Was George Washington the 8th President???

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.asp

Nope. As it says on the bottom, there was no such a thing as "united" "states" "of America" and neither any "president" of it. Perhaps a suiting title from me would be " appointed leader of the North American British colonies" or "head of the Independent wannabe Confederation of America"

they were the leaders of the terrorist cell trying to over throw the local ruling party



it was what it was

What is really gonna bug some people, is that the "tea party" members and the writers of the Constitution were considered "domestic terrorists" in those days, also "extremists" and "anti government".

is that not what i said

Yeah, but today we gotta come up with something new, something revolutionary..can't throw over Obama, he is no king and there is a Constitution already.

Need a different system so let's think what we didn't have yet.

you do not over throw anything

you reinstate that which has been stolen

Instead of a revolution we could just respect the democratic election and the peoples choice as a true American should

Except that's not what it was

yes it was (by todays definition)

if not what was it

They didn't commit acts of terrorism.They were on their home soil.They tried to lawfully redress their issues with the foreign occupation authorities,and when that didn't work they eventually overthrew the foreign occupation authorities.The Founding Fathers were rational men of Enlightened values not domestic terrorists.Their situation bears no comparison to a small and spoiled misguided group of disgruntled people who lost a lawful democratic election fair and square.

there were no elections (that was the issue)

their home soil was british

the boston teaparty was a terrorist act

by todays patriot act they were terrorists

no doubt about it

we could rightfully do everything that the founding fathers did

and for the same reasons and do it to reinstate the constitution

and yes the patriot act would make us terrorists as well

there were no elections (that was the issue)----- True

their home soil was british----- Some of them,some not .

the boston teaparty was a terrorist act----- It was an act of protest. Protest is not terrorism.

by todays patriot act they were terrorists---- definately would be considered illegal.

no doubt about it

we could rightfully do everything that the founding fathers did ---- It would be rightful to respect the democratic will of the American people.

and for the same reasons and do it to reinstate the constitution---- There was no Constitution when the Revolution happened.

and yes the patriot act would make us terrorists as well----It would certainly be treason against the American people.






A real American would respect the lawful and democratic choice of the American people. We had a lawful and fair election.The right of the American people to vote for their own representatives and President should be respected.The choice was made. You win some and you loose some.You don't always get what you want.Theres always the next election.That's democracyThats America.

The current administration was elected in a lawful and fair democratic election by the will of the majority.The peoples right to vote should be respected.End of story a far as I am concerned.Been fascinating discussion Adj4u. Have a great night.

Ok, fair election..... so what about when that elected someone turns their back on the promises and ideals that won them that election....?

And when they promise change based on those ideals and principles, then not only promote the issues of what we wanted changed, but enhance the scope of their power over us?

The Constitution states we have a solemn duty to oppose tyranny, and unjust government. It also affords us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....

Guess I can see why they want to do away with it.....

"True" American's have the right, no the OBLIGATION, to protest what they feel is wrong. If they feel that the current system of government is wrong, not working or whatever, they have the right, obligation and duty to do what is necessary to correct it, including overthrowing the government.

Those who disagree with them have these same rights, obligations and duties.

It is NOT a "true" American's obligation to just sit back and take whatever our government does that they feel they can get away with. Our government was built on revolution, protest and the right of the people to speak up when they disagree (or agree, as the case may be).

Sheesh, basic high school government class.

Mirror, I'm not sure where you went to school (England?) but yes, that is what it was. Our initial government leaders (Washington et al) would have been (and were, by many) considered to be traitors and terrorists. It is only by the fact that we won the war and many years going by that they are now considered to be heros and great leaders.

The Boston Tea Party is just one act they committed that is considered terrorism. The whole American Revolution was one giant terrorist act, as we were fighting against our rulers and leaders, each in turn committing many acts of terrorist violence. It is ONLY because we won that other words are used, words that make things seem better than it was, make Americans look virtuous instead of traitorous.

I'm not saying I disagree with what was done. But if we had lost, it would be considered domestic terrorism and treason.

maybe it was and maybe he was

there is doubt involved

too many voting machine issues

and no proof that the machines actually cast the vote as it was instructed

why is it no printout of the votes as cast was not given to the voter

why is it when voting machines already were having problems that they were still being used

----------------------

and when one tells blatant lies to become the elected official why is there no recourse by the people

the only way to remove an elected prez is through a successful impeachment proceedings (which must be done by others that have more than likely done the same things) and (more than likely the president knows it) that works very well as we have seen

yes the will of the people should be respected if it is truly the will of the people -- but who says what the will of the people is

the election (see above)

not everyone was in favor of the actions of those involved in the revolt that lead to independence (there were many loyalist) that supported the british rule

what about them should their will have been followed

why is it that the federal govt can blatantly turn its back on the constitution and the declaration of independence [these are the basic foundation of the formation of this country]

that alone would be enough to lead to a legit uprising by the people if they were inclined to do so (should their will be followed)

how many people do you know that say i am not voting it is a waste of time (yes it is wrong to not vote) they could vote third party to let their feelings be known (that they are tired of the main stream politics)

what about their will

there are a lot of people

thus there are a lot of will of the people

(why is it the govt wants to take weapons out of the hands of the people) so the will of the people can be crushed????

yes most of the things you have said are good points

probably what the loyalist were saying before and during the revolution that lead to the founding of this country

the legal defifinition:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.