I was about 75% sure he was talking about the Montana state constitution. And about 100% sure he was correct about it being in there somewhere.
I can shoot socialists, this I know
For the constitution tells me so
Socialist sponges don’t belong
They are weak and I am strong
Yes, I should shoot socialists
Yes, I should shoot socialists
Yes, I should shoot socialists
The constitution tells me so
Sung to the melody of Donald Loves Me
Do as I do: ask him if he wants the street past his home to be owned by the city or by a for-profit corporation?
How about the city streets?
Intercity highways?
The local water and sewer system?
Police? Fire department?
Schools?
Food inspection?
(If he knows what they are) Epidemiology?
And then point out (because almost everyone is all in for the whole list) break the news to him that he is, by the dictionary, a socialist.
Even if that were in there, it would still be disturbing because such a clause would be unconstitutional and overridden by the 1st, 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments (free speech, right to life, cruel and unusual punishment, and equal treatment under the law). Even state reps should know the US Constitution.
Anything that threatens the rapacious greed of the few is considered the enemy – and the enemy must be defeated. Hence, “socialism” is the enemy, truth is the enemy, democracy is the enemy, etc.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” Garcia said.
Garcia could not to point to where in the Constitution it says socialists could be shot or jailed.
That’s the modern Republican party in a nutshell right there, it is. The deranged thinking; the lack of knowledge, logic, human decency…
And his logic for his pronouncement, which has nothing to do with any constitution (or, for that matter, logic)?
“They’re enemies of the free state,” Garcia said. “What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?”
The irony is that this dude is pretty clearly an enemy of a free state, even falling back on the canard that the USA isn’t supposed to be a democracy. So I guess, by his argument…
He wrote it himself, with crayon! (Or more likely feces, on a wall somewhere…)
But that’s not about socialism - Christians are clearly supposed to be communists! (I always like bringing that quote up with Christians to watch them squirm and immediately look it up online to find some tortured justification for why it doesn’t say what it says.)
The IRA is an off-shoot of the Republican Party, obviously.
By his dictionary, at least.
If you ask a Lib-Soc that question they’re going to answer “no”, and if you push on it you will get into a discussion about the differences between public, private and personal property and why the first two should belong to the commons.
Sulla would have loved Facebook for his proscriptions.
Well they have been supporters of that particular terrorist outfit for a long time. They are only against the wrong kind of terrorists.
John Humphrey Noyes (founder of the Oneida Community, the longest-lived American commune) called it Bible Communism.
https://library.syr.edu/digital/collections/j/JohnHumphreyNoyes,ThePutneyCommunity/chap14.htm
Acts 4:32-5:10
The Believers Share Their Possessions
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
I’m in, except for the dropping-down-dead-if-you-hold-out part. So I guess that makes me a socialist? Also, just to beat the crowd, Noyes had problematic ideas about eugenics.
But yeah, this guy…this…this…Republican…
They seemed to have mellowed out a bit by the time when Leo Tolstoy got involved.
By far the craziest thing about this is that the same guy proposed a bill last year for the state of Montana to take over a private power plant and run it because it was going out of business. What the hell does he think socialism is?
State run business - good. Socialists - execute on sight
How do they feel about Sinn Féin?
“…who defines what is or isn’t Christianity…”
Several conservative, very denominational groups that were tricked by major industrialists into banding their separate religious cults together under a single label, i.e., “Christianity,” in order to appear more coherent than they actually were.
This offered the appearance of being a larger, more organized social and political force than incohesive Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, etc. could remotely pretend to wield independently. Under the facade of ecumenicism, a larger bloc could gather in the tent labelled “Christianity,” and the power of that bloc could be used to smite the liberal, progressive models that usually focus on helping citizens as a higher priority than defending the profits of industries and corporations.
On a hopeful note for Rodney Garcia’s vision of Montana, most citizens that Garcia would misidentify as Socialists (more likely Progressive Democrats) wouldn’t be totin’ shootin’ irons, impeding their capacity to return fire in a timely fashion.
In the long run, Rodney Garcia needs to chill and make plans to welcome his new Socialist Overlords. I mean, if the nation of Venezuela couldn’t withstand the tide of Socialism, what hope does Montana as a mere state hold? I can’t really see the other 49 states going to war to rescue Montana, at least not Rodney Garcia’s version of Montana.
This would totally melt their minds:
Just give him a choice between Webster’s or the Oxford. Both have a LOT of definitions, but “public ownership of the means of providing goods and services” is always high.
There’s just not enough bleach to clean up all that stupid.
It’s time to round up dopes like this and force them to live completely off grid in a somewhat-harsh environment, all by their little selves. Let’s see how long they last before they come running back to “socialist” and “communist” civilization. Could make a TV show of it.
You’re generously assuming they have a mind left to melt…