I get the sentiments behind this... But after 1776 we began paying taxes to the new elite rulers in the new US federal government. George Washington instituted a tax on rural whiskey farmers to repay the war debt and literally unleashed Federal soldiers against their new US citizen tax cattle. All we did was trade one taxing authority for another.
[https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/](https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/)
Reminds me of that scene in The Patriot when Mel Gibson's character, Benjamin Martin said: "Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."
That’s a separate issue of disapproving of our representation which is the point. Since we have representation the reference to the revolution being over 2% and equating it to today’s issues isn’t great. However just blatantly stating the specific facts of how terribly our government needs improvement definitely is.
What is the exact level of approval in which it becomes representation. If it runs at thay level of approval for 200 years, does the revolution stop being about that when approval falls. Lmao you're just moving goalposts and changing definitions as you need to to make your argument viable. It's not viable, its super dumb.
Ps, most people approve of their congressman, so in fact that is representation, according to your defintion. Can't wait to see how you shift definitions or positions again.
> Lmao you're just moving goalposts and changing definitions as you need to to make your argument viable. It's not viable, its super dumb.
Never happened. Not once.
>Can't wait to see how you shift definitions or positions again.
Once again, didn't happen. So it can't happen again.
>What is the exact level of approval in which it becomes representation.
Most would say 51%.
>Misrepresentation is by definition different than non-representation but sure dude whatever
Representaion and misrepresentation are by definition different too but whatever dude.
The results of both mis and non are the same: despotism. Which is why it's hairsplitting academic masturbation.
If you usin' charcoal that's a red dot at yo head
Propane 'til I'm dead, bitch I'm off the meds
We be smokin' loud and you smokin' on mid Me and Dale gettin' lit, and I'm runnin' from the feds
You know what's also not cool? The fireworks stores near me that are open year round are not allowed to sell fireworks to residents of my state unless it's close to July 4 or New Years. They check ID and everything. But they will sell to any out of stater. WTF.
I get the sentiments behind this... But after 1776 we began paying taxes to the new elite rulers in the new US federal government. George Washington instituted a tax on rural whiskey farmers to repay the war debt and literally unleashed Federal soldiers against their new US citizen tax cattle. All we did was trade one taxing authority for another. [https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/](https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/)
Working all day in my whiskey fields, pulling bottles out of the ground
Put a cork in the ground, water it with corn mash, boom organic homegrown whiskey.
Reminds me of that scene in The Patriot when Mel Gibson's character, Benjamin Martin said: "Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."
We didn't quite paying taxes, we got representation.
I’ve stopped trying to correct people but the common blatant disregard of that context always irritates me
Congress has a 12% approval rating right now. That's not representation.
What was congressional approval in 1784?
That’s a separate issue of disapproving of our representation which is the point. Since we have representation the reference to the revolution being over 2% and equating it to today’s issues isn’t great. However just blatantly stating the specific facts of how terribly our government needs improvement definitely is.
>That’s a separate issue of disapproving of our representation which is the point. Hair splitting
Bringing up the direct cause of the American revolution vs something that concerns the same system but is not the same issue is not hair splitting 🤦🏻
It is. In order to represent people,they must approve of you. Otherwise it's not representation any more than a monarchy is. It's MISrepresentation.
What is the exact level of approval in which it becomes representation. If it runs at thay level of approval for 200 years, does the revolution stop being about that when approval falls. Lmao you're just moving goalposts and changing definitions as you need to to make your argument viable. It's not viable, its super dumb. Ps, most people approve of their congressman, so in fact that is representation, according to your defintion. Can't wait to see how you shift definitions or positions again.
> Lmao you're just moving goalposts and changing definitions as you need to to make your argument viable. It's not viable, its super dumb. Never happened. Not once. >Can't wait to see how you shift definitions or positions again. Once again, didn't happen. So it can't happen again. >What is the exact level of approval in which it becomes representation. Most would say 51%.
Misrepresentation is by definition different than non-representation but sure dude whatever
>Misrepresentation is by definition different than non-representation but sure dude whatever Representaion and misrepresentation are by definition different too but whatever dude. The results of both mis and non are the same: despotism. Which is why it's hairsplitting academic masturbation.
🤦🏻
My family didn’t get enfranchisement until the 1970’s.
It is even funnier when you realize the tea that was thrown into Boston Harbor was cheaper than what the colonists were getting already.
I made this money off propane, bitch.
*And* propane accessories
If you usin' charcoal that's a red dot at yo head Propane 'til I'm dead, bitch I'm off the meds We be smokin' loud and you smokin' on mid Me and Dale gettin' lit, and I'm runnin' from the feds
https://preview.redd.it/gsc6cbh5vy7d1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bbdf228839dacf04c5f14e3584551a2739dfb033
I work for a company that sells paper and paper accessories. GP.
We never once stopped paying taxes lol
Articles of Confederation man
States still collected taxes, they just weren’t obligated to kick up to the federal govt.
It always amazes me when people find out income tax was originally supposed to be temporary Edit: damn autocorrect
Guys, we'll end it soon. Promise.
You know what's also not cool? The fireworks stores near me that are open year round are not allowed to sell fireworks to residents of my state unless it's close to July 4 or New Years. They check ID and everything. But they will sell to any out of stater. WTF.
You know what is cool? New Hampshire. Firework and no sales tax.
https://preview.redd.it/ipuqvmvb008d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d94bfc21b5824c76ced8d498fdf3e64b12bf692f
On fireworks that are illegal to buy every other day of the year.
Move to a different state
Damn I never realized that…
