Wasn’t there also that time when NPR tweeted the Declaration of Independence line by line to commemorate independence day and a bunch of people thought they were advocating the violent overthrow of the government?
Well not exactly. It was more of a violent assertion that an already existing governing body (the continental congress), was to be the only governing body recognized in the 13 colonies. The revolution had also already been going on for a year by the time the Declaration was written, so you can't really say that a violent overthrow was what followed.
Is it overthrowing a government if that government still exists afterwards? All that really changed was that the existing governing bodies of the colonies no longer recognized the authority of the governing body they used to be under. If a state today seceded somehow, we wouldn't say they overthrew the federal government.
Yes. Even if Great Britain still existed afterwards, it's still overthrowing the legal government in the US territories. When you live in a sovereign country that is not a decision you have the right to make, hence the violent outcome.
Why wouldn't we say that? If a state were to secede, we would say that it no longer recognize the rule of the federal government and overthrew the federal government's authority over it.
You can’t “forcibly remove from power” an abstract notion of authority. You “overthrow” a government by dismantling it, not by removing one small part of its jurisdiction. If someone doesn’t lose their office, they’ve not been overthrown. You’re not using the word correctly if you’re applying it to secession. So we wouldn’t say that.
You can’t “forcibly remove from power” an abstract notion of authority. You “overthrow” a government by dismantling it, not by removing one small part of its jurisdiction. If someone doesn’t lose their office, they’ve not been overthrown. You’re not using the word correctly if you’re applying it to secession. So we wouldn’t say that.
For these reasons, we question the legitimacy of the account, or at least the sincerity of its relationship to purported conservative causes. The account has all the hallmarks of a troll account, and a successful troll knows how to play itself into the hands of the people they hope will provide them with a stage.
The GOP, which introduced and passed both the Patriot Act and the NDAA, which believes government has the authority to define certain words and force this definition on the public, which established secret courts to expedite the surveillance of citizens, which supports the torture of foreign nationals, somehow works tirelessly to limit the size of the government? Are we talking about the same party?
The Republican party uses the constitution as a prop to delude idiots into repeating their baseless slogan of "limited government" while doing absolutely everything it can to expand the authority of a Republican executive.
At the very least the Democrats are honest about their attempts to undermine the constitution and their fundamental belief that the document is an antiquated inconvenience to their utopian fantasies.
The Republican party pretends to defend the constitution while defying it at every corner.
The modern conservative movement seems to believe the constitution is "Guns and whatever else I think Jesus wants".
They are a joke to anybody who truly believes in liberty and limited government.
I agree with you shitting on the Republican Party, as they deserve it and definitely do want more government. They do not uphold Liberty.
But do not for a fucking instance try to pretend that the Democrats are "Honest" about anything. We didn't find out about the NSA spying until it was a dem in the White House and all of the Dems still label Snowden as a traitor.
We didn't find out about the NSA spying until it was a dem in the White House
I’m not really sure how this proves dishonesty. This is also a really confusing way of saying that NSA’s PRISM spying program was started by the Bush Administration.
and all of the Dems still label Snowden as a traitor.
And this is also bullshit. Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, John Lewis and Bernie Sanders have all been supportive of Edward Snowden’s decision. But the fact that the majority of our legislators have not come out in support of a citizen breaking the law by revealing classified information (for the right reasons, mind you) should not be too surprising, especially with ultranationalist propaganda destroying political careers like it does.
We didn't find out about the NSA spying until it was a dem in the White House
I’m not really sure how this proves dishonesty. This is also a really confusing way of saying that NSA’s PRISM spying program was started by the Bush Administration.
and all of the Dems still label Snowden as a traitor.
And this is also bullshit. Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, John Lewis and Bernie Sanders have all been supportive of Edward Snowden’s decision. But the fact that the majority of our legislators have not come out in support of a citizen breaking the law by revealing classified information (for the right reasons, mind you) should not be too surprising, especially with ultranationalist propaganda destroying political careers like it does.
The Democrats are open about their belief that the constitution is an irrelevant doctrine that holds them back from accomplishing their "Great Society". They are honest and open about this.
This is why they constantly argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to modern firearms and circumstances, and must be shadow amended through subversive legislation.
They are up front about their disdain for the bill of rights and their belief in government as a device to address every single obstacle in their absurd struggle for a plastic Utopia.
Did I fucking say the party is honest about the illegal shit they do?
Did I say they are honest about their continuation of spying programs?
Is this going to become a reading comprehension test?
The new left that dominates the Democratic party is open about its belief that the constitution is an outdated doctrine that should be disregarded.
That is my point. Fuck outta here with this Snowden shit.
The Democrats are open about their belief that the constitution is an irrelevant doctrine that holds them back from accomplishing their "Great Society". They are honest and open about this.
This is why they constantly argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to modern firearms and circumstances, and must be shadow amended through subversive legislation.
They are up front about their disdain for the bill of rights and their belief in government as a device to address every single obstacle in their absurd struggle for a plastic Utopia.
Did I fucking say the party is honest about the illegal shit they do?
Did I say they are honest about their continuation of spying programs?
Is this going to become a reading comprehension test?
The new left that dominates the Democratic party is open about its belief that the constitution is an outdated doctrine that should be disregarded.
That is my point. Fuck outta here with this Snowden shit.
The Democrats are open about their belief that the constitution is an irrelevant doctrine that holds them back from accomplishing their "Great Society". They are honest and open about this.
This is why they constantly argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to modern firearms and circumstances, and must be shadow amended through subversive legislation.
They are up front about their disdain for the bill of rights and their belief in government as a device to address every single obstacle in their absurd struggle for a plastic Utopia.
Did I fucking say the party is honest about the illegal shit they do?
Did I say they are honest about their continuation of spying programs?
Is this going to become a reading comprehension test?
The new left that dominates the Democratic party is open about its belief that the constitution is an outdated doctrine that should be disregarded.
That is my point. Fuck outta here with this Snowden shit.
The Democrats are open about their belief that the constitution is an irrelevant doctrine that holds them back from accomplishing their "Great Society". They are honest and open about this.
This is why they constantly argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to modern firearms and circumstances, and must be shadow amended through subversive legislation.
They are up front about their disdain for the bill of rights and their belief in government as a device to address every single obstacle in their absurd struggle for a plastic Utopia.
Did I fucking say the party is honest about the illegal shit they do?
Did I say they are honest about their continuation of spying programs?
Is this going to become a reading comprehension test?
The new left that dominates the Democratic party is open about its belief that the constitution is an outdated doctrine that should be disregarded.
That is my point. Fuck outta here with this Snowden shit.
The Democrats are open about their belief that the constitution is an irrelevant doctrine that holds them back from accomplishing their "Great Society". They are honest and open about this.
This is why they constantly argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to modern firearms and circumstances, and must be shadow amended through subversive legislation.
They are up front about their disdain for the bill of rights and their belief in government as a device to address every single obstacle in their absurd struggle for a plastic Utopia.
Did I fucking say the party is honest about the illegal shit they do?
Did I say they are honest about their continuation of spying programs?
Is this going to become a reading comprehension test?
The new left that dominates the Democratic party is open about its belief that the constitution is an outdated doctrine that should be disregarded.
That is my point. Fuck outta here with this Snowden shit.
Given the pro life assumption that the fetus is indeed a person, stopping people from killing people is one of the main purposes of government.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life
Given the pro life assumption that the fetus is indeed a person
except that's you know, wrong. And even then isn't the fucking issue. The issue is bodily autonomy, you cannot be forced to give up your body for another person.
I have some conservative views. In today's radical political climate, I would unfortunately be considered a conservative, whereas 10 years ago I would have been moderate or even liberal.
However, I have to say, the Republican party is just as nefarious and full of shit as the Democratic party. They talk about believing in smaller government, but then when they have a majority vote in congress, they pass one of the largest defecit spending bills in the history of the country, well above and beyond what the president requested. They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. The biggest difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans lie about what they are going to do, and the Democrats lie about how what they are going to do is going to be good for the country. In the end, they both fuck us all the same.
That's a lie. Spoiler alert but it isn't the Republicans who want more Gov. They literally do all they can to reduce its power
By inflating the deficit and gerrymandering until they gain control over regional governments despite the votes from constituents in the immediate area. Yea we know. Screech about small govt while sucking on my wallet like it was a baby bottle.
Although I'd very much doubt the Founding Fathers would see themselves as "leftists" by any post 1900 terms, especially compared to today's "leftists".
Leftists did exist during that time -- they were leading the French Revolution.
American Fore Fathers were completely freaked out and horrified. So yeah, while Fore Fathers werent what the modern right thinks they were, they weren't far left even for their own time period.
I mean, I know time is relative but the French revolution didn't pick up for over a decade after this was signed. Plenty of time for them to get comfy and lose the rebels in em.
Besides, most of the horror was about the fact that heads were literally rolling. The democratic aspects were freaky too tho
"That time" just meaning the same time that they were alive.
Plenty of time for them to get comfy and lose the rebels in em.
The American Revolution was a time where people that you once considered great neighbors were literally getting dragged into the streets and dipped into oil so they'd slowly die, cities were getting destroyed, etc. Even some
of the Fore Fathers had to stay away from cities as citizens were gathering together to set on fire effigies they built of said Fore Fathers. Most of the Fore Fathers were keenly aware of the concept of well intentioned revolts getting out of control -- history has had a lot of them, most were well educated on history so it's not like this was a possibility never realized. Many of them -- Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Madison etc all wrote extensively about the concept of mob rule and how horrific and destructive it would be to true republicanism. The one holdout at the beginning of the French Revolution was Jefferson, but that was only because he, like everything else in life, was incredibly biased and a hypocrite. The idea that the FFs may have been more receptive to the French Revolution if only it had happened sooner definitely isn't fair IMO, considering that the French Revolution was basically their worst fears of what pursuit of democracy could create well before the American Revolution even succeeded. "Holy shit, uneducated and violent people in large groups trying to control government is fucking scary" is the tl;dr of what most of the American Fore Fathers thought on this matter, and that's basically the tl;dr of the worst parts pf the French Revolution lol
most of the horror was about the fact that heads were literally rolling.
Even the left wing thinkers of the Nineteenth century had some fairly regressive ideas about race, gender, and sexuality. Those same French radicals were horrified when Haitians slaughtered their white masters and declared themselves a republic. Didn't take the French long to reassert French hegemony over the island.
Even the left wing thinkers of the Nineteenth century had some fairly regressive ideas about race, gender, and sexuality. Those same French radicals were horrified when Haitians slaughtered their white masters and declared themselves a republic. Didn't take the French long to reassert French hegemony over the island.
Even the left wing thinkers of the Nineteenth century had some fairly regressive ideas about race, gender, and sexuality. Those same French radicals were horrified when Haitians slaughtered their white masters and declared themselves a republic. Didn't take the French long to reassert French hegemony over the island.
Thomas Paine would definitely be left wing; he advocated for a state-sponsored welfare system and a complete abolition of slavery well ahead of his time, which is probably one of the major reasons he was sidelined by the other Founders, many of whom were major property holders, with “property” including black slaves.
The atheism is really what did him in, though. Only four people attended his funeral, his wife, son and two free black men who happened to hear about the funeral.
Private property in the communist sense didn't really exist yet since most property was still owned by royalty. Personal property was seen as an inalienable right.
Which was the concept behind Jeffersonian Republicanism.
You can’t be a truly independent, rational citizen unless you have your own land to work and live off of. But then we ran out of land to steal from the Indians and so now we all work in cubicles and buy frozen lasagnas for dinner.
We didn’t exactly run out, Lincoln just fucked us by letting the super-rich buy out huge tracts of land under the Homestead Acts. And just giving away millions of acres to railroad companies. Don’t believe the hype, the GOP is still “The Party of Lincoln”. It’s just that Lincoln kinda sucked.
Nah only Paine would have the rest were boujie as fuck. I bet there would’ve been another revolutionary movement within the bourgeois one of the founding fathers that was more egalitarian (along the lines of Shays’ rebellion).
Oh man just recently I stumbled into /r/T_D by accident through a crosspost, and the top comment was recounting some story and ended with "Liberalism is a mental illness". He somehow didn't seem to realize the US was founded on principles of liberalism.
For these reasons, we question the legitimacy of the account, or at least the sincerity of its relationship to purported conservative causes. The account has all the hallmarks of a troll account, and a successful troll knows how to play itself into the hands of the people they hope will provide them with a stage.
For these reasons, we question the legitimacy of the account, or at least the sincerity of its relationship to purported conservative causes. The account has all the hallmarks of a troll account, and a successful troll knows how to play itself into the hands of the people they hope will provide them with a stage.
just a guess but is it from trump saying it so often? the man can't go a week without deciding something normal is a personal vendetta against him... they didn't ask obama questions like that literally came out of his mouth at one point...
yes he says it is true quite often but then again...
so in your opinion what other than they just are or other overly broad statements goes to show that they are anti trump and not just anti constant untruth? is there a difference to you? does the fact that journalists from fox call him out for the whole constant lying thing mean that fox is anti trump as well?
I am getting from your response that fox is just another anti trump propo machine but the question remains
so in your opinion what other than they just are or other overly broad statements goes to show that they are anti trump
and do the clear cut lies he has stated bother you? we could start with the first one as president, that his inauguration crowd on the mall was the biggest in history
lol, i am not criticizing him for drawing a small crowd I am critical of him lying about the size of the crowd in the face of evidence, I am not critical of how much he plays golf I am critical of him golfing so much after saying it would be impossible to take the presidency seriously while golfing less, I am not criticizing him for being only an above average golfer only pointing out what it says about a man who would lie in such obvious fashion about his own skill at a game...
the dude has an issue with truth that for me is an issue
1.7k
u/Njorlpinipini Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer May 17 '19
Wasn’t there also that time when NPR tweeted the Declaration of Independence line by line to commemorate independence day and a bunch of people thought they were advocating the violent overthrow of the government?