figmentPez
Staff member
Yesterday, on Amercain soil, a woman died fighting Nazis. Damn this Berenstein universe is fucked up.
Last edited:
Woah man. Don't be disrespectful of others opinions.
I condemn the violence and hatred that came from both the Nazis and the Von Trapps.
The nuns did vandalize some cars, so they're just as bad as the Nazis!
See, that sort of sounds nice on the surface - "we're all Americans" - but it's still pretty much saying "furriners, though? Dem filthy dirty people from anywhere else, They suck, go ahead and spit on them".
Yes, I know he's the American president, not the president of the World. Still, there's a reason the Belgian fascist party's slogan has been "OUR OWN PEOPLE FIRST" for 30 years now.
I heard one of the nuns used her private Bible instead of the one the convent provided for her. We need to launch a three year investigation immediately!
Not to mention that one of the founding visions of this country is supposed to be that we welcome all foreigners to our shores and support them as they join our free, democratic society. It's not supposed to be an exclusive club with a bouncer in a bad toupee asking them if their names are on the list.
At the very least it's nice seeing both republicans and democrats calling out Trump for his "many sides" speech.
Dave
Staff member
That's fine. Let's see how they vote when shit comes up. I've found the right tends to talk a good game and vote in lockstep.
Umm... what? Your country was formed as a rebellion against taxation without representation (kinda) by a bunch of colonies near-exclusively English (with some slaves). What exactly are you talking about?
(If talking about the Statue of Liberty, that was installed in 1886, and the Poem not installed inside of her until 1903)
"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505
Yeah, I never got a kumbaya feeling when studying American govt in college (Federalist papers, founding fathers' correspondence, etc). Many were worried about Spanish (and, to a lesser extent, Asian) immigrants, and thought that one of America's strengths was its European homogeneity (outside religion).
Originalist progressives strike me as weird.
I honestly never saw the point of holding up the founding fathers on a pedestal. They were progressive for their time, but it's not like they didn't live comfortably with certain things that today seem abhorrent to us. (Well, some of us, anyways... *glares at Charlotesville*)
I respect the founding fathers for creating the nation I was born, but that is as far as my respect goes. Lifting them up any higher then that opens doors I feel we shouldn't open, doors that's I feel are what help cement a lot of the white nationalism we see these days , "Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so see even the Founding Fathers knew those black people were subhuman." or even in this thread where we are now arguing their intent on welcoming foreigners. I don't think anyone's intention here is outside just pointing out facts, but by arguing it we go back up to the first issue of people using the few vices they may have had as excuses for their own conduct.
Our nation is more then the founding fathers now, it's had 200 years to evolve, and for nearly a over 100 years of that time our ultimate goal was to give anyone, from any nation, affiliation, or creed, the chance of life and the pursuit of happiness. We need to keep the eye on the ball, not get distracted by the people that started the game.
I respect the founding fathers for creating the nation I was born, but that is as far as my respect goes. Lifting them up any higher then that opens doors I feel we shouldn't open, doors that's I feel are what help cement a lot of the white nationalism we see these days , "Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so see even the Founding Fathers knew those black people were subhuman." or even in this thread where we are now arguing their intent on welcoming foreigners. I don't think anyone's intention here is outside just pointing out facts, but by arguing it we go back up to the first issue of people using the few vices they may have had as excuses for their own conduct.
Our nation is more then the founding fathers now, it's had 200 years to evolve, and for nearly a over 100 years of that time our ultimate goal was to give anyone, from any nation, affiliation, or creed, the chance of life and the pursuit of happiness. We need to keep the eye on the ball, not get distracted by the people that started the game.
Many Americans look upon the Founding Fathers as some sort of saints, or the writers of the Bible. They're people who wrote a text. They were people who had some pretty good ideas about organizing a society, but they were still human. They built in a way to update their writings with amendments for a reason (and made it fairly difficult for a reason, too).
It's the same sort of sentiment often on display surrounding the Second Amendment. I frankly don't care much what the FF were thinking about when they wrote about the "well regulated militia". It's also the way radical islamists look at the Qu'ran. Of course, that was supposedly literally dictated by the Archangel Micheal.
If you think someone or something from several hundred years ago still applies literally 100% to today, you better hope they were literally divinely inspired. Otherwise, well, times and mores change.
It's the same sort of sentiment often on display surrounding the Second Amendment. I frankly don't care much what the FF were thinking about when they wrote about the "well regulated militia". It's also the way radical islamists look at the Qu'ran. Of course, that was supposedly literally dictated by the Archangel Micheal.
If you think someone or something from several hundred years ago still applies literally 100% to today, you better hope they were literally divinely inspired. Otherwise, well, times and mores change.
I wasn't putting Jefferson on a pedestal, just showing that immigrants and how they fit was part of the thought process of those involved in the 'founding vision'. Maybe they weren't overly welcoming of every immigrant, but things like the First Amendment do show that there was at least some value on diversity. If the founding vision was one of homogenity, then why provide for religious freedom rather than establishing a state religion (as was the norm at the time)?
Because it was ingrained in American culture. Only the earliest colonies (Plymouth and such) had official religions as the norm. Let's not pretend that 12 spicy variants of white Christianity a melting pot makes.
Was not specifically speaking about you. Just felt it should be pointed out in general. I just find myself stumbling into so many discussions where the Founding Fathers are held as a "gold standard" by almost every side in a discussion, but only for their specific pet issue. "Our Founding Fathers intended our great nation..." I hear a lot no matter the affiliation or outlook whether progressive or bigoted, and it gets tiring because it ignores where we came over those 200 years since our inception. It's good to remember where you started, but we shouldn't ignore the journey we made to get where we are now either.
Dave
Staff member
There are things in this world that the FF could not even conceive of in their wildest imaginations. There's no way they planned for every eventuality. Well, they KIND of did by making the whole experiment changeable. they expected us to be an educated, engaged electorate. Guess we fucked that up, too.
Considering they didn't intend for universal or female suffrage to be a thing, you fucked up their definition of electorate pretty badly.
Those four little words that get everyone's knickers in a twist (including mine), "shall not be infringed." Every day more and more people literally (and I mean LITERALLY) die on that hill. No one here is ever going to budge from their position on that mess, but really. When will enough finally be enough? Did Sandy Hook give us that answer? "When there's no one left to die."?
GasBandit
Staff member
The old troll in me wants to point out that enfranchisement was not initially universal, and that the initially enfranchised were the most likely to have (what passed for) an education
But instead, I'll just make reference that John Adams said that democracy only works for societies with strong moral and religious character, and utterly fails otherwise. Frankin said something similar, too.
In fact, a large number of the founding fathers said the same thing. I'm agnostic myself, but I'm often irritated by how many revisionists want us to believe the founding fathers were agnostic or generically "deist" themselves, when so many quotes about religion exist from them, all the way up through George Washington.
Attitudes toward religion have changed over the years, of course, but the take-home from the various quotes is that just because democracy puts power in the hands of the people doesn't mean it makes the people good or wise - the electorate has to be upstanding of their own accord, or... well, Trump.[DOUBLEPOST=1502725692,1502725569][/DOUBLEPOST]
Generally speaking? When the legislature and 2 thirds of the states decide it is enough, same as any other amendment.
Personally? Speaking for myself, never. That way lies despotism, oppression, and deprivation. It will get us a Trump-type-for-life, mark my words.
Last edited:
You edited just as I hit reply. I was going to say some folks would argue we're already there.
Problem is, the "from my cold, dead hand" types seem to want it that way.
Though, of course, it's in large part the same people who want to hold arms to protect against tyrants who are now supporting the would-be tyrant.
For all the consipracy theory about Obama canceling or postponing elections, that was never going to happen. Trump declaring a state of emergency/war and postpone elections for years because you can't have a two year election race in the middle of a war in Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Syria at the same time? More likely. I mean, not in the way I expect it to happen, but if it were to happen, I wouldn't expect the (alt-)right to suddenly turn on him and rip him to shreds - ather "behold, our glorious leader who dares to what must needs be done!".
GasBandit
Staff member
Then aren't you glad they don't have exclusive access, and thus the capability to oppress by force of arms?
This is rather disturbing if true: Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville
Worth noting as well is a timeline of the events:
ABC
CTV (doesn't cover the crash or after)
WSET (ABC Affiliate, I dunno, it was a google result)
What the hell happened between 11:52am and 1:40pm when the car hit all those people? What were the police doing, if it was declared an unlawful assembly at 11:30am (it's in the timelines) and the car hit a group of counter-protesters over 2 hours later?
Throw the book at the driver (I believe they're doing so, and good to do so) but what the hell were the police doing?
X
Isn't the whole point of police present to prevent violence, and if possible, separate the parties involved?
Worth noting as well is a timeline of the events:
ABC
CTV (doesn't cover the crash or after)
WSET (ABC Affiliate, I dunno, it was a google result)
What the hell happened between 11:52am and 1:40pm when the car hit all those people? What were the police doing, if it was declared an unlawful assembly at 11:30am (it's in the timelines) and the car hit a group of counter-protesters over 2 hours later?
Throw the book at the driver (I believe they're doing so, and good to do so) but what the hell were the police doing?
X
Gonna guess its cause the Nazis were white.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I'll remember to point to this when you and your ilk go back to scoffing at me that armed citizens have no chance to stand up to government.
GasBandit
Staff member
This kinda pisses me off.
I understand that everybody is emotional and irrational in the wake of the weekend's events, but the slosh-over from the whole "unceasing outrage looking for an excuse" thing isn't doing anybody any favors. Granted, a white supremacist rally is a pretty darn good excuse, but it doesn't change that this exact kind baseless witch-huntery is part of what's gonna get Trump a second term.
Maybe mull that one over a little, roll up the JTC mat, and wash out and store those broad, broad brushes you've all got at the ready for white people and southerners in particular.
ALL men are created equal...
Sure, they might not have lived up to it very much at the time, but the intention was certainly there. Hence the citizenship by birth. Don't let the compromises they made to preserve the union with their actual ideals.[DOUBLEPOST=1502740619,1502740422][/DOUBLEPOST]
Eh... you do realise that being "deist" still counts as being religious, right? And you can be an agnostic theist too... "i don't know, but i choose to believe" and all that.[DOUBLEPOST=1502740800][/DOUBLEPOST]
Oh for.... if the witch-hunting was what elected Trump, then why was everyone on the right screaming about e-mails and Benghazi for years?
Could we like stop this propaganda about Trump getting elected because the left isn't tolerant enough? I mean the Republicans have been on record since 2008 that they only want to oppose anything Obama does etc. and no one argue that had anything to do with why Obama got a 2nd term.[DOUBLEPOST=1502740889][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'm sure if those armed men where black that's what the police would have used as an excuse...
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, the thing is that usually calling them deist or agnostic is a tack taken by those trying to argue that the founders were primarily of a secular mind and motivation, when the fact really is that they were just as religious as any other 18th century European, and it formed much of the basis for their motivations. IE, attempting to diminish the perceived role of religion in the founders' lives, usually for the purpose of further misinterpreting the first amendment.