It was though. Hence the whole "Revolutionary War". I'm not saying it was a mistake, but it certainly wasn't legal, and it was treason.

They are right. You got away with it cause you won. Whats wrong with that?

The assertion was made at a debate in Philadelphia between British and American lawyers over the legitimacy of the United States of America.

Subby either is trolling or doesn't understand what a debate is.

.... I thought that was the point? If it wasn't illegal or treasonous we wouldn't have had to do it.

That's why Paul Revere rang all those bells and then got a shotgun and killed King George, or whatever.

I mean, they're right. That's why we shot all those redcoats, right?

I'd be worried that the teabaggers would want to fire the war with England back up again, but Hoverounds don't float.

"The Divine Right of Kings" is a gross violation of civil liberties and human rights, as in an Established Church. England did away with both, eventually.

Shame the American team didn't make a stronger showing, given that they had the right of the argument.

Well, the Brits are right. According to the law at the time, the Declaration was a treasonable act. The only reason we got away with it at all is because the colonists outwitted the British military. Otherwise, the whole thing would have been for naught.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I'd be worried that the teabaggers would want to fire the war with England back up again, but Hoverounds don't float.

Actually, wouldn't they want to stay with England? You know, "FIX OLD, NO NEW", and all that shiat?

Isn't this like someone suddenly making the argument that Mein Kampf was a tad anti-semetic?

No YOU'RE a Towel: They are right. You got away with it cause you won. Whats wrong with that?

Winning is everything.

"Wan't?" Really, subby, "wan't" is the best you can do?

Winning wars is how you determine if your actions were "legal"...

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Hoverounds don't float.

Pfft, unless you have POWAH!!

Barbigazi: That's why Paul Revere rang all those bells and then got a shotgun and killed King George, or whatever.

Everybody knows that he killed him a bar when he was only three. Then he got a big blue ox and planted apple trees all over America.

When Ben Franklin said "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." it wasn't just a clever joke. Everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence was openly committing treason against their king under British law. If the Revolution had failed, these men would most definitely been arrested and killed.

That's why we still read about them in history; they took a big gamble and it paid off

Of course it was. That was the point.

Give America back to the British!

JerseyTim: Give America back to the British!

I agree. We should all become British again.

Why would the Brits even bring this up? Do they really want the U.S. back under their dominion? Do they want war reparations or something? We have no farking money.

Why, Britain? WHY!?

a vote was held and American independence was reaffirmed.

We all just dodged a bullet, friends.

FirstNationalBastard: Mr. Coffee Nerves: I'd be worried that the teabaggers would want to fire the war with England back up again, but Hoverounds don't float.

Actually, wouldn't they want to stay with England? You know, "FIX OLD, NO NEW", and all that shiat?

Oh, in reality a teabagger in 1776 would have been screaming for the crown to get those lazy rebels and put them to work bearbaiting so the one percenteth could thrive. I'm talking about how teabaggers see themselves -- taking down an M1A1 tank with their trusty Remington 860.

Of course it's treason! What did you think Ben Franklin meant when he said "We shall all hang together or we shall all hang separately," subby?

RexTalionis: Of course it's treason! What did you think Ben Franklin meant when he said "We shall all hang together or we shall all hang separately," subby?

Probably like hang out. Sort of, does everyone want to go to the bar tonight, if not I'll just chill at my place.

If I remember my history correctly, the British were the ones occupying Wall Street back then (and the rest of NYC).

damageddude: If I remember my history correctly, the British were the ones occupying Wall Street back then (and the rest of NYC).

No, no. You've got that all wrong. They were protecting us from godless Indians and their French allies. That's also what those taxes were for.

damageddude: If I remember my history correctly, the British were the ones occupying Wall Street back then (and the rest of NYC).

Don't forget the Dutch.

/Bezetten de Waal Straat?

I.M.APseudonym: It was though. Hence the whole "Revolutionary War". I'm not saying it was a mistake, but it certainly wasn't legal, and it was treason.

Absolutely. Under the laws in place at the time, it was an act of treason against the British crown. Is there anyone out there who would actually argue that it wasn't?

Cythraul: Why would the Brits even bring this up?

Um, because it was a friendly debate between lawyers?

nekom: Absolutely. Under the laws in place at the time, it was an act of treason against the British crown. Is there anyone out there who would actually argue that it wasn't?

I bet Michele Bachmann would be willing to give it a try.

TheSpaceAdmiral: Cythraul: Why would the Brits even bring this up?

Um, because it was a friendly debate between lawyers?

There's such a thing as a friendly debate between lawyers?

Look out my British friends. We've been itching for a winnable war ever since we kicked ass in Vietnam.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: nekom: Absolutely. Under the laws in place at the time, it was an act of treason against the British crown. Is there anyone out there who would actually argue that it wasn't?

I bet Michele Bachmann would be willing to give it a try.

Good point.

two words - nuclear f*cking weapons, ok?

What's the point? Every revolution, coup, seccession is treason. However, if you're fighting against draconian law, the world generally views it as A-OK.

downstairs: What's the point? Every revolution, coup, seccession is treason. However, if you're fighting against draconian law, the world generally views it as A-OK.

well...unless you protest against wall street. then you can expect a beat down.

Weaver95: two words - nuclear f*cking weapons, ok?

This feels like a setup to a Dennis Leary singing "I'm an Asshole" reference.

RexTalionis: Weaver95: two words - nuclear f*cking weapons, ok?

This feels like a setup to a Dennis Leary singing "I'm an Asshole" reference.

well...I do drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane while people behind me are going insane.

Incidentally, I would also like to see a Society of Friends presidential candidate who calls everybody "friend." That would be interesting.

/Nixon was an awful Quaker.

nekom: I.M.APseudonym: It was though. Hence the whole "Revolutionary War". I'm not saying it was a mistake, but it certainly wasn't legal, and it was treason.

Absolutely. Under the laws in place at the time, it was an act of treason against the British crown. Is there anyone out there who would actually argue that it wasn't?

Yes, apparently the farkwits representing our side:
The American lawyers countered that the Declaration's validity has been proven by "subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just."

Which really doesn't actually counter the argument that it was illegal and treasonous. All it says is that we wouldn't have been convicted in the Hague, had it been around at the time.

Weaver95: RexTalionis: Weaver95: two words - nuclear f*cking weapons, ok?

This feels like a setup to a Dennis Leary singing "I'm an Asshole" reference.

well...I do drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane while people behind me are going insane.

Do you park in handicapped spaces while handicapped people make handicapped faces?

downstairs: What's the point? Every revolution, coup, seccession is treason. However, if you're fighting against draconian law, the world generally views it as A-OK.

Incidentally, this is why it was wrong to try Saddam under Iraqi law. He was correct in that all of his actions were, by definition, legal, and the tribunal was an act of treason. A puppet show for the cameras really isn't a great way to kick off a new justice system.

jbc: The assertion was made at a debate in Philadelphia between British and American lawyers over the legitimacy of the United States of America.

Subby either is trolling or doesn't understand what a debate is.

Well, he is surfing Fox News....