5 ms·

> Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. This is one of the huge ironies about contemporary conservatives. They practically worshi

by jvm 13y ago

> Those revolutionaries would have all been labeled terrorists today. This is one of the huge ironies about contemporary conservatives. They practically worship the founding fathers like gods, but they would have hated many of them if they met them today, as many were godless radical liberals. The most extreme example of this for me was when D'Souza and other republicans accused Barack Obama of being anti-colonialist [1], specifically in the context of British occupation, and they meant that in a bad way(!) Surely if nothing else, our country was founded on the principle of opposition to British colonialism. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705485.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...

bobo1357 13y ago
Which founding fathers were godless?
- smackay 13y ago
  Thomas Paine's deism was rather too godless for a lot of people's tastes, including Theodore Roosevelt. http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine
- lukifer 13y ago
  More specifically, many were deists, which was culturally equivalent to atheism at the time. Jefferson even published a version of the New Testament with all mention of God or the supernatural removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
jbooth 13y ago
Not to mention that they've yelled tyranny! at every minor administrative tweak, regulatory change or appointment for the last 6 years... And then, when something like this comes up, that actually does threaten our rights, crickets? Not only crickets but cooperation from the least cooperative congress possibly in history? What the fuck, guys?
- bobo1357 13y ago
  How does this threaten an American citizen's rights? This is lawful under the Constitution.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Is that a serious question? First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."
    - bobo1357 13y ago
      Again, this law is constitutional. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
      - jbooth 13y ago
        Original link: "Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA," Your link: "...enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process," We've got 2 issues there, 'enemy combatants' requires a bit more proof than 'suspected of terrorism', although things can be fudged like in the Bradley Manning case. Then we have the whole due process. The 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The parts about the armed forces apply to military justice for troops, when wartime discipline is invoked. It's not saying that "when you're at war it all goes out the window for ordinary citizens". Indefinitely detaining someone based on suspicion, without a requirement of due process or a way to appeal, is quite clearly unconstitutional although I hold little hope for the current Supreme Court to overturn it.
pandaman 13y ago
Taking over a colony to appropriate its land and other resources != being principally against British colonialism. The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals. E.g. the recent example of shooting an attacking black thug had been made an example of racism. Because, obviously, somebody who shoots a black person to protect his life is principally against the entire black race.
- tmuir 13y ago
  "The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals." Because obviously, one person with a certain ideological bent speaks for every person with that same ideology. By the way, you should have spoken up if you knew unequivocally that the black thug was the attacker, especially when there was absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, besides the testimony of accused. You could have really helped your guy's case.
  - pandaman 13y ago
    I've only brought up the recent events to show that it's not a singular case. The whole liberal community is engaging in this. PS. As for your suggestion for me to speak up - luckily prosecution brought a witness who testified that TM had been attacking GZ, so no need for me to do the same.
    - tmuir 13y ago
      There are people of all sorts of political leanings that realize that the state's case was extremely weak because of the lack of hard evidence. Maybe that's because it isn't a political issue. I mean, how would you frame the question, if you wanted to glean a person's political affiliation from the single issue of Zimmerman killing Martin? This square peg of a criminal case was jammed into the round hole of a political issue when Obama made his statement about if Trayvon was his son. Since there are millions of people in this country whose stances on various issues consist singularly of the opposing view of whatever Obama's view on the issue is, George Zimmerman became a conservative hero. So to paint overreaction and the abandonment of logic and reason as a tenet of liberalism is downright ludicrous.
vor_ 13y ago
That irony isn't specific to conservatives. Today's liberals would have hated many of the anti-government founding fathers.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  That would only illustrate the same irony if the near deification of the mythologized version of the FFs by today's conservatives referred to in the grandparent post was also common in today's liberals.
  - vor_ 13y ago
    The irony is in the fact that, as today's conservatives would hate many of the founding fathers for being godless radical liberals, today's liberals would hate many of them for being anti-government Tea Party extremists.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      I don't think you understand where the irony comes from. Liberals don't view the founders the way conservatives do. Most of us have great respect for the founders in general, but we don't treat them as gods. There is no irony in disagreeing with someone you never viewed as infallible.
      - vor_ 13y ago
        I do understand where that irony comes from, thank you. I was pointing out the irony that conservatives would hate half the founders for being radical liberals, while liberals would hate the other half for being radical conservatives. Honestly, if one classifies themselves as either a liberal or conservative, I don't trust their judgement because they've given into a form of modern tribalism and will nearly always begin espousing double standards to strike out at other side.

by jvm 13y ago

bobo1357 13y ago

Which founding fathers were godless?

smackay 13y ago
Thomas Paine's deism was rather too godless for a lot of people's tastes, including Theodore Roosevelt. http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine
lukifer 13y ago
More specifically, many were deists, which was culturally equivalent to atheism at the time. Jefferson even published a version of the New Testament with all mention of God or the supernatural removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

jbooth 13y ago

Not to mention that they've yelled tyranny! at every minor administrative tweak, regulatory change or appointment for the last 6 years... And then, when something like this comes up, that actually does threaten our rights, crickets? Not only crickets but cooperation from the least cooperative congress possibly in history? What the fuck, guys?

bobo1357 13y ago
How does this threaten an American citizen's rights? This is lawful under the Constitution.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Is that a serious question? First line of the article: "The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012."
  - bobo1357 13y ago
    Again, this law is constitutional. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Original link: "Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA," Your link: "...enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process," We've got 2 issues there, 'enemy combatants' requires a bit more proof than 'suspected of terrorism', although things can be fudged like in the Bradley Manning case. Then we have the whole due process. The 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The parts about the armed forces apply to military justice for troops, when wartime discipline is invoked. It's not saying that "when you're at war it all goes out the window for ordinary citizens". Indefinitely detaining someone based on suspicion, without a requirement of due process or a way to appeal, is quite clearly unconstitutional although I hold little hope for the current Supreme Court to overturn it.

pandaman 13y ago

Taking over a colony to appropriate its land and other resources != being principally against British colonialism. The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals. E.g. the recent example of shooting an attacking black thug had been made an example of racism. Because, obviously, somebody who shoots a black person to protect his life is principally against the entire black race.

tmuir 13y ago
"The whole distinction between one element of a set and a whole set seems to be incomprehensible to modern liberals." Because obviously, one person with a certain ideological bent speaks for every person with that same ideology. By the way, you should have spoken up if you knew unequivocally that the black thug was the attacker, especially when there was absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, besides the testimony of accused. You could have really helped your guy's case.
- pandaman 13y ago
  I've only brought up the recent events to show that it's not a singular case. The whole liberal community is engaging in this. PS. As for your suggestion for me to speak up - luckily prosecution brought a witness who testified that TM had been attacking GZ, so no need for me to do the same.
  - tmuir 13y ago
    There are people of all sorts of political leanings that realize that the state's case was extremely weak because of the lack of hard evidence. Maybe that's because it isn't a political issue. I mean, how would you frame the question, if you wanted to glean a person's political affiliation from the single issue of Zimmerman killing Martin? This square peg of a criminal case was jammed into the round hole of a political issue when Obama made his statement about if Trayvon was his son. Since there are millions of people in this country whose stances on various issues consist singularly of the opposing view of whatever Obama's view on the issue is, George Zimmerman became a conservative hero. So to paint overreaction and the abandonment of logic and reason as a tenet of liberalism is downright ludicrous.

vor_ 13y ago

That irony isn't specific to conservatives. Today's liberals would have hated many of the anti-government founding fathers.

dragonwriter 13y ago
That would only illustrate the same irony if the near deification of the mythologized version of the FFs by today's conservatives referred to in the grandparent post was also common in today's liberals.
- vor_ 13y ago
  The irony is in the fact that, as today's conservatives would hate many of the founding fathers for being godless radical liberals, today's liberals would hate many of them for being anti-government Tea Party extremists.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    I don't think you understand where the irony comes from. Liberals don't view the founders the way conservatives do. Most of us have great respect for the founders in general, but we don't treat them as gods. There is no irony in disagreeing with someone you never viewed as infallible.
    - vor_ 13y ago
      I do understand where that irony comes from, thank you. I was pointing out the irony that conservatives would hate half the founders for being radical liberals, while liberals would hate the other half for being radical conservatives. Honestly, if one classifies themselves as either a liberal or conservative, I don't trust their judgement because they've given into a form of modern tribalism and will nearly always begin espousing double standards to strike out at other side.