Listen pal, I wish you were in front of me. Me and my two buddies would take you on, 5 to 1.

I distinctly remember writing some report about taxation without representation, thinking it was some super important American principle. I was real confused when I learned about Puerto Rico

alot of schools

And, which was largely fought (and won) in a way that dramatically benefitted the colonists.

Ever wonder why there are so many places with French names just slightly inland from the original 13 US colonies have French names?

• Bayou La Batre, Decatur, Lapine, Leroi, Mon Louis, Dauphin Island, etc. Alabama
• Louisville, Paris, Versailles, Montpelier, etc. in Kentucky
• Leroy, Napoleon, Montpelier, Saint Croix, etc. in Indiana
• Bellaire, Bellefontaine, Louisville, Marietta, etc. in Ohio
• Dubois, Duquesne, Labelle, Fort le Boeuf, Eau Claire, etc. in Pennsylvania
• The name "Michigan" itself (originally Ojibwe, but interpreted into French), and a whole lot of parts of that state, including Detroit
• Ozark (aux arcs), Benoit, Bellefontaine, D'Iberville etc. in Mississippi

New France went from the Gulf of Mexico north, included all the Great Lakes, and kept going up to Hudson's Bay. American settlers couldn't go west without entering New France, so England fought a war to allow the expansion west. It won that war. The resulting treaty gave the British colonists in the Americas a huge amount of territory they could expand into, leaving only a small amount behind for France and its native allies.

The British colonists in the Americas were asked to help pay for the war that gave them that opportunity to expand west, and they rebelled. And then, after the rebellion, they decided they didn't need to abide by the terms of the British treaty with the French and took over most of the remaining land that France had been left after that war.

Didn't the boston tea party start because they lowered the price of legally imported (and thus taxed) tea, undermining smugglers?

"No taxation without representation". If the colonies got representatives in Parliament, that flag would look mighty different.

It was also 1/10th what the British citizens were paying at the time.

The checks were unfair because they went to the crown rather than back to the American people who are paying them in the first place

Jokes on you.

If you've seen one, you've seen them all.

Unless someone can invent the real equivalent of the fireworks Gandalf usef in the LoTR movie, I'm not interested.

I can only speak for myself, but I do think fireworks should be much more regulated. Each year 10,000 people get hurt from fireworks in the US alone, and it's pretty horrible for the environment. I do appreciate the cultural importance, so I don't think completely banning them is the solution, but I think it would be much better if there were just a few organized firework shows, and no more fireworks for private use.

They're boring, loud, and pointless.

I don't mind going to an actual coordinated show at a local beach, but every individual douchebag just shooting them off in their backyard for funsies is a fucking loser.

I have pets and any firework related holiday I have to hole up with them all night to comfort them. And that's just on the days I know they will have them, basically all of autumn and winter have dickgeads randomly setting off fireworks for god knows what reason. It's hell

If you have a dog or a cat, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out why some people don't like fireworks

Do you have any idea how many homeless (and some with homes too) animals die from heart attacks caused by fireworks?

Or how many people with ptsd, anxiety, or other issues need to cover their windows and ears, just to not have a panic attack?

All just so a bunch of retards can laugh about their great country.

Same for all other countries on new year's eve. Except the ones that banned fireworks.

I can excuse people having intellectual disabilities and not realizing this. But anyone who does and still chooses to play with fireworks belongs in a re-education camp.

Taxes pay for community benefits and projects like roads and police and fire services and public education and (ideally) healthcare. Those paying taxes should have representatives to help ensure their constituents are benefiting from the taxes they're providing.

The American colonies were being taxed without representation and therefore meaningful benefits from the taxes they were paying. The British government was present in the colonies, but they were there for the purpose of trade and tax collection to benefit of the Crown and those in England.

It's not silly. It's ignorant and dangerous.

America is very broken, but the concept of taxes is how we have roads, bridges, first responders, teachers and a number of any decent society's basic needs that the free market didn't give a FUCK about.

Too many ignorant folks who don't understand a progressive tax system, focus on the wrong "enemy" (the minimum wage either versus the trillionaire) and completely buy into the rhetoric you defend here that perpetuates that. And end up voting for people that take everything, build nothing and create the hell these purple irrationally feared in the first place.

And you expect that general public to have internalized nuanced revolutionary war history to the point that they naturally draw any of that from your king of the hill meme?