readers may notice here how it is autistic. it keeps switch from one "person" to the other, eg third persons to first person to second... I don't seem to distinguish. I will just start imitating somebody whom I am thinking about and then switch to third person or pretending I am a famous Substack writer....
I just think that the reasoning of persons like Pete Hegseth is so lame. The “founding fathers” (this is a term invented fifty years later, not in the time of the persons concerned) actually did develop ideas of a plurality of persons, representing “The People,” who were endowed with these sorts of liberties and freedoms and who were, therefore equal as to that. I know about the Indians and blacks being excluded…
But today’s tin-horn tyrants (not the same as the American Originals/fathers) like Pete Hegseth are like the sort of jail guards or right-wing public speakers who declare their wisdom but never debate or discuss it. It would not stand up very well to intellectual (ie analytical) scrutiny…
readers may notice here how it is autistic. it keeps switch from one "person" to the other, eg third persons to first person to second... I don't seem to distinguish. I will just start imitating somebody whom I am thinking about and then switch to third person or pretending I am a famous Substack writer....
But just like the Founding Fathers today’s tin horn tyrants believe that life, liberty and happiness belong only to them.
I just think that the reasoning of persons like Pete Hegseth is so lame. The “founding fathers” (this is a term invented fifty years later, not in the time of the persons concerned) actually did develop ideas of a plurality of persons, representing “The People,” who were endowed with these sorts of liberties and freedoms and who were, therefore equal as to that. I know about the Indians and blacks being excluded…
But today’s tin-horn tyrants (not the same as the American Originals/fathers) like Pete Hegseth are like the sort of jail guards or right-wing public speakers who declare their wisdom but never debate or discuss it. It would not stand up very well to intellectual (ie analytical) scrutiny…