George III of Britain vs. George II of America

[WalterM140]

Today's NY Times:

"It would be silly, of course, to overstate the parallels between 1776 and
2004. The signers of the declaration were colonial subjects of a man they had
come to see as a foreign king. One of their major grievances had to do with the
tax burden imposed on them to support the king's wars. In contrast, our taxes
have been reduced — especially for those who need the money least — and the
huge costs of war sloughed off to our children and grandchildren. Nor would it
be tactful to press the analogy between our George II and their George III, of
whom the British historian John Richard Green wrote: "He had a smaller mind
than any English king before him save James II."

But the parallels are there, and undeniable. "He has affected to render the
Military independent of and superior to the Civil power," the declaration said
of George III, and today the military is indulgently allowed to investigate its
own crimes in Iraq. George III "obstructed the Administration of Justice." Our
George II has sought to evade judicial review by hiding detainees away in
Guantánamo, and has steadfastly resisted the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act,
which allows non-U.S. citizens to bring charges of human rights violations to
U.S. courts."


More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/opinion/04EHRE.html?th

These sorry Republican *******s have got to go.

Walt

[Bill & Susan Maddux]

this is an aviation discussion group, take your crap elsewhere.
"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Today's NY Times:
>
> "It would be silly, of course, to overstate the parallels between 1776 and
> 2004. The signers of the declaration were colonial subjects of a man they
had
> come to see as a foreign king. One of their major grievances had to do
with the
> tax burden imposed on them to support the king's wars. In contrast, our
taxes
> have been reduced - especially for those who need the money least - and
the
> huge costs of war sloughed off to our children and grandchildren. Nor
would it
> be tactful to press the analogy between our George II and their George
III, of
> whom the British historian John Richard Green wrote: "He had a smaller
mind
> than any English king before him save James II."
>
> But the parallels are there, and undeniable. "He has affected to render
the
> Military independent of and superior to the Civil power," the declaration
said
> of George III, and today the military is indulgently allowed to
investigate its
> own crimes in Iraq. George III "obstructed the Administration of Justice."
Our
> George II has sought to evade judicial review by hiding detainees away in
> Guantánamo, and has steadfastly resisted the use of the Alien Tort Claims
Act,
> which allows non-U.S. citizens to bring charges of human rights violations
to
> U.S. courts."
>
>
> More:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/opinion/04EHRE.html?th
>
> These sorry Republican *******s have got to go.
>
> Walt

[Keith Willshaw]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Today's NY Times:
>
> "It would be silly, of course, to overstate the parallels between 1776 and
> 2004.

It certainly would.

> The signers of the declaration were colonial subjects of a man they had
> come to see as a foreign king. One of their major grievances had to do
with the
> tax burden imposed on them to support the king's wars. In contrast, our
taxes
> have been reduced - especially for those who need the money least - and
the
> huge costs of war sloughed off to our children and grandchildren. Nor
would it
> be tactful to press the analogy between our George II and their George
III, of
> whom the British historian John Richard Green wrote: "He had a smaller
mind
> than any English king before him save James II."
>

George III of course had no real control over foreign policy, that
was set by the Prime Minister, Lord North and Parliament had
the sole right to levy taxes.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/pms/north.htm

> But the parallels are there, and undeniable. "He has affected to render
the
> Military independent of and superior to the Civil power," the declaration
said
> of George III, and today the military is indulgently allowed to
investigate its
> own crimes in Iraq. George III "obstructed the Administration of Justice."

George III was no military dictator, he was known at the time
as Farmer George as agriculture was his passion. The writers
of the declaration understood that blaming a king was more
satisfying than blaming an elected Parliament.

> Our
> George II has sought to evade judicial review by hiding detainees away in
> Guantánamo, and has steadfastly resisted the use of the Alien Tort Claims
Act,
> which allows non-U.S. citizens to bring charges of human rights violations
to
> U.S. courts."
>
>
> More:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/opinion/04EHRE.html?th
>
> These sorry Republican *******s have got to go.
>
> Walt

Thats a matter for you colonials but George III was no tyrant.
His sole fault in this matter was urging that the American
colonies pay for their own defence. Its noteworthy that
taxes after independence were far heavier than those levied
by the colonial administration.

Keith

[WalterM140]

>Its noteworthy that
>taxes after independence were far heavier than those levied
>by the colonial administration.

Complete nonsense.

The government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation allowed
of no taxes whatsoever.

Under the Constitution as it began to operate in 1790, the sole basis of
revenue was in tariffs on imported goods.

There were no taxes whatsoever levied by the federal government until after
1861.

The sole sustenance of the United States government prior to 1861 was in tariff
revenue. In 1846, the tariff rates were essentially removed.

Walt

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:
> >Its noteworthy that
> >taxes after independence were far heavier than those levied
> >by the colonial administration.
>
> Complete nonsense.
>
> The government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation
allowed
> of no taxes whatsoever.
>
> Under the Constitution as it began to operate in 1790, the sole basis of
> revenue was in tariffs on imported goods.
>
> There were no taxes whatsoever levied by the federal government until
after
> 1861.
>
> The sole sustenance of the United States government prior to 1861 was in
tariff
> revenue. In 1846, the tariff rates were essentially removed.

Did you ever try using a dictionary to find the meaning of a word. If not
you would be advised to look up the meaning of tariff especially when
applied to "imported goods".

[Keith Willshaw]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >Its noteworthy that
> >taxes after independence were far heavier than those levied
> >by the colonial administration.
>
> Complete nonsense.
>
> The government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation
allowed
> of no taxes whatsoever.
>

James Madison devised the federal tax system in the 18th century

> Under the Constitution as it began to operate in 1790, the sole basis of
> revenue was in tariffs on imported goods.
>

Like imported tea you mean

> There were no taxes whatsoever levied by the federal government until
after
> 1861.
>

Tariff's are taxes

Keith