1776

**NoSavingByTheBell** · 12-12-2020 04:48 AM

..they didn't want to hear Texas ...

I keep my word and I accept their decision. They did not even want to HEAR the case.

...the supreme court has rendered itself into nothing. The constitution doesn't mean anything to them. All they care about is their own political position and keeping it. They all know it's fraud but they look away from it. They are afraid of doing anything about it just because BLM and antifa will Burn Loot and Murder. They have no spines and do not deserve their positions. All they care about is themselves.

I keep my word: I accept their decision. BUt that was only ONE case, filed by Texas.

There are still the individual states' cases. Its not over yet.

**SlimTrae** · 01-10-2021 04:01 PM

I'm curious on others' take on how Pilgrims (Puritans) that left their homeland came to a new land and somehow found themselves under the same government but on a different continent. Not enslaved, but made dependent?

Spain was here, France was here, Holland the Dutch, how then did Britain reconnect with their once brethren?

It is interesting that in order to go from dependence to independence, war was the solution. More so how the French it seems back then was so respected and today so pissed on.
Jacque Rousseau's words seem to echo in many of the writings of Thomas Jefferson and in Wisconsin there are so many towns and streets named after Frenchmen like him and Lafayette (spelling?).

Benjamin Franklin went to the French court asked for some cheddar, some currency in Versailles, 1778, correct?

Yet he was able to kick it with his boys in the hellfire club in Britain I believe? Or is the timing different? Seems he would have been killed for asking French to help kick British ass, then turn around and get him some British ass via Sir Dashwood and his secret society. And Ben documents his hanging with them I just don't remember the years they occurred.

& All that open land and yet they felt so closed in? dependent? When I read of names like Julien-Alexandre de Bonvouloir, Silas Deane and their receiving clothing, arms and ammunition for 25,000 soldiers?!

At least per the History channel!

I often read such history and feel baffled, that the colonists couldnt just say, stop drinking their tea, drink coffee. Why kick somebody shit overboard when they know that shit costs money and they may want that tea back or compensated for it.

Does anyone know if this is true: Ultimately, France provided about 1.3 billion livres of desperately-needed money and goods to support the rebels.

If, so, how much cheddar aka loot aka dollars would that be today? I'm wondering why did the French do SOOOOOOOOO much to assist with finances, supplies, ships and sacrificed their lives, for what?

What did they see in it -is my big reason for posting here.

Not so much to just question why the need to fight someone not for freedom, but to become independent...and somehow the French saw these colonists as worthy of putting their lives on the line.

Was the French looking at this like Rumble in the Jungle, the rematch? Were the colonists being used as a proxy war- the way we used Al Queada to fight our nemesis Russia in the late 1970s & early 1980s....we saw a strategic reason in funding them, so I often wonder were the french' mindset when they went all out to help the colonists become Independent.