We did not throw off a tyrannical king to embrace tyrannical majoritarian democracy

In what was was King George III tyranical? He was a constitutional monarch, meaning parliament was actually running the show.

 

I was singing Daydream Believer to myself as I read his post.

 

Please. FBI is not KGB. They aren't going to snatch me up and take me to Lubyanka prison for reeducation.

They'd knock on my door. I'd tell them I'm taking my fifth amendment right to silence and slam the door in their face.

I'm not surprised a bastard socialist collaborator would embrace using the jackboot of the state against the resistance movement that is quietly building in strength.

You'd probably turn in your own parents for anti revolutionary beliefs, eh comrade?

 

Absolutely. Who wants to be ruled by limey fruits?

 

The funny thing is that the OP supports her own version of mob rule on certain issues.

 

By British law, all tax paying citizens of the British Empire were entitled to representation in Parliament. the colonies were not given this representation, and as such, refused to taxes to the crown. It was their right to refuse taxes that violated the law.

 

Good luck....

Economic fascists....or, in politically correct terminology; "planned capitalists" or "corporatists"....are loathe to outright admit their totalitarian aims....so they ignore, dismiss and deny and load the pages with argumentation fallacies

 

Which British law? The majority of Britons at that time had the same level of "representation" as any British colonist.