Fake…just like every “blacks for Trump” ploy to pretend their paid activists are just normal everyday black folk who just realized Trump is their guy, the fake staged chick-fil-a hug, the fake AI photos (the closest trump wants to get to real black people), the racist idea that black people now identify with him because he’s been indicted for 91 felonies just like them, the gold tennis shoes…every attempt to pretend he cares about other races has been so incredibly tone deaf and racist that they all backfired incredibly badly. Trump won’t even get 8% after his response to BLM.

No actual democrat now supports Trump. Lie #1. Even Berniebros hated him, they just hated Clinton more.

Lie #2, she says she supports Trump and that aligns with her Christian values…Christian values of adultery, rape, fraud, theft, dishonesty, supporting a man who embodies false piety, sloth, wrath, gluttony, pride, greed, envy, and lust, supporting a man who puts himself before god, actually made a golden idol of himself (holy fuck could he be more clear!?), works and plays on the sabbath, dishonors his father’s legacy, has ordered many deaths, and adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness galore.
Don’t forget he’s also selling fake, edited bibles…claimed to be real leather but it’s definitely not, made in China for $2 and sold for $70, with the constitution and bill of rights added but amendment 11-27 are missing. Hilarious he wants to omit those rights while wrapping himself in a flag…not one bit out of character to pretend the 13th and 14th and 15th don’t exist, and the 22nd is right out.

Get fucking real you idiot child.
Still waiting.

So…you now admit he said these things you denied he said and need an excuse for the inexcusable….you came up with “Flexing” (which I guess you think is a euphemism for lying?)… what if Biden was “flexing” in similar fashion? You would be apoplectic, insisting he’s unfit and you would be right. Anyone who says these anti American things is unfit for any office, lowest to highest.
Trump is telling us he intends to install loyalists in every position so he can do anything he wants, including attempted coups (oh wait, already did that with a complicit party) assassinations, disbanding the judiciary, voiding or suspending the constitution and bill of rights, and becoming a dictator “just for a day” (if you believe that I’ve got a $2 billion private club to sell you).
Any simple minded person knows he almost got away with exactly this on Jan 6 2021 when he tried to illegally seize power. Even a simpleton understands that, had he been successful, he would have dismantled our government to stay in power indefinitely just like his hero and mentor, Putin.

Biden is never feeble minded until you edit him to look that way, unlike dementia diaper don that always looks bat shit insane without editing.

Gullible…yeah. Right, friendo. Trump now thinks Biden beat Obabba. You believe 3 year olds are deciding to change sexes and are getting surgeries to that end.

Still waiting.
Wake up stupid.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

Forefathers. 🤦‍♂️ (at least you didn’t say “four fathers”)

Remember, they’re amendments. Not part of the constitutional convention or constitution, but the bill of rights. You know, that document that your ilk hate because you guys think the constitution shouldn’t be changed….unlike our forefathers.

Hilarious how little you people actually know about your own history, and you want to erase more of it.

bill clinton use to joke about gingrich's "contract w/american".

he'd say, [parphrasing] when i heard the details, i'd thought i misheard. should have been "contract ON american"!

looks like bill heard right the first time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

I'm a big fan of EC-Comics-style ironic punishment and I love the Punisher and other revenge fantasies but Bill is right. You have to be better than them. You can't sink to their level, you need to keep your ethics in place.

But it's of course A-ok to kill Nazis once they do actual physical harm to others. I am a big Indiana Jones fan too, you know.

That's true. And only a racist would celebrate racists, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

Time for Americans to do some real introspection. Slavery isn't acceptable because the founding fathers did it. Considering the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they penned, it seems all the worse that they could recognise the evil slavery was yet still profit from it (and they're not suddenly good people because they released some of their slaves, or released them after they died).

I think making sure history is well recorded and taught correctly is more important than tearing down a statue. If a statue or monument is left up then it needs to clearly state the history of the subject and how they were on the "wrong side of history".

I think it is possible to recognise the good and bad that an individual has done.

The crux of the matter is 'shall not infringe' vs shall not infringe - unless <name exception>'.

If you obey that law literally (constitution is law after all), then most prerequisites to gun ownership are non-starters.

Historically, legislators break that [constitutional] law here and there, but the absoluteness of the statement makes it hard to put up much in the way of hurdles.

As an aside, statements in the bill of rights are terse and without exception for a reason. When you enshrine exceptions, you allow for recategorization of legal constructs as subsets of those exceptions. Which in effect neutralizes the protection, and makes it meaningless.

So, if there was "freedom of speech - unless it causes distress" : then anything that people want to silence would simply be judged as distressing, and that would be the end of freedom of speech (you'd only need people hearing the case to consider it distressing in their opinion). The lack of exceptions empowers people to more easily argue against laws that infringe on those rights - given that there is no real 'easy-out' for infringing laws.

The NRA is the force that guards the 2nd amendment, backed by the people that want it protected (gun owners and gun industry alike). It's their place to push for the strongest 2nd amendment possible. That's their rightful purpose. Other entities can argue against them. We have an adversarial legal system, and that's the nature of the beast.

I'm confident that if there was an amendment protecting the right to drive a car on public roads, then driver's ed requirements would be under legal challenge, too.

-scheherazade

True, the constitution has some screwed up parts. However, there is a process in place to make or change amendments. If the bulk of the United States decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment, using the methods in place to do so, so be it. I'd give my guns up in that case. If the legislature decides to pass an unconstitutional law as a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist act, then they aren't getting them. The problem with unconstitutional laws, by the way, is that SCOTUS can always wink at the bill of rights and say that it is constitutional. I don't care for that, but again, it is a legal interpretation of the document if they do it. I'd give up my guns if that happened.

I don't even really have an issue if we go back to the assault weapon ban of the 90's. I get that we can make some changes and cut down on these incidents. I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision. You give someone due process to avoid being on the list, like we do to people accused of felonies before they are convicted, no problem. But as it stands, our President is just tossing an idea out there that absolutely violates multiple rights and people are eating it up like it was candy.

this is pretty high on the retarded scale.
and tagging this in the *education *philosophy and *learn channels is insulting to those who use their brains.

look man,i get that you disagree with socialism as an economic system,and you are perfectly within your rights to hold that opinion,but it is apparent that you have no clue what socialism is and continue to regurgitate the tired old tropes from the mcarthy era.

you,my friend,suffer from an incredibly bad case of doublethink.

you cannot on the one hand view taxes as theft and then turn around and support the military.which is a socialist institution and uses taxes to fund itself.

what you fail to realize is that this discussion goes back to the beginning of this country:what is the governments role.since the constitution was a brilliant document,and what made it brilliant was NOT simply the words written but the fact that our forefathers KNEW that they didnt know everything and they allowed for the constitution to be changed,as our society changed.

which is why we got rid of slavery,and allowed women to vote.we expanded the bill of rights to include blacks.

we did these things as a society.

we got rid of child labor and we decided that basic education was a fundamental right.

socialism is not a utopian philosphy.it is an economic philosophy and it can be just as abused as capitalism.the bank bailouts in 2007 was a socialist reaction,and one the majority of the american people disagreed with,but so was the interstate highways...which we DID agree upon.

so to title this "socialism explained" is pretty fucking stupid.

i already linked you an actual breakdown of american socialism,which appears you failed to read.so allow me to try again and i implore you.give it a read:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country

Many people seem confused about our government's origins.
Wiki- Treaty Of Tripoli-unanimously ratified by congress and President John Adams 1797
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The constitution and bill of rights were based on English Common Law, which existed long before the Romans brought the idea of Christianity to England....so if people insist our laws are based on religion, remind them the religion in power where/when they came from was Pagan religion, and they should be worshiping Odin.

Someone could have said Beetlejuice three times and it would have had about as much meaning.
Bill's right though, it's nonsense but the politicians and the pundits know that the best way to capture viewers and votes is to convince them that their way of life is under attack. That or it's radical fundamentalist Christians, in which case, yeah you're under attack.

You're seemingly bothered by the semantic difference between "gives" and "grants" or "guarantees". Guarantees would have been a better word, but the idea that this is "indoctrination" in ...what exactly?...seems silly and totally reactionary.
Read "Miracle In Philadelphia", it gives a GREAT idea of what went on, along with tons of details mostly unknown.
EDIT: For instance, did you know that Ben Franklin was often carried in on a 'sedan chair' (or it's non-covered equivalent) carried by prisoners on 'work release'?!
While the bill of rights does use that wording, it's the government that secures those rights FOR you...or to say it another way, 'gives' you (security in them).
"Power", in the form of the continental congress, "Gave" you those rights (EDIT: by codifying them in our laws and our basic outline for government/governing). I say they are certainly NOT "god given inalienable rights" which is proven by the fact that many people do NOT have them around the world. If they were truly "god given inalienable rights", they could not be removed or ignored by anyone, could they?
It may be poor wording, but indoctrination? Come on. What are the Texas School Boards "history" text books then? Now THEY re-write history.

there are a few inaccuracies in this video but over-all..makes a pretty strong point.
our fore-fathers did not exactly agree on the size,powers and authority the federal government should have,quite the opposite see:the federalist papers.

so the statement that the original intent was for a small centralized government is inaccurate.

but the argument over the bill of rights is fairly accurate.
hence the terms "inalienable and god-given".

i think the term indoctrination is used appropriately here.
2nd graders should not be introduced to such ideologies and most certainly not in this fashion.get em while they are young!..reprehensible.

this is ideology vs reality.
this is power vs powerlessness.
this is power abusing young minds to create a submissive and unquestioning attitude towards authority.

while the ideology may be comforting and even noble..it is a delusion when compared to the reality.

a citizen must KNOW their rights in order to fight for them.because power will ALWAYS attempt to curb or outright take those rights away and if they are able to do that (and they HAVE in many cases) then those rights are..in fact..privileges.

the "free speech zones" example is perfect.that was from st louis RNC in 2004 (i think..im recalling from memory).see? they didnt "take" away your right to free speech,they just made you do it -------> over there.

which affectively neutralized any dissent,but hey..you still had your right to free speech,just neutered and ineffectual.

to even call this educational is an insult to teachers.
its indoctrination..pure and simple.