My fandom blog

Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird BANNED In Virginia School System Due To N-WORD (REACTION)   

I read To Kill A Mockingbird in High School.  That book is so damn important.  I’m mad as hell that any school would try to ban it.

This is a textbook case of socialism. This is the beginning of EVERY dystopian story, like OP said “You start banning books then where does it stop??  People will be burning them next.” #Fahrenheit451 (this has literally been written about in a book many of you probably had to read in high school. If not, I encourage you to read it and compare the world of Guy Montag to the United States today. It is a scary comparison.)

They ban those books for being historically accurate, but they also ban The Song Of The South (A Disney movie released in 1946 about life on a southern plantation for a slave) because it doesn’t paint an accurate portrayal of slavery therefore it is racist. You CAN’T have both! You can’t say, its wrong to make out slavery as a happy go lucky thing because it is racist and you need to show slavery for what it was and how horribly black people were treated, and then turn right around and say you can’t show how horribly black people were treated because thats racist. I’m a history major, I LIVE for historical accuracy. This is just as bad as those textbooks that are take out slavery in American History textbooks. IT HAPPENED! It was horrible, inhumane, and a disgusting part of United States history, but. it. happened. and it was a cause of one of the bloodiest wars the United States has been involved in. You take that out you take out a very important part of history, when you ban those books you take out not only United States history, you take out American culture. 

People love The Hunger Games Trilogy (Suzanne Collins), The Divergent Trilogy (Veronica Roth), 1984 (George Orwell), Brave New World (Aldous Huxley), The Giver (Lois Lowry), and Anthem (Ayn Rand), but the same people somehow don’t realize that the protagonist in each of those stories is fighting against everything that the left and the far left promotes.

Each of these stories has an unjust, overreaching, big government and a group on “rebells” who are tired of that shit so they overthrow the government and defeat the evil big government dictators and fascists.

It truly amazes me that this goes unnoticed. Lets talk about the fifth highest grossing movie series about an insurgent group attaching an unjust, overreaching, big government who was actively taking away rights and oppressing its subjects. 

Thats right

5) Star Wars $4,486,158,822

Because I’m 20 years old and I’m significantly more mature than most people my age (and most people 5-7 years older than me) and my main interest in life is politics.

It’s hard for me to either a) find somebody near my age who is mature and who likes politics, or b) find somebody who is older but willing to date a younger girl and also likes politics.

As European I didn’t understand what electoral college is (even if the EU parliament works on sort of similar principle). Took me few days and acual elections to understand but here is the thing: 

The US is made of bunch of states many of them with different culture, not dramatically different, but there IS difference. Cali and Texas for example are massive states. IF the US president was elected by popular vote, you don’t need much of the other states to have a winner. You just make sure you appeal to the people of California and Texas, maybe bunch of smaller states to make the numbers and you can ignore the other 40 for example. 

You can hate Trump all you want. You can say he is racist or whatever, I am  not arguing over that. But the only reason Hillary won the popular vote is because she won in few big states who have population larger than others. If you are all about fairness and right, tell me is it fair for 3 or 4 states to decide to governance of the other 47? Look at the map. You have about 20 states that voted Clinton, one of them (MN) pretty close to a Trump win. 20 states are NOT half of the US, they are less than a half. She has more votes because she won big population hubs like CA, MA, IL and whatever else I’m missing.

a few states determine it as if tbfh.

I don’t see why it matters that 20 states isn’t a majority if they still have more people than the other 30. To me, people should matter, not states.

Presidential elections comes. Candidate A runs a campaign that tries to make everyone as happy as possible. It;s not possible to please everybody, but in their campaign they have a bit for the Village, a bit for the City. Candidate B focuses their campaign ONLY on the city and say how they will fight crime rate, and build more housing etc. Candidate B doesn’t give a shit about the villages, because there is not enough votes in them. All the villages vote for A bcause even if A will do 50% of what they want 50% is better than 0%. All the cities vote for B because their problems are more important for them than some village’s problems. B wins because the city has larger population. What the electoral college does is forcing a candidate to create a platform that appears to the village AND the city. By doing so it ensures (not always successfully) that a candidate will have in mind that people from different regions have their different needs met. 

You still with me? Okay let’s go to the US.

Washington wanted to abolish slavery because he saw slavery as wrong 

Daniel Rundle, supported the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, was vice president of the Supreme Executive Council, 1777–79, judge of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from 1780 until his death, and author of the state act for the gradual abolition of slavery. Which would effectively give the freemen some rights. (those are two separate citations)

“ If negroes were objects of capture in War, the Captor might proclaim their liberty when in his possession. If once declared free, could the grant be recalled? Could the British Government stipulate the surrender of men made free to slavery? Is it natural to put such a construction upon general words if they will bear another? Is not this as it regards the rights of humanity an odious sense?”-Alexander Hamilton

“It is possible indeed that the enthusiasm which the transition from Slavery to Liberty may inspire, may be a substitute for the energy of a good administration, and the spring of great exertions. But the ebullitions of enthusiasm must ever be a precarious reliance. And it is quite as possible that the greatness, and perhaps immaturity, of that transition may prolong licentiousness and disorder.”- Alexander Hamilton. Meaning that the people have the right intensions, and the right motivation, but if they do it too quickly the momentum to abolish slavery will be gone and could ultimately cause unintended consequences later.

By the power of the constitution if you are a free person then you are granted every inalienable right of life, liberty and property, property includes yourself, and happiness. Do you really think that the founding fathers would have put that down if they did not think that this country would just be a country of white people? They were very careful, and very precise on the words and wordings they chose. They knew times were going to change, and during the very late eighteenth century slavery was on the decline. It was not until Eli Witney created the cotton gin that an increase of slavery, and an increase of the ability to own slaves was a major issue. Now, according to “United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990, the Court said that “the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States.″ Now, to me that means that slaves or other people, as long as they had a tie to the community of the United States means that they are included in all rights mentioned in the constitution. The Massachusetts Constitution dealt with this issue a few times in regard to their first article which says “Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.” Slaves in Massachusetts argued that according to the Declaration of Independence all men were created equal and because of the first article of their state constitution they were entitled to the equal rights as everyone else. The court found in favor of them thusly making the practice of slavery illegal, granted the former slaves compensation, tried their former masters for any criminal activity that came to light during the trials, some were found guilty and forced to pay heavy fines, and made the former slaves free US citizens. So I ask you, what evidence is there that would make you assume that the founding fathers wanted an all white country because I would honesty like to know so I can either A) Learn or B) Be able to refute. 

Now, about your jab at conservatives and republicans. Before I begin, yes, anti slavery does not necessarily equal equal rights but let us look at which ideology owned the most slaves, which ideology voted against equal rights the most, and hurt plenty of people in the US. These people were mostly Democratic-Republicans who transitioned to be what we call today the Democratic Party. “Don’t be stupid the ideologies of the parties changed.” Except they didn’t. Here is a great post about how that actually did not happen, please click here. And also, look at who is universally known to be the first Democrat President of the United States. 

Yeah thats right. Andrew Jackson. You know, the one who signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 causing hundreds of thousands of Native Americans to be forcibly removed from their lands onto tiny reservations. And how “Slavery was the source of Andrew Jackson’s wealth.” But that is beside the point. The point is if we look at some very important equal rights amendments you will see that Republicans were in majority favor and Democratic were in a very minority favor if they voted for it at all.

Oh and let us not forget who supported the 19th amendment which prohibited any state from denying the right to vote based on sex. 

Please compare the maps and you will see that it was predominantly Republicans that supported the right for everyone to vote regardless of sex. Oh and guess what? When the 19th amendment was ratified in August, three months before the election of a republican President, democratic President Woodrow Wilson who “many historians say that President Wilson’s support for women’s suffrage was lukewarm at best” was President of the United States.

Again, I am going to iterate how the ideologies of the parties have not changes. And because I am almost 100% certain you will not click the link I will post it word for word here. This post is by @another-conservative

“Woodrow Wilson, democrat president, supported the KKK and helped revive it by popularizing KKK revisionist film Birth of a Nation.

Blacks began voting blue in 1936 in the proposal of the New Deal, not because they aligned with democrat party values but for political expediency.

“I’ll have them niggers voting democrat for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson, democrat president.

Democrats continuously filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it was passed in spite of democrats, not by democrats.

Democrats voted 61% and Republicans 24% against the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which passed 333-85. The Senate passed with the support of 94 percent of the Republican caucus and 73 percent of the Democratic caucus.

From the National Review: The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican party were suburban, prosperous New South types. The more Republican the South has become, the less racist.

From Liberty Voice: All but the redoubtable Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Southern Democrat who managed to stay Democrat for well over 40 years; despite all the mythical ship-jumping which is supposed to have occurred. All of the modern liberal Democrats who adored him, like Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama and Al Gore, must not have been told Byrd was a Grand Klegal in the KKK before he ran for the Senate as a Democrat. Byrd was a celebrated member of the Democrat party up til his death, in 2010. So it is not as if the discussion of his affiliations is somehow ancient history.

And further...

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had no illusions as to of which party and political ideology he was marching against, and he voted Republican. In honor of Reverend King’s legacy, perhaps it is best to judge the Democrat party on the content of its character.”

By saying conservatives wanted a white only country, you completely discount the vast majority of the founding fathers who were opposed to slavery, the founding fathers who made sure that there were no words in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, or The Bill Of Rights that would limit the freedoms an American citizen has, the conservatives who voted for the equality of all Americans regardless of race and sex. 

And America is a great place because of it.

Bernie - Democratic Socialist

Seriously you need to crack open a book. It’s as if you heard the word “Socialist” and got

The point isn’t that ‘nationalists and democrats are the same’

as in Democratic Socialism does not promote racism

James Madison was pretty clear on this.

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

-Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate “On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees” (1794).

The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have lost their appeal against a ruling that their refusal to make a “gay cake” was discriminatory.

Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs.

Two years ago, the family-run firm refused to make a cake saying: “Support Gay Marriage”.

It had been ordered by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.

The firm argued that the cake’s message was against the bakers’ religious views.

In court on Monday, the judges said that it did not follow that icing a message meant you supported that message.

The appeal court upheld the original court’s decision that Ashers in County Antrim discriminated against Mr Lee.

At that time, District Judge Isobel Brownlie said she accepted that Ashers had “genuine and deeply held” religious views, but said the business was not above the law.

The family’s appeal was heard in May, but the judgement was reserved.

Good! Businesses should always be secular.

The point that I especially agree with from the court is the fact that “it did not follow that icing a message meant you supported that message,” because it’s just business.

The only time that I think a business should be allowed to deny service (if a customer isn’t threatening or badly behaved) is if what they ask for supports violence against others. 

If it was a religious business, then sure, that should be covered by religious freedoms. But it’s secular, and all that the business had to do was string letters together on a cake that weren’t harming anyone.

I think about it this way: if there were a (clearly hypothetical) Muslim member of staff in Walmart – for argument’s sake – that worked at the check-out, and he refused to serve who he thought were single mothers, or women who weren’t escorted, I would see that as grossly sexist and he should be fired, even if he stated that his religious beliefs meant that he couldn’t deal with serving them.

For context: this happened in Northern Ireland, where same-sex marriage still isn’t legalised. All that they have are “civil partnerships.” It’s still highly contested, and the only part of the UK where same-sex marriage isn’t allowed. There’s still a massive battle to be had, pending another court challenge.

I see it as pure discrimination in a part of the UK that uses Christianity to be discriminatory. This is the same part of the UK where abortion is classed as “unlawful” unless there is risk to the mother. It’s not as free as the rest of the UK, despite the idea that it is from outside of the UK.

Maybe this is a cultural thing (I’m not sure where you’re from, apologies) but as far as I see it, there’s a huge problem with “it should be [a businesses’ right] to serve whom they will for whatever reason.”

They don’t like black people, and choose not to serve them? Clear racism. They don’t like Jews and choose not to serve them? Clear antisemitism. 

It’s a few words on a cake. I would totally be on their side if they were asked to bake something like, I don’t know, “Christians are all bigots,” or “Death to [X],” but as the judgement said, just because they bake something to support politics they don’t believe in, that doesn’t mean that they suddenly have to personally support it.

HUFFLEPUFF:

“I know my sister like I know my own mind You will never find anyone as trusting or as kind If I tell her that I love him she’d be silently resigned He’d be mine She would say, “I’m fine” She’d be lying”

And here are my reasons,

1) This girl was set on climbing her way to the top without caring for anybody but herself. In her youth she was obsessed with finding a husband and like her father, supported the Colonies for independence...until she met a handsome British Officer with whom she eloped with without looking back or a second thought. This shows her ambition. By the way, just for some historical trivia, this was years before the Schuylers met Alexander Hamilton.

2) Because she only cared about her status, for the years inbetween her marriage and Elizabeth meeting Alexander she didnd't talk to her family. But that's kind of me just being petty and angry at her. But in all seriousness she would actually manipulate her (many) suitors so they would fall head over heals in love with her, only for her to turn them down. She was very cunning in that way.

3) She figured out what made a man tick and she used that to her advantage. She was a debutante and knew how to work the scene and knew what it would take to land a husband in late 18th century colonial America. She was resourceful using her charm, looks, and sharp wit to reel in the suitors.