-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Rant
Author: TriSec
Date: 10/01/2022 11:43:58
Good morning.
I was thinking of a lengthy, anti red-state rant this morning from the point of view of this Commonwealth.
I don't care if anyone else thinks that's counter-productive. At this point, I'm beyond caring.
Just to enumerate where I could have gone...our "friends" on the right love to hijack historical things and re-purpose them for their own nefarious needs. Literally everything that has happened politically in this Commonwealth is now better known nationally out-of-context and incorrectly.
Pilgrims? Puritans? Yep. Some kind of religious freedom-fighters now. They did flee the church in England, but set up their own religious enclaves hardly better than the Taliban for anyone that didn't bear the same beliefs. Witch trials, anyone?
How about the Tea Party or those Minutemen? Sarah Palin is dumber than a box of hair. Our "friends" again only focus on the events of that one night, without deep-diving into the underlying causes leading to the destruction of the tea. And never mind the Minutemen. Those idiots in their pickups calling themselves that while pretending to patrol the border in Arizona are ersatz minutemen at best, and probably are fascists anyway.
But where I was really going today with this was guns. Of course. It's always about guns.
Why do we have them? Why can anybody have them? Yes, it's this Commonwealth.
Yes, that's right. We weren't going to ratify the constitution, and maybe could have torpedoed the entire thing. Massachusetts was not satisfied with the lack of protection for certain individual rights, and we insisted on the Bill of Rights as a condition for ratification.
No Massachusetts, No Constitution, and No right to bear arms. Pretty ironic for a liberal state that wants to take your guns, eh?
Like everything else about these United States....Massachusetts says "You're Welcome".
Now piss off.
I was thinking of a lengthy, anti red-state rant this morning from the point of view of this Commonwealth.
I don't care if anyone else thinks that's counter-productive. At this point, I'm beyond caring.
Just to enumerate where I could have gone...our "friends" on the right love to hijack historical things and re-purpose them for their own nefarious needs. Literally everything that has happened politically in this Commonwealth is now better known nationally out-of-context and incorrectly.
Pilgrims? Puritans? Yep. Some kind of religious freedom-fighters now. They did flee the church in England, but set up their own religious enclaves hardly better than the Taliban for anyone that didn't bear the same beliefs. Witch trials, anyone?
How about the Tea Party or those Minutemen? Sarah Palin is dumber than a box of hair. Our "friends" again only focus on the events of that one night, without deep-diving into the underlying causes leading to the destruction of the tea. And never mind the Minutemen. Those idiots in their pickups calling themselves that while pretending to patrol the border in Arizona are ersatz minutemen at best, and probably are fascists anyway.
But where I was really going today with this was guns. Of course. It's always about guns.
Why do we have them? Why can anybody have them? Yes, it's this Commonwealth.
Although the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia finished their work in September 1787, a ratification process of many months remained ahead before the Constitution could become the system of government for the new country. For this to happen, at least 9 of the 13 states had to approve the document, and Massachusetts was at the crux of that lineup. In January 1788, the Massachusetts convention met in the Old State House to address the matter; at that time, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut had already ratified the Constitution. The remaining states watched the proceedings in Boston closely, anticipating a close vote that could fall either way.
Massachusetts had the largest convention of any state, and a fundamental disagreement divided the 364 delegates: Federalists supported a strong central government and the Constitution as written; Anti-Federalists held that a centralized government would concentrate power in the hands of the elite and lead to the dissolution of the democratic ideals espoused during the Revolution. The turning point in the debate in Boston came when Gov. John Hancock proposed that Massachusetts recommend several amendments to the Constitution, including a Bill of Rights. This proposal effectively gave voice to many of the Anti-Federalist concerns, and after Revolutionary leader Samuel Adams spoke in favor of Hancock's "conciliatory proposition," a sufficient number of delegates shifted their positions to approve ratification.
Yes, that's right. We weren't going to ratify the constitution, and maybe could have torpedoed the entire thing. Massachusetts was not satisfied with the lack of protection for certain individual rights, and we insisted on the Bill of Rights as a condition for ratification.
No Massachusetts, No Constitution, and No right to bear arms. Pretty ironic for a liberal state that wants to take your guns, eh?
Like everything else about these United States....Massachusetts says "You're Welcome".
Now piss off.
