Damn, so many people are against babies' rights to choose. This must be how William Wilberforce felt when he was trying to abolish slavery in Britain. And then a few decades later, Britain declared war on slavery and slapped Europe and the USA around until they followed suit.
First you are ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then violently opposed, then some socialist revises history to paint you as the sole perpetrators of the crime you spent your empire fighting.
Abortions are not banned from being televised because people are squeamish about gore. It is because seeing the murdered babies and traumatised parents would make people so sick that the pro-aborts would never be able to paint themselves as pro-choice again.
The Loyalists were largely pacified by it in 1787, and the war ended not long after. It established the federal government in much the same role as the Houses of Parliament - holding the States/Colonies accountable to the Constitution. (The Declaration of Independence was written and signed by the governments of the colonies - undermining the Right of Rebellion of the British Subject by taking it upon the governments of the 13 colonies - a major Loyalist complaint at the time)
But that doesn't change the fact that whoever called you a fascist is following Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - call your opponent what you yourself are. The modern federalisation push is - much like UK Republicans attacking the Crown - an effort to centralise unaccountable power.
First you are ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then violently opposed, then some socialist revises history to paint you as the sole perpetrators of the crime you spent your empire fighting.
Abortions are not banned from being televised because people are squeamish about gore. It is because seeing the murdered babies and traumatised parents would make people so sick that the pro-aborts would never be able to paint themselves as pro-choice again.
The US Bill of Rights was actually an answer to the US Articles of Confederation, which gave states carte blanche to act as they wanted. This is why a third of the population rebelled against the government and fought for British rule - which was Constitutionally bound by the same documents it is today.What are you even talking about? The founding fathers established the constitution whilst taking into consideration the bullshit the consolidation of power to the top that they underwent under the british monarchy. It’s always been the case that you needed a vast majority of the legislator or states in favor to pass an amendment, it’s literally written into the constitution. And anyways, for the longest of time a states constitution superseded the federal constitution, it’s only until the courts again gave power to the top that this has been the norm. And please, explain to me how telling states that they can make their own laws on issues is fascism lmao. Y’all gaslight like no tomorrow.
The Loyalists were largely pacified by it in 1787, and the war ended not long after. It established the federal government in much the same role as the Houses of Parliament - holding the States/Colonies accountable to the Constitution. (The Declaration of Independence was written and signed by the governments of the colonies - undermining the Right of Rebellion of the British Subject by taking it upon the governments of the 13 colonies - a major Loyalist complaint at the time)
But that doesn't change the fact that whoever called you a fascist is following Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - call your opponent what you yourself are. The modern federalisation push is - much like UK Republicans attacking the Crown - an effort to centralise unaccountable power.
Last edited by N7Kopper,