Big Miku

No clue about the constitution, since I am not american, but it would be logical to think that the religous can rule as long as they don’t break other human rights.

I mean it kinda does with the whole “freedom of expression” thing it has.

I could be wrong on this, but that’s how I interperted it.

Because of those pesky human rights that mandate “freedom of religion” or whatever.

I couldn’t find a single mention of a fascist movement in the uprising. So either it was neglible in size, or you are just lying.

“Insufficiently oppressive”. What? Hungary was a really oppressive nation during that time, and you wanted it to be more oppressive?

And opressive to who? Fascist? They can just lie about not being a fascist. That leaves out to just guess who is a fascist and that sounds like a wonderful time for the citizens.

Patton really was correct about the Soviet Union.

Let’s take a look what started that “fascist” uprising. Years of economic mismanagement, opression, and being forced to pay a big chunk of their gdp to the Soviets for war reperations were all factors that lead to the Hungarian Revolution.

And who did these “fascist” pick as their leader? Imre Nagy, the man who was ousted from power by the soviets for having the audacity to be a more moderate communist than hardline stallinists.

The US doing something bad doesn’t justify someone else doing bad. Think about a nazi who uses that reasoning, they would sound like a nazi apologist.

Yes, the US did some bad stuff, but I still view them as the lesser evil when compared to the USSR or China.

Also Hungary doing something 65 years later doesn’t justify the actions of the Soviets.

But wouldn’t that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly.

Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word “good” was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word “good” for every single town? Of course it wouldn’t, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong.

But that wasn’t said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie.

Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie?

Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don’t even know what it means

Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state.

The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn’t happen.