I’m constantly seeing things that add up to Puritans and Roundheads.
Such as the letter to Trump from Archbishop Vigano.

Then there are the believers.

this America obsession needs to be reduced

roughbarked said:

I’m constantly seeing things that add up to Puritans and Roundheads.
Such as the letter to Trump from Archbishop Vigano.

Then there are the believers.

I’m no expert on The Roundheads, but they weren’t driven by the intent to preserve the privileges of the privileged were they?

And that does drive the policies of the Republicans, doesn’t it?

SCIENCE said:

this America obsession needs to be reduced

You see his adherents are claiming that Trump is the messiah. That he is fixing the world stage. Perhaps it is the old order is when America thought they were the greatest and that now they have fallen from grace that Trump is placing them back at the top. It is rather difficult to decipher the rantinigs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I’m constantly seeing things that add up to Puritans and Roundheads.
Such as the letter to Trump from Archbishop Vigano.

Then there are the believers.

I’m no expert on The Roundheads, but they weren’t driven by the intent to preserve the privileges of the privileged were they?

And that does drive the policies of the Republicans, doesn’t it?

Ah yeah.. um I was probably as much referring to the puritans which took over the roundheads and made people eat onions? ;)

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I’m constantly seeing things that add up to Puritans and Roundheads.
Such as the letter to Trump from Archbishop Vigano.

Then there are the believers.

I’m no expert on The Roundheads, but they weren’t driven by the intent to preserve the privileges of the privileged were they?

And that does drive the policies of the Republicans, doesn’t it?

Ah yeah.. um I was probably as much referring to the puritans which took over the roundheads and made people eat onions? ;)

Let’s leave Abbott out of this.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m no expert on The Roundheads, but they weren’t driven by the intent to preserve the privileges of the privileged were they?

And that does drive the policies of the Republicans, doesn’t it?

Ah yeah.. um I was probably as much referring to the puritans which took over the roundheads and made people eat onions? ;)

Let’s leave Abbott out of this.

Got a reaction anyway. ;)

Science is more interesting than politics.

Michael V said:

Science is more interesting than politics.

Is that why they devised polictial science? To make it more interesting?

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

mollwollfumble said:

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

?

Bit of confusion in this thread. The Puritans supported Cromwell and his Roundheads.

mollwollfumble said:

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

They often seem to what a self fulfilling prophecy, kill them Jews and Muslims in a big war

Hang on, the Roundheads were the parliament supporters. They included (but were not limited to) the religious puritans.

Their opposition were the Royalists. Maintaining the royal privileges, including the right to overrule parliament, and to be head of the established church. They were called Cavaliers.

Not sure either of these factions really match up well with the modern US political scene.

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

?

Bit of confusion in this thread. The Puritans supported Cromwell and his Roundheads.

The other side were the Cavaliers who supported the King.

party_pants said:

Hang on, the Roundheads were the parliament supporters. They included (but were not limited to) the religious puritans.

Their opposition were the Royalists. Maintaining the royal privileges, including the right to overrule parliament, and to be head of the established church. They were called Cavaliers.

Not sure either of these factions really match up well with the modern US political scene.

+1

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Hang on, the Roundheads were the parliament supporters. They included (but were not limited to) the religious puritans.

Their opposition were the Royalists. Maintaining the royal privileges, including the right to overrule parliament, and to be head of the established church. They were called Cavaliers.

Not sure either of these factions really match up well with the modern US political scene.

+1

It was a lot of privileged white people who were religious nutters.

I see the Car has already got it covered while I was typing out the previous post.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

?

Bit of confusion in this thread. The Puritans supported Cromwell and his Roundheads.

The other side were the Cavaliers who supported the King.

Yes, but I assumed moll was talking about the US Democrats.

Sort of confusion that can prevail when discussing inappropriate “parallels”.

The Roundhead commander-in-chief of the first Civil War, Thomas Fairfax, remained a supporter of constitutional monarchy, as did many other Roundhead leaders such as Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester and Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex; however, this party was outmanoeuvred by the more politically adept Cromwell and his radicals, who had the backing of the New Model Army and took advantage of Charles’ perceived betrayal of England by allying with the Scottish against Parliament.

England’s many Puritans and Presbyterians were almost invariably Roundhead supporters, as were many smaller religious groups such as the Independents. However many Roundheads were members of the Church of England, as were many Cavaliers.

Roundhead political factions included the proto-anarchist Diggers, the diverse group known as the Levellers and the apocalyptic Christian movement of the Fifth Monarchists.

Bubblecar said:

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

?

Bit of confusion in this thread. The Puritans supported Cromwell and his Roundheads.

The other side were the Cavaliers who supported the King.

Yes, but I assumed moll was talking about the US Democrats.

Sort of confusion that can prevail when discussing inappropriate “parallels”.

yep.

Ah this is the new world order they are afraid of.

“In a statement marking the three-year anniversary of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, the US President calls on Congress to strengthen gun laws, including by banning assault weapons and requiring background checks on all gun sales.”

roughbarked said:

Ah this is the new world order they are afraid of.

“In a statement marking the three-year anniversary of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, the US President calls on Congress to strengthen gun laws, including by banning assault weapons and requiring background checks on all gun sales.”

They need Congress to amend the wording of the Constitution…

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed be regulated”

But they will be too scared to ever do it because January 6 might happen all over again. Any attempt to legislate around it will be struck down by the Supreme Court, basically with the instruction that an amendment is the only way to change the meaning of that clause.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Ah this is the new world order they are afraid of.

“In a statement marking the three-year anniversary of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, the US President calls on Congress to strengthen gun laws, including by banning assault weapons and requiring background checks on all gun sales.”

They need Congress to amend the wording of the Constitution…

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed be regulated”

But they will be too scared to ever do it because January 6 might happen all over again. Any attempt to legislate around it will be struck down by the Supreme Court, basically with the instruction that an amendment is the only way to change the meaning of that clause.

I don’t think a right necessarily rules out regulation of that right. And anyway, it only says you can keep them and bear them. It says nothing at all about discharging them…

buffy said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Ah this is the new world order they are afraid of.

“In a statement marking the three-year anniversary of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, the US President calls on Congress to strengthen gun laws, including by banning assault weapons and requiring background checks on all gun sales.”

They need Congress to amend the wording of the Constitution…

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed be regulated”

But they will be too scared to ever do it because January 6 might happen all over again. Any attempt to legislate around it will be struck down by the Supreme Court, basically with the instruction that an amendment is the only way to change the meaning of that clause.

I don’t think a right necessarily rules out regulation of that right. And anyway, it only says you can keep them and bear them. It says nothing at all about discharging them…

“shall not be infringed” is a pretty tough starting point to argue against.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

They need Congress to amend the wording of the Constitution…

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed be regulated”

But they will be too scared to ever do it because January 6 might happen all over again. Any attempt to legislate around it will be struck down by the Supreme Court, basically with the instruction that an amendment is the only way to change the meaning of that clause.

I don’t think a right necessarily rules out regulation of that right. And anyway, it only says you can keep them and bear them. It says nothing at all about discharging them…

“shall not be infringed” is a pretty tough starting point to argue against.

A big rock to shift off the path.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

They need Congress to amend the wording of the Constitution…

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed be regulated”

But they will be too scared to ever do it because January 6 might happen all over again. Any attempt to legislate around it will be struck down by the Supreme Court, basically with the instruction that an amendment is the only way to change the meaning of that clause.

I don’t think a right necessarily rules out regulation of that right. And anyway, it only says you can keep them and bear them. It says nothing at all about discharging them…

“shall not be infringed” is a pretty tough starting point to argue against.

A big rock to shift off the path.

maybe but if the premise is questionable videlicet “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” then why need the dependent clause be upheld

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

“shall not be infringed” is a pretty tough starting point to argue against.

A big rock to shift off the path.

maybe but if the premise is questionable videlicet “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” then why need the dependent clause be upheld

Because a lynch mob is nowhere near a well regulated militia.

These old order Americans still want to be able to have a local posse drummed up to go and hang that nigger.

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

“shall not be infringed” is a pretty tough starting point to argue against.

A big rock to shift off the path.

maybe but if the premise is questionable videlicet “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” then why need the dependent clause be upheld

that argument has been tried and failed, in their Supreme Court.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

A big rock to shift off the path.

maybe but if the premise is questionable videlicet “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” then why need the dependent clause be upheld

that argument has been tried and failed, in their Supreme Court.

sad

have the New National Socialist stacked supreme court done anything big yet

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

A big rock to shift off the path.

maybe but if the premise is questionable videlicet “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” then why need the dependent clause be upheld

that argument has been tried and failed, in their Supreme Court.

A militia wouldn’t stand a chance against an actual army who could take then out from hundreds of kilometres (miles) away

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

maybe but if the premise is questionable videlicet “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” then why need the dependent clause be upheld

that argument has been tried and failed, in their Supreme Court.

A militia wouldn’t stand a chance against an actual army who could take then out from hundreds of kilometres (miles) away

look here the constitution was written ~200 years ago, it’s kept up with the times, it’s supreme and it’s unassailable except by amendment, it’s not like it was some religiously adhered work of fiction written ~2000 years ago

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

?

Bit of confusion in this thread. The Puritans supported Cromwell and his Roundheads.

Oops.

It’s the democrats who believe in their prophets of doom, such as Al Gore, and who have the prediction that unless we all reform to a purer form of life then we’re all going to hell.

So it’s the democrats who are the puritans, rather than the republicans.

Not that there’s much difference between the political parties these days.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

?

Bit of confusion in this thread. The Puritans supported Cromwell and his Roundheads.

Oops.

It’s the democrats who believe in their prophets of doom, such as Al Gore, and who have the prediction that unless we all reform to a purer form of life then we’re all going to hell.

So it’s the democrats who are the puritans, rather than the republicans.

Not that there’s much difference between the political parties these days.

Not much it seems, variations on douchebaggery

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

So democrats are puritans?

Strong beliefs in religious ideas like the belief that we’re all heading for a biblical-magnitude apocalypse in the near future?

?

Bit of confusion in this thread. The Puritans supported Cromwell and his Roundheads.

Oops.

It’s the democrats who believe in their prophets of doom, such as Al Gore, and who have the prediction that unless we all reform to a purer form of life then we’re all going to hell.

So it’s the democrats who are the puritans, rather than the republicans.

Not that there’s much difference between the political parties these days.

When people present a ridiculous parody of a political policy as though it was the actual policy, that’s a pretty good indication that they don’t have any good arguments against that policy.