking about the intentions of the INDEPENDENTISTS. We were talking about the independentist movement which is the one that prevailed and of which I have presented 2 documents expressing their intentions.

The movement that prevailed and that gave birth to USA was the independentist movement that fought for total dissociation from the UK and which had the intention to create governments separate from the Great Britain.

The intention of USA was actually of being a separate nation. Or at least that's what the founding fathers claim and that's what is written in their official documents.

That was what we were discussing.

We were not dicussing about the reasons that gave birth to the revolutionary war in USA but about the intentions of teh independentists when creating the USA.

Jesus wrote:

And for aquiring that, they became independant.

Did you know you're stating with this sentence that USA's colonies became independent in order to gain representation and less taxes? And by this you're completely disregarding the whole declaration of independence of the United States.

This is how everythng started:

"

I wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Well no! they didnt really cared about who they belonged to or what, they just wanted representation at the british parlementary and they had none which caused they're angryness!

Yeah, sure, all they wanted was some repressentation in the British parlament and absolutely nothing more that's probably what the declaration of Independece is all about probably... really come on.

We're not discussing one of the reasons that served to start USA's revolutionary war, we're discussing what USA was intended to be and it was intended to be an independent country which would have to defend itself from the imperial powers, strengthen and become an empire irself.

Then:

I wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Well if you look at what they wanted in the first place, yes they never would have made a revolution, less taxes and good representation would have pleased the majority of the population.

And... what does this have to do with wether USA was intended to be an independent country which would evolve into a plutocratic empire or not?

I'm not talking about the causes of the revolutionary war, I'm talking about the intention of USA's independist movements which were nothing but to create a government separate from the Great Britain.

Once the idea of independant governance was formulated, it was not as an attempt to gain representation within the British parliament but as an attempt to utterly split from the United Kingdom and create a new nation.

See what the focal point was?

We were not discussing the causes for the revolutionary war but the intentions with which the independentists created the USA.

Got it now?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Look let's sum it up cuz it has no relation with what we we're talking about at the beginning.

The fact that american we're not representated but taxed caused the revolution, because the UK wouldn't give it. IT CAUSED THE REVOLUTION.And they're intention was to get more representation for less taxation.

We were talking about the intentions of the INDEPENDENTISTS. We were talking about the independentist movement which is the one that prevailed and of which I have presented 2 documents expressing their intentions.

The movement that prevailed and that gave birth to USA was the independentist movement that fought for total dissociation from the UK and which had the intention to create governments separate from the Great Britain.

The intention of USA was actually of being a separate nation. Or at least that's what the founding fathers claim and that's what is written in their official documents.

That was what we were discussing.

We were not dicussing about the reasons that gave birth to the revolutionary war in USA but about the intentions of teh independentists when creating the USA.

Jesus wrote:

And for aquiring that, they became independant.

Did you know you're stating with this sentence that USA's colonies became independent in order to gain representation and less taxes? And by this you're completely disregarding the whole declaration of independence of the United States.

There you go you said it. THE INDEPENDENTISTS. NOT THE AVERAGE GUY. Of course they won't fill a complete bill saying well, we we're just really pissed of getting our ass taxed ans stuff. The independentist people, only took advatange of a major movemement of angryness toward G-B to make the revolution. The AVERAGE GUY only wanted less taxes and more representation NOT THE BUREAUCRATS

Jesus wrote:

There you go you said it. THE INDEPENDENTISTS. NOT THE AVERAGE GUY. Of course they won't fill a complete bill saying well, we we're just really pissed of getting our ass taxed ans stuff. The independentist people, only took advatange of a major movemement of angryness toward G-B to make the revolution. The AVERAGE GUY only wanted less taxes and more representation NOT THE BUREAUCRATS

And all this is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Absolutely. We were not discussing wether what you call "the average guy" comulgated or not with the ideas of the independentists.

This is an arguement for another discussion which would be "on the legitimacy of USA's independentist movement". What you are questioning now.

You are asserting now that the people didn't back up the founding fathers in the creation of USA...

Now that you have granted that I was right, I have to wonder what are your grounds to claim that people didn't want USA to be independent?

As far as I know USA has lasted until our days implying that people actually comulgated with the idea of independence rather than what was considered an oprobious integration with the United Kingdom.

Had most of the people prefered to conciliate with United Kingdom, the idea of an independent USA would not have prospered and independence wouldn't have been proclaimed or lasted.

I can't fathom how would the independetists have prospered fighting against the United Kingdom being against a populace that wanted to belong to the UK, just with rights. In other words I can't imagine how independentism prospered without at least some significant popular support...

Which means that in the end people supported independentism.

Of course this is another topic. The point of the discussion was that USA was intended to be independent from UK and prospere on its own. That was the objective of the creation of USA.

USA was not intended to be a protest for fair integration into the UK, it was intended as an independent nation. Period.

I didn't admitted you we're right you fuckhead. I didn't say the general guy didn't wanted independance. He just wanted less taxes and represantation since he couldn't get it in a certain way he took the other way around.

Jesus wrote:

I didn't admitted you we're right you fuckhead. I didn't say the general guy didn't wanted independance. He just wanted less taxes and represantation since he couldn't get it in a certain way he took the other way around.

Idiot, and you've showed already what an idiot you are (given your attitude and your possition), that was not the focal point of the discussion at all.

As soon as I claimed that USA was intended to be an independent nation you began all your stupid nonsensical rant. Once you were proven absolutely wrong you changed your posture.

Once again: I claimed that the USA was intended to be an independent nation. You claimed that it wasn't. I proved you wrong.

And you granted:

Jesus wrote:

There you go you said it. THE INDEPENDENTISTS.

I was not arguing about the average people or wether USA was popularily created or wether people regretted to create USA or whatever. I just claimed that the USA was intended to be an independent nation. Whose idea was the idea of creating USA? Well, indeed teh independentists' and I never claimed otherwise.
The term "average people" or a reference to them was not mentioned in the whole discussion.

And now, to that point of the average people. You again granting me reason: In the end, the people supported independentism.

Ok there's a little something i must clear. When we have a discussion, the topic is defined by 2 guys NOT 1

Jesus wrote:

Ok there's a little something i must clear. When we have a discussion, the topic is defined by 2 guys NOT 1

lol you should just stop the only way he'll agree with you is by killing him.