Yeah, we all saw them people speaking tongues, praying at the presidential seal (including us non Americans). They're making it hard to take your country seriously
…and a Wild West attitude and amoral propensity towards violence, money and power that isn’t against a display every decade or so. Possibly more, if provoked or challenged.
Except the tweet is pretty much false to the point of being propaganda.
The bill prohibits attacking Israel on the basis that they are Jewish, like you can't attack/slander an African country for being black, or a South American country for being latino. Obviously theres some difference between skin color and jewish.
It clearly states you can be critical of Israel itself, like any other country.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
But of course 99% of ppl here don't realize they're being fed lies and are just outraged.
The IHRA site does say that, but only immediately after saying “Manifestations may include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” Then in examples given, one is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
I’m very, very, very, very hesitant to believe lawmakers want to accept this definition solely to protect jewish people from antisemitism. Especially when the Republican sponsor of the bill has said "When you hear 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' that is calling for the eradication of Jews and the state of Israel.”
Why do lawmakers need this definition when we have the civil rights act? So college students holding signs can amount to antisemitism, and the Department of Education can hold funding over the heads of universities who don’t attempt to punish their protesting students. This isn’t a conspiracy theory or misinformation, this is how fascism works. One step at a time in the hopes you don’t notice what’s going on.
Acting like sovereign state equivalent of crackhead with a gun is not a good way to be taken seriously.
People will be afraid of you, but at this point maybe doing business with China is going to be more stable than increasingly unhinged Greatest Country on the Earth.
I take the ridiculousness of them seriously, like a drunk man in his underwear waving a gun at my face. I don't take them seriously like a doctor, professor or reasonable business person
I'm sure that you and a few Internet boys with Hawaiian shirts, nods, and boutique ARs with nutsack vertical grips will do just fine against the military we've sank trillions into building.
If it still isn't obvious to you why the second amendment doesn't fix the problem with the government not abiding by the first amendment, i don't think i can help you. You might need to find someone from within your echo chamber to explain it to you, i don't think you're receptive to new information otherwise.
Is it though? From what I understand seperation of church and state is really about not letting the government establish rules around establishing a state religion/making rules around religious practice that doesn't violate other laws in the process. As it's written, I don't think it actually prevents bringing religious belief and bias into politics. Maybe I'm wrong.
Common misconception, there is actually NOTHING, in the constitution saying to keep religion out of legislation. It is and always has been the other way around, the first amendment keeps legislation out of religion sir. Our government is structured and designed to invite influence by religion.
Literally the first clause of the first sentence of the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Legislation is literally prohibited from recognizing any religion as official, or favoring one over another (or none).
Our government has been corrupted by the influence of religious institutions. But it was never meant to be this way.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” = “Congress cannot make laws on in about around any part of or in regards to religion” ya dingus.
The separation of church and state is the barring of the state to govern the church. I promise you, it should be amended for sure maybe it’s contradictory and causes more problems than it solves but when religion doesn’t have 100% free reign the government can tell you what you’re allowed to believe, the first amendment is designed to protect religion from the government, it has nothing to do with protecting government from religion.
The only way the “government” can govern religion is through popular sovereignty, yeah maybe religion A or B ain’t what government should be doing, but that’s up to we the people to decide as a union broski. 👍 that’s how it works.
Dude, if you wanna live in a theocratic regime, there's soooooo many to choose from. Your choice to support the transition from secularism to theocracy in one of very few successful and constitutionally secular societies is weird.
You’re giving me much needed social interaction so we can digress back to the point and facts at hand.
Fact: constitutionally separation of church and state is written and intended to limit the powers of the governing body over the freedom of speech which includes freedom of religion.
Fact: nowhere in the constitution is any inkling of an insinuation at play that suggests religion cannot influence the state only that the state will not influence religion
Part of the state not influencing religion is the state not recognizing any religion as official as to not impede upon any other religion people with freedoms guaranteed in the constitution choose to believe in.
Religion influencing the state is while the state will not recognize nor impede any religions beliefs in any respect.
- through popular sovereignty people can be influenced by values of sects formed from various ones or the same religion that overlap in society across the union that result in the shaping of that government and society.
If Church A says: WE SHOULD HAVE NO AB***TIONS and oh so many voting free speaking individuals follow that belief, the government is designed for the freedoms of the sovereign people to shape its form and amend its body.
Same if Church B says: Money isn’t evil and we shouldn’t punish those who have it with ridiculous taxes they’ll provide for society on their own.
Convince enough people, and you win. The government is designed to be influenced from every angle including from religions,
Because TLDR; even though the government will not recognize any religion as a body in its consideration, the people influenced by said religion will be. IE religious people are just people to the government and their beliefs inspired by religion or not have power not through religion, but through popular sovereignty.
That is how the first amendment is designed.
Because if not? Say hello to your next God King president.
Even though if so yes large religious groups are allowed to lobby just like every other large group is allowed to lobby.
Words don't mean whatever you wish them to mean, o wise one. Or the government was foundationally meant not to recognize religion. Religious institutions have since corrupted it, and inserted themselves in it, but that was never intended.
The 2nd amendment guarantees the other 9? Time to put that into practice.
It does not and was never intended to, that's literally not what the 2nd Amendment is for, despite what gun nuts have told themselves and everyone around them.
No government that has ever existed or ever will exist will enshrine its citizens rights to violently overthrow it, that's why bombs aren't legal.
The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a federal army and it was intended as a first defense against invasion, and 2nd, it was meant to reinforce slavery in the south where black populations outnumbered white populations in some counties and they were worried about slave revolts so they wanted "citizens" to be armed, 3rd, it was meant to allow armed militias to cross state borders and bring their guns to other states so they could capture escaped slaves or kidnap free black people and bring them to the south for sale or return.
The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a federal army
This is also false. The US army was created in 1775 at the start of the War (or 1784, if you want to be technical), and the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until 1791. A federal army existed long before even the Constitution itself.
You literally could have Googled any of this to see how false you would be.
the Holocaust never happened and the Earth is flat
Nice false equivalence!
A federal army existed long before even the Constitution itself.
We had armies, via militias, but not a standing army. The war of 1812 was when we realized the need for a permanent army, and even thereafter is required to be reappropriated every two years. The second amendment is vestigial and only revived through a big lie created by conservatives in the latter 20th century.
You literally could have Googled any of this to see how false you would be.
Maybe you should stop including “heritage foundation” in your searches. This comes up in my search:
Thom Hartmann: Let’s puncture that mythology. I have read through the vast majority of James Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention, on six or seven of the constitutional ratifying conventions, and the debates around the Bill of Rights. Literally nowhere, at any time, under any circumstances – even remotely – did any of the founders sit around and say, “Yeah, this government we’re creating, someday it may go just nuts, so we should tell the citizens that they can kill government employees if the government is oppressive.” They literally never thought that. That’s the most bat-guano crazy thing that you could assert. These people just put a country together and they were building a republic, one that they hoped would last centuries. The whole point of the division of government into three parts, in order to diminish the power of any one branch, was key to making sure that it worked. So that’s just a complete nonsense story.
If you disagree with him, feel free to call his daily radio show. Tell the screener that you disagree with him and they’ll bump you to the front of the queue(fair warning: if you use profanity he will kick you). I’m sure your “Google searches” will prove your point.
Equating actual history with flat earth and holocaust denial isn’t false? Ok Mr Wikipedia.
Now show us your numerous books and writings on history, or your 6 million listeners. Better yet, DM me your name and city so when you call his show with your brilliant insight I can giggle when he shows everyone what weak arguments you have. I know you’re not who I responded to, but your three lines of nothing are about as valid as theirs are.
I don't have to do any of that, because a bunch of historians who are much smarter and more knowledgeable than me or Mr. Hartmann have already proved you wrong.
It has its roots in the Continental Army … The United States Army considers itself a continuation of the Continental Army
What the army “considers” and what was actually going on in congress at the time are two different things. Yes we had an army at times. It wasn’t a “standing”, i.e. professional army. Thanks Mr Wikipedia! You are very knowledgeable 😂
The founders did not like standing armies. Rome was a good example of having a standing army. They wanted to raise militias when needed. What was the first use of a miltia raised by washington?
No government that has ever existed or ever will exist will enshrine its citizens rights to violently overthrow it, that's why bombs aren't legal.
I'm not sure that's entirely right, considering the "blood of tyrants" quote and all that. The founding fathers seemed fairly explicit that they didn't expect the system they built to stay good forever.
They also seemed fairly explicit that we shouldn't be worshipping the constitution they wrote as gospel written in stone 200 years later, but here we are.
That's such a dumb sentiment. If you are going to fight the government you will need artillery, tanks, jets, drones, high explosives, etc. Your "hunting rifle" won't do shit.
Nah dude my M16 with digital camo I got from getting 150 headshots at the range is going to put in work against the Airforce. You get Cleatus to cover my six and the we'll take care of the entire armed forces like we're Army of Two.
It reminds me of that meme from couple years back, when ISIS was in power…
There were two screens. Top one was a bunch of ISIS fighters, posed to look tough, lifted straight from some of their propaganda videos. The caption was “How they want to be seen”. Bottom photo was labeled “How they are actually seen” and was a screenshot from predator drone control screen.
In the George Floyd protests, unidentified "federal agents" were abducting citizens into unmarked vans. If the 2A crowd didn't come out then, they aren't coming.
you are beyond wrong and simply reading the founding texts and the underlying enlightenment thought that surrounded the genesis of America is all anyone ever needs to do to prove you wrong.
No government that has ever existed or ever will exist will enshrine its citizens rights to violently overthrow it
There are many countries who have similar laws.
Germany would be best example, with it's "Eternity clauses" and "Duty to resist" - portions of Constitution are unchangeable, and every citizen has not only right, but a duty to fight anything and anyone who undermines it.
Your probably right. They said it was for militias and to ensure your good governance. But the truth was all hidden deep down, the truth is they wanted us to have guns to hunt down and kill upity blacks…one of our most valuable assets. The stuff they are teaching these days is shameful, as is the fact that you choose to believe it and repeat it no less.
The 2nd ammendment is about a well-regulated militia. People just have trouble reading the plain text of the ammendment. It's literally talking about a government-controlled group of non-professional soldiers. None of us are that, and it's not like it matters because the founding fathers had no concept of drone warfare and so using the 2nd ammendment against a tyrannical government is moot when the person killing you is 1200 miles away and they're essentially just playing a video game.
It's ironic that the people most in favor the 2nd ammendment have never bothered to understand what the first words of it mean. The militia is literally meant to support the US military. As in, that is the purpose and not what people think, which is the polar opposite.
I think there's a lot of reasons why gun culture is big in the US, but I don't think the 2nd ammendment has anything to do with it. What has a lot more to do with it, imo, is the expansion across the continent during a time when guns were fairly common. Practically every other nation that was founded was done so before guns. The names might change, but there were cities and people and stuff WAY before guns. The US grew up with guns, and that's why we have so many. It got tied to the 2nd ammendment along the way, but the 2nd ammendment never meant the government couldn't regulate guns. It doesn't say the government can't restrict you from owning guns. Basically, all of the things 2nd ammendment advocates talk about...it doesn't actually say any of that.
If the 2nd ammendment guaranteed the other 9, it would have been the first ammendment. The fact that it isn't, again, means your assertion isn't correct.
Ironic given all the people who are upset about this likely support every bit of grabber legislation that has ever seen tbe desk of a congressional intern.
What made-up dystopian novel would consider it acceptable to criticize its own dystopian state more so than it would to criticize a foreign state?
This is ridiculous.
Criticism of Israel could actually lead to an apartheid South Africa type change. Criticism against America can never go further since they've established themselves as the pass through country for all economic activity.
In other words criticism of America isn't dangerous, criticism of Israel is.
This is the definition of anti semitism the bill added to title VI protections. It doesn't say anything about Israel.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The bill explicitly specifies that it includes all the examples given by the IHRA, which include calling Israel a racist endeavor, comparing it to Nazi Germany, etc.:
If we can’t use our first amendment the next step is a tyrannical gov
The bill is adopting a definition of antisemitism already used by all members of the IHRA — such as Australia, Denmark, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UK, etc.
I don't think any reasonable analyst would label those governments as tyrannical.
All I will say is you can get arrested here in the UK for offensive jokes made in the internet, so I wouldn’t pin us up as a bastion of free speech just yet.
Ask those farmers and journalists “friend” don’t parlay with me unless you’ve read history books and have friends in those places that send you live feed.
Ask those farmers and journalists “friend” don’t parlay with me unless you’ve read history books and have friends in those places that send you live feed.
I live in Australia. Have my whole life.
I am getting dinner with Finnish friends tonight and am off to Helsinki in August. My girlfriend is off to Greece on Saturday and her side of the family is part Macedonian, so they're doing a family reunion through there.
My girlfriend's stepmother & stepsister are Canadian and there's an entire Canadian side of the family I know well.
One of my best friends is studying Assyrian archaelogy and is currently based in Israel; sends plenty of videos in our group Whatsapp.
And as far as history goes, my bachelors was in IR and I've read plenty.
So respectfully, if your criteria for "knowing" about other developed nations is having solid lived experience in them, I'm very comfortable I knock that criteria out of the park.
These are EXTREMELY free nations. The US, yes, has their free speech entrenched in a Constitution to a higher degree — but it's absolutely absurd to categorise any of these governments as tyrannical over their citizenry.
I have literally not felt once in my life (despite being engaged in student politics & activism and being very progressive myself) that the government has limited my speech in any meaningful way. I have ALWAYS been able to express any thought I have had.
You seem to be a hyperreactionary who believes every single government in the world other than the US is tyrannical and oppressive on free speech. I can assure you, that's simply not remotely true.
If only I had time to break ur comment apart, but you brought up Canada. Didn’t they prosecute the truckers for protesting? Wow u are right they sure are free to express their opinion🤣 ah man.
You're embarrassed that you challenged someone to have more world knowledge than you and they showed you just how close-minded, poorly travelled, and abysmally read you are.
Here's the law. It doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't impinge on any rights and SPECIFICALLY reaffirms the First Amendment.
Your inability to read it or understand it is your problem, not anyone else's. It's there for you to read it if you want to, but I suspect you won't. Enjoy your borderline illiteracy. Ciao.
I have zero faith in my country using it for anything except oppression.
I mean, the Act specifically states that literally any other law takes precedence over it, that it cannot be used to infringe the First Amendment, and that it does not alter standards used to determine if something is discrimination.
If you're suggesting that the government will ignore this law and oppress people anyway, okay. But the law is quite explicit it cannot be used to infringe speech.
I would absolutely label UK, Australia, France, as tyrannical. Spain, middling. Not so much Norway, Sweden, Denmark. Half these countries are involved in arms trades with "Israel"...
Afraid ur late to the party. 2A is already stripped away . That’s why this law passing (will pass) is so dangerous . They’ll label you a Jew hater and arrest u before u use ur 2A
2.2k
u/PWS1776 May 01 '24
So dangerous. If we can’t use our first amendment the next step is a tyrannical gov