1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned. If you hold Natural Rights to be self-evident, and they turn out to be so much bullshit, this would make you neither a liar nor a criminal.
If they weren't criminals, then we could possibly overthrow our government and not be criminals.
Only if you succeed. If you lose, you're a criminal. Just like Our Funding Fathers would have been, had they lost.
Should be self-evident. I'm starting to suspect our public education is not all it could be
If you are suggesting Might makes Right and they are not criminals only by virtue of winning, you have the bulk of Western Philosophy against you.
Western Philosophers! How many divisions have they got?
2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.
Wrong. They are exactly the same rights I am talking about.
So "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness"? Those are your Natural Rights? Who is trying to usurp those from you, exactly?
Or are you just mad 'coz you haven't caught Happiness yet? You were promised pursuit, not capture
3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.
It's about consistency. One can error by saying something inconsistent with what they do or say two things inconsistent with each other. Someone can be consistent and be wrong, but they can't be inconsistent and be right. Square circles don't exist.
That's debatable too, but not here.
If the State claim it's just power to rule comes from the consent of the governed, then it cannot use that power to violate that consent. It simply can't. It can use other power, coercive power, but in doing so it is no longer just and by it's own reasoning loses it's right to govern, even if it doesn't yet lose the ability.
If you're suggesting that the state claims that it rules with universal consent of *all* that it governs, you're simply mistaken.
Words mean things. You implicitly acknowledge this or you wouldn't be writing here. There's no argument you can make with words to prove me wrong, because the mere attempt is implicitly admitting that I am right.
Of course words mean things. Bringing up bitches and niggers was meant to make you ask yourself "hey, maybe that flowery prose was just a tool to rouse the rabble, because rabble fight better with God on their side?"
Of course these Founding Fathers were criminals. Of course. They were TRAITORS. But they won, so they're heroes. As all victors are.
And you're gullible enough to hold the current administration to the letter of some agitprop penned 2 & half centuries ago.
Be free!
http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aLK4WZ6_700b.jpg
Poll
