On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
On July 11 2009 02:17 Aegraen wrote: libertarian hosts like Glenn Beck.
wtf? I've only ever heard him express decidedly conservative viewpoints.
But I guess the spectrum of what falls under "libertarianism" is pretty broad. I'm more left-libertarian myself.
In case you weren't aware, the two founders of the Libertarian Party were Goldwater/Taft conservatives who came out of the YAF.
I myself hold a conservative/libertarian viewpoint much like say, Ron Paul/Robert Taft regarding non-interventionism, and traditional Austrian Economics like Mises and Friedman. The FED and IRS needs to be abolished and tax code simply replaced with a Fair Tax.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
The Constitution created a stronger federal government than did the articles of confederation and the bill of rights did not limit state power until the passage of the fourteenth amendment. The reasons for the new constitution were primarily economic. There were foreign policy concerns too, but economics was the primary issue.
On July 11 2009 02:35 Motiva wrote: lol...... Just for shits, i'm listening... 5 minutes in and I haven't heard anything I agree w/ yet
gonna keep listening.
So, giving money to states from Federal funds to pay for their budgets creates jobs?
Let's just skip ahead also to the philosophical approach, how am I represented in the other 49 states? I am a resident of Florida. I only have representation in the legislature and government of Florida, not California, Michigan, Oregon, why should money that is directly appropriated from myself to the goliath cesspool of inefficiency in the Capital be handed away to people who don't understand a budget. It is inherently wrong and was the whole point to the American Revolution.
These states where I have no voice can do whatever they want and I have zero say. Period. No federal money should be going to these states for budgetary needs.
Your thoughts on the matter?
Elect senators and congressman that'll represent Florida's interests in federal government. Florida agrees to yield to the federal government and the federal government decides to give some of Florida's money to other states. So Florida's say is this: we want to be part of the United States so we'll do as the federal government asks even when our interests do not coincide with the federal government's.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
The Constitution created a stronger federal government than did the articles of confederation and the bill of rights did not limit state power until the passage of the fourteenth amendment. The reasons for the new constitution were primarily economic. There were foreign policy concerns too, but economics was the primary issue.
Yes, it did. However, as you progress further and further right on the political scale you reach the end which results in Anarchy. Anarchy and Despotism serves the same function in regards to securing freedom and liberty; you have very little to none. They realized this and came up with the Constitution.
Your economic status and it's ability for trade to be stable is directly tied to your freedom and liberty. Property Rights is a fundamental concept concerning liberty and freedom. They created a system that was as limited a centralized power as possible while securing the most freedom possible. It's a tricky balance, one they struck greatly.
I would argue that prior to 1868 there were restraints on State power and specifically the 10th amendment lays out the grounds for power delegated to the States AND the people.
On July 11 2009 02:17 Aegraen wrote: libertarian hosts like Glenn Beck.
wtf? I've only ever heard him express decidedly conservative viewpoints.
But I guess the spectrum of what falls under "libertarianism" is pretty broad. I'm more left-libertarian myself.
In case you weren't aware, the two founders of the Libertarian Party were Goldwater/Taft conservatives who came out of the YAF.
Those two influenced, but did not found the Libertarian Party.
And, in case you weren't aware, the word "libertarian" was coined by an anarcho-communist.
I didn't say Goldwater and Taft founded the libertarian party. David Nolan was a goldwater/taft conservative who was increasingly fed up with the direction of the YAF and thus branched off in 1971 and created the Libertarian Party.
I don't care who coined it, the relevancy of the term derives itself from its representation. In different countries it could mean different things, just like how Europe and America reverse Liberalism. In Europe conservatives are the 'classical-liberals'. The US does not use the term which describes people like Edmund Burke (Even though he is the founder of the conservative philosophy) how the Europeans do.
The whole point was that conservatism and libertarianism share many views in common.
On July 11 2009 04:10 Aegraen wrote: Yes, it did. However, as you progress further and further right on the political scale you reach the end which results in Anarchy.
Tell that to Karl Hess.
I would argue that prior to 1868 there were restraints on State power and specifically the 10th amendment lays out the grounds for power delegated to the States AND the people.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
Republics just tend to favor larger cities in terms of politics and social issues. Moot point on what it supposed to do versus what is happening. All a republic does is shield what one state does with its minorities against what the federal government says should be going on.
I'm denying the constitution was created perfectly yes. When it includes slavery in the document, it doesn't guarantee anything. Amendments try to fix what the Constitution has as flaws. All a constitution does (The USA doesn't have monopoly on Constitutions) is create a binding contract between citizen and government.
You're taking my view to an extreme point. I know the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional since amendments are legally bound to them. What I'm saying is how they can be interpreted from decade to decade can vary to an extend. I'm not sure why you think the SCOTUS is a plague since they've done pretty well in the past - they tend to be moderate and fix social issues faster then some backwards politicians can.
Though, I'm not sure how conservative you are but if you find things like brown vs board of ed and Roe v. Wade a plague then I don't think there is much hope in arguing with you, he who proclaims "have an open mind". Real conservatives should praise Roe v Wade for privacy in the bed room as a matter of fact.
People like Mark Levin are never going to change anyone's opinions on anything. They speak in conservative shorthand and base their arguments on conservative assumptions that people on the left don't accept or even really understand.
I mean, how much do you think I could change your mind if I told you to go watch Keith Olberman or Fahrenheit 911 tonight with an "open mind"?
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
Republics just tend to favor larger cities in terms of politics and social issues. Moot point on what it supposed to do versus what is happening. All a republic does is shield what one state does with its minorities against what the federal government says should be going on.
I'm denying the constitution was created perfectly yes. When it includes slavery in the document, it doesn't guarantee anything. Amendments try to fix what the Constitution has as flaws. All a constitution does (The USA doesn't have monopoly on Constitutions) is create a binding contract between citizen and government.
You're taking my view to an extreme point. I know the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional since amendments are legally bound to them. What I'm saying is how they can be interpreted from decade to decade can vary to an extend. I'm not sure why you think the SCOTUS is a plague since they've done pretty well in the past - they tend to be moderate and fix social issues faster then some backwards politicians can.
Though, I'm not sure how conservative you are but if you find things like brown vs board of ed and Roe v. Wade a plague then I don't think there is much hope in arguing with you, he who proclaims "have an open mind". Real conservatives should praise Roe v Wade for privacy in the bed room as a matter of fact.
No conservative should praise Roe v Wade. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger the eugenist is a sickening individual. Secondly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's own words:
" Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
In case you don't know Ginsburg is a huge liberal. They disguise there true feelings inside 'choice' to hide the fact of their disgusting racism. Why do you think 80% of planned parenthoods are in the inner city and why do you think by a 3:1 margin more blacks get abortions than any other ethnicity?
Who the hell would praise a decision that kills babies and supports eugenics? Even Norma McCorvey (Roe in Roe v Wade) is an outspoken critic against abortion.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
Republics just tend to favor larger cities in terms of politics and social issues. Moot point on what it supposed to do versus what is happening. All a republic does is shield what one state does with its minorities against what the federal government says should be going on.
I'm denying the constitution was created perfectly yes. When it includes slavery in the document, it doesn't guarantee anything. Amendments try to fix what the Constitution has as flaws. All a constitution does (The USA doesn't have monopoly on Constitutions) is create a binding contract between citizen and government.
You're taking my view to an extreme point. I know the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional since amendments are legally bound to them. What I'm saying is how they can be interpreted from decade to decade can vary to an extend. I'm not sure why you think the SCOTUS is a plague since they've done pretty well in the past - they tend to be moderate and fix social issues faster then some backwards politicians can.
Though, I'm not sure how conservative you are but if you find things like brown vs board of ed and Roe v. Wade a plague then I don't think there is much hope in arguing with you, he who proclaims "have an open mind". Real conservatives should praise Roe v Wade for privacy in the bed room as a matter of fact.
No conservative should praise Roe v Wade. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger the eugenist is a sickening individual. Secondly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's own words:
" Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
In case you don't know Ginsburg is a huge liberal. They disguise there true feelings inside 'choice' to hide the fact of their disgusting racism. Why do you think 80% of planned parenthoods are in the inner city and why do you think by a 3:1 margin more blacks get abortions than any other ethnicity?
Who the hell would praise a decision that kills babies and supports eugenics? Even Norma McCorvey (Roe in Roe v Wade) is an outspoken critic against abortion.
Because schools refuse to teach Sex Education in low income neighbor hoods because they get (got: Thanks) funding from the federal government to teach some dumb form of abstinence.
Abortionists now aren't correct in saying that it should be like other country's form of doing it by saying , "Don't ask, don't tell" but making it outright illegal in the face of complications/rape/uninformed minors is absurd all the same. The problem, like all SCOTUS cases is people take it too literally, state legislatures as well will let anything go if the SCOTUS says the case is true in the worst case scenario, they'll let it go in any scenario.
In the future, using the term 'liberal' as some sort of derogatory word is just going to belittle your argument. I suggest you stop using it that way. I don't really care if they are liberal or not. In fact I could give two shits.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with people getting abortions. Why the hell should a child that has no future be brought up in that type of environment. Just to add to poverty tracts? Thanks but no thanks.
Republicans think Democrats are idiots. Demorats think Republicans are idiots. Conclusion; idiots think everyone is an idiot.
Listening to either side talk about the other is just worthless bullshit equivalent to high school girls drama'ing over each other's popularity for their own popularity gains.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution.
Laughably wrong.
Aegraen get your historical facts straight. American Revolutionists wanted Freedom and Liberty from who?
In very same time these same American Revolutionists enjoyed thousands of their niggers.
USA is built from the biggest hypocrisy of all time, to this very day there is no such thing as freedom and liberty, not all man are created equal, there is no such thing as human right. You want evidence?
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
If freedom and liberty "is" the sole reason for the American Revolution, then why did the Framers impose so many restrictions on voting? Restrictions that were only overcome with the rise of populist figures (who were often awful in action) like Andrew Jackson. American history isn't as romantic as you portray it.
Also, when utilitarianism kills millions, it feeds billions.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution.
Laughably wrong.
Aegraen get your historical facts straight. American Revolutionists wanted Freedom and Liberty from who?
In very same time these same American Revolutionists enjoyed thousands of their niggers.
USA is built from the biggest hypocrisy of all time, to this very day there is no such thing as freedom and liberty, not all man are created equal, there is no such thing as human right. You want evidence?
from my understanding of history aegraen is totally right. american revolutionists wanted freedom and liberty from england, from the crown. you're talking about shit that is completely unrelated.
EPT
