That explains everything.Qitz said:In Texas, one MUST acknowledge a supreme being before being able to hold public office.Segadroid said:Also, the actress of Leia didn't wear a bra on set.
That explains everything.Qitz said:In Texas, one MUST acknowledge a supreme being before being able to hold public office.Segadroid said:Also, the actress of Leia didn't wear a bra on set.
When the city you list (not yours but mine) consistently places second on several top 10 whatever, then by the laws of math it would average first.DJ_DEnM said:http://urbantitan.com/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-in-2011/
Whats that internet? Number one is Bogota?
Get your facts straight and stop being so freaking discriminative against Mexicans.
Look, "America" fought just as much for its freedom from French rule as the British did.GrimTuesday said:I'm not saying that there were any good reason why Britain should have retained the colonies, I'm just saying that the reasons that were given as to why the revolution was justified were rather shaky. The main reason was because of Taxes. Of course, what many people gloss over is the fact that these taxes were really meant to pay off the debt incurred fighting the French Indian War, which was fought to keep the colonialists safe from the attack French and their Indian allies. Prior to this, the colonies had been taxed fairly little, and to me, the idea that the colonist had to help pay off the debts caused by the British army keeping them safe, seems logical. Of course then people bring up the no taxation without representation thing, which to me seems foolish because logistically it is entirely impractical for the colonists to send their representatives to London because of how far removed they would be from the actual colonies, it would be like having a person who lived in Britain representing you.
Yes geographically it makes sense that the colonies would have split from Britain eventually, however, I think that the reason's that were given for the rebellion weren't severe enough to warrant a somewhat long and bloody war.
I get what you're saying, and I agree that what the founding fathers set out to do was noble, but once again, their reasoning behind the revolution was that they wanted to get out from under a "Tyrannical" king (who in my opinion wasn't all that tyrannical), in part because they weren't being represented in Parliament and partly because of taxes. It was for these reasons they waged a revolution, and to me, those aren't good enough reasons to declare independence.Treblaine said:Look, "America" fought just as much for its freedom from French rule as the British did.GrimTuesday said:I'm not saying that there were any good reason why Britain should have retained the colonies, I'm just saying that the reasons that were given as to why the revolution was justified were rather shaky. The main reason was because of Taxes. Of course, what many people gloss over is the fact that these taxes were really meant to pay off the debt incurred fighting the French Indian War, which was fought to keep the colonialists safe from the attack French and their Indian allies. Prior to this, the colonies had been taxed fairly little, and to me, the idea that the colonist had to help pay off the debts caused by the British army keeping them safe, seems logical. Of course then people bring up the no taxation without representation thing, which to me seems foolish because logistically it is entirely impractical for the colonists to send their representatives to London because of how far removed they would be from the actual colonies, it would be like having a person who lived in Britain representing you.
Yes geographically it makes sense that the colonies would have split from Britain eventually, however, I think that the reason's that were given for the rebellion weren't severe enough to warrant a somewhat long and bloody war.
They had a taste for freedom after that, most of those who left Europe in search of new opportunities yet in these British colonies you found they had LESS freedoms than had they stayed home in the old country!
I'm British and even I know all the work of the 'Founding Fathers', it wasn't just a case of "waaah taxes" they wanted to make something new, they had BIG plans for a 'United States' and they knew they could only achieve it with independence. America and Britain had to go their separate ways.
They were not arguing FOR representation, they knew that was impossible. They were not arguing for end of taxation either. What they wanted was Independence! Like India would 170 years later, to spite UK going into so much debt fighting the Japanese to keep them out of India.
And that debt of the French-Indian war was repaid when it was needed most in World War 2 with Lend-Lease, such a favourable loan with no interest to be paid back over a 45 year period it was essentially a gift yet retaining the pride of accountability.
woah woah woah...What?GrimTuesday said:All the dandies needed something to sip over their conversation about their rather unjust revolution[footnote]Yes I, as an American do think that the grounds for independence were more than a little shaky[/footnote]
If I remember right, the clitoris grows into what we call a penis...Top Hat said:Yeah, & anyone who says they were born with a penis is a liar!Mikkelet said:All people are born girls, which is why boys have have nipples.
The Question FTW.Arkvoodle said:The plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces are called aglets.
Their true purpose is sinister.
this is now my life dream:Qitz said:An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.
Elaborate.x EvilErmine x said:- The human brain can form more neural connections than there are atoms in the viable universe.