One had ideas that revolutionized the world to make the world a better place. The other was Karl Marx, a worthless loser.

You're making globalism sound pretty based, ngl.

One of the better methods of limiting government corruption is when there are more governments governing smaller groups of people. That's one of the reasons why states rights was such an important issue to the founding fathers.

The worst imaginal situation is a single global government. If that government becomes corrupt then there is nowhere people can go to escape.

It's like how people are fleeing California right now. That government is evil but because they are local people can leave.

So yeah, I think globalism is infinitely worse than nationalism. All governments either start off or turn corrupt. It's inevitable. Governments, all governments, are only good at 3 things, killing, stealing and enslaving. They completely suck at everything else.

I am not an anarchist, I am a supporter of a very small and very limited government. The US Constitution put a lot of really good constraints on our government but it wasn't strict enough because politicians just keep stomping on the constitution and getting away with it. There needs to be severe punishments for politicians who violate the constitution.

Bruh you should really look into the School of the Americas and the history of US intervention in the global south. America is already the big evil world government you're so afraid of, you're just not its target.

Governments, all governments, are corrupt. It's an idealogy I am defending. So if our government is doing corrupt stuff then I am not shocked at all.

If we can put enough decent and honest people in government to over rule the corruption then maybe whatever you're complaining about will end. The problem is that there are Democrats in our government and every single one of them is corrupt. So are most of the Republicans but there are a few good ones.

Until the Republicans stop their actual genocide against LGBTQ people, I will never take anyone with that sentiment seriously.

That is utter BS. There is no genocide from Republicans against anyone. Stop being ridiculous.

None at all?

NONE!!!! Republicans don't commit genocide.

https://twitter.com/NickKnudsenUS/status/1547259907275075584?t=U94l4qtc5Nm4VaauPuclRw&s=19

I think you might have been one of the Germans who said "the nazis aren't evil, they only want to help." Of course, that's a dumb thing to say, with anyone - left or right - the test is that we both agree that it's evil.

On the subject of evil, I take issue with social connections who start using religion as a means by which to define evil. Just ask the women of Salem about the evidence of the charges levied against them. Or, more recently, LGBTQ who in the past ten years have been referred to as abominations.

I digress, to have your mind concluded keeps you under the thumb of willful ignorance.

Watch the video. 3 minutes

"So, can you tell me who rewrote the history of the Nazi party and why?

Why would Socialist Democrats lie about being imprisoned in internment camps? Why would they put badges on their clothes? Why would they cast themselves to the fire? Why would Nazis represent themselves as socialists for the working class, then pander to the rich and elite?"

What are you talking about? Those events haven't written out of history. Besides, I was talking about US history, specifically about the founding of this nation.

"It seems we don't have a socialist problem, but with big companies wanting to have all the money; a greed problem. Seems like every time the working class gets organized, big companies move in to take control."

This is partly true. It's not socialism, it's fascism. It's the world's top 10 international lending firms, it's the big tech corporations. It's the corporations who are enforcing ESG standards on themselves and every business that does business with them. Those businesses are working with the WEF, the Democrats, and all other governments around the world who are supporting "Build Back Better". Those are the corporations who are driven by power and control.

Any business not involved with any of that are driven by whatever caused them to create their business. For some it's greed, for some it's never wanting live in poverty again, for some it's because they had an idea to make a product to fill a need, for others it's to build a better product. And there are plenty who just want to put food on the table for their families.

To write it all off as greed is very short sighted

"Seems to me that what you're trying to say is that by rewriting history, the working class..."

Don't put words in my mouth. I am part of the working class. What is in my best interest is freedom, not government programs. The government is in NOBODY'S best interest. Governments, all governments, are only good at 3 things, killing, stealing and enslaving.

"So, you're making an appeal to extreme conservatism"

What is extreme conservatism? I've of the extreme right. The left has been beating the drum for decades that the extreme right is fascist or Nazi. That is absurd. Fascism and Nazism are variations of socialism. They are part of the extreme left. There is no room between socialism and communism, on the left, and fascism and Nazism, on the right, for freedom. That scale has been a lie ever since it was fabricated back in the 1930's or 40's.

What is accurate is socialism and all its variants are on the extreme left and anarchy is on the extreme right. Total government control on the extreme left and no government at all on the extreme right.

"there is a standing argument in the political climate on the question of what weapons civilians should be allowed to use? Some argue that the founding fathers knew of the dangers that lie ahead. If that were true, they would've written more explicit laws against things they would've executed you for today."

Those people who try to rationalize a new meaning to the 2nd amendment are just full of crap. The founders were very clear. It had absolutely nothing to do with the type of weapon.

The much bigger issue about the 2nd amendment is the right of self-defense. The right of self-defense predates the 2nd amendment. Self defense does not care what kind of weapon you own. It is whatever weapon that you feel would better preserve your life and the life of your loved ones. There is no equivocation on some weapons being too dangerous. There were fully automatic firearms available at the founding of this nation. Look it up. George Washington wanted to arm Americans with a fully automatic rifle but they cost too much, so we had to use muskets.

Here is what the 2nd amendment is about. First the founders did not believe in a standing army, like we have today. I am okay with what we have today because war technology is far beyond the understand and affordability of the average US citizen.

The founders believed that the people should form militias to protect their country, their state, their county, their city, their neighborhood, their whatever. That is what the mention of militias are. Our current military did not replace the militia, it is an aside to the right to form a militia because militias are the right of the people.

The 2nd part is the right of the people to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

">> Here, we're looking at Christofascists."

That would be Liberation Theology, and more recently Black Liberation Theology. But those corruptions of Christianity were based on communism. Liberation Theology is what Che Guevara was a part of. It is a movement within the Catholic Church that originated in South America. Some Catholics are saying that Pope Francis is from this movement.

Regardless, socialism and communism are fascism's retarded brother and they both take after father Karl Marx. Black Liberation Theology moved out of Catholicism and into predominately black churches.

Aside from that there is no such thing as "Christofascists". I suppose seeing how Catholicism is/was the predominate religion in Italy when Mussolini was in power then his Christian supporters could be called "Christofascists".

The left is far too obsessed with fascism these days. The like to label anything they disagree with as fascism. No conservative is a fascist. Republicans, maybe, but modern conservative are the antithesis of fascism.

"Also, you're starting to conflate the Republican Party with the Conservative movement to self-identified Conservatives."

No. The Republican voters are mostly conservative but the Republican politicians, in the Federal Government, are mostly liberals, so much so that the acronym, "RINO" no longer applies. "CINO" is more appropriate but that doesn't sound as good as "RINO".

"the guy says that GOD gave them LEGAL power to exert their belief over others - here's the quote:

"whereas: we have been given legal power from heaven and now exercise our authority."

I cannot speak for those people but I think I understand what they mean. I may be wrong but considering that Christians believe that this nation was founded by God. And the 2nd amendment was written for the purpose of private citizens to defend their freedom and their lives from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And we are under assault by fascists, if you combine all of those elements then, yes, we all have been given legal power, by God, to "exercise our authority" over the government. NO ONE has the right to exercise authority over the individual unless that individual is involved in a crime.

If those guys are planning on exercising any authority over any private citizen then I am standing with you against them. Knocking the government upside the head is something we all need to do. They're completely out of control.

There we go again with the communism buzzword. Jeeze man.

"not christofascists."
Christ/o root word for Christians in context of this conversation.
Fascist: authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race.

All of these are check-marked in the video. Deny all you want, that's what they are.

"I cannot speak for..." This is some beautiful reaching and I was hoping we'd go here to discuss this.

With you saying the Founding Fathers were Christians and had intended for the country to be a certain way, you're pretending to know what their vision was. Let me tell you, this country would not reflect what they would deem socially appropriate - even by the Christians of today. So, you're making an appeal to extreme conservatism here without actually wanting to put on the quaker hat. While, in another argument regarding the second amendment, there is a standing argument in the political climate on the question of what weapons civilians should be allowed to use? Some argue that the founding fathers knew of the dangers that lie ahead. If that were true, they would've written more explicit laws against things they would've executed you for today.

So, I'm not buying the appeal to the founding father's bit. It's an appeal to authority that can't be quantified as they dead don't speak. I will concede that you should most certainly pay attention to history and understand parallels from the past as it applies to the present, but you should also be mindful of your own context as well.

"Republicans, maybe, but modern conservative are the antithesis of fascism." Again, you're still trying to use your definition as it applies to political commentary, not the ideology of conservatism itself. You're talking about the people, not the ideology.

"NO ONE has the right to exercise authority over the individual unless that individual is involved in a crime." And yet, it's starting to be illegal in some states to talk about homosexuality in schools. For instance, a child explains in class that they have parents of same gender. This is not illegal, but in the Don't Say Gay Bill (which I read) a teacher is not permitted to discuss the topic. Unless it is "age-appropriate" which is legalese for "It's appropriate when we say it is."

"These are people who feel their existence is threatened."

Our nation is under a very real threat right now. We are being lead into fascism by the people who control Joe Biden. His campaign slogan, "Build Back Better", is not something his campaign thought up. They borrowed it from the World Economic Forum. It is their slogan for the great reset which is the idea of collapsing all of the worlds economies, destroying capitalism and starting a global 21st century fascists regime.

That is not conspiracy theory. That is right on the WEF's website. They want to take away private ownership. Private property ownership is freedom, without it we cannot ever be free. Biden is fully committed to the great reset.

That part is real. I don't know of those in the video know about the WEF and the great reset but conservatives have been very concerned about how socialistic the Democrat party has become over the years. And as it turns out they are now fascistic, not socialistic.

"These are people who want to join church and state."

I cannot speak for those people because I know nothing about them. However, if that is your opinion of Christians then you need to understand that our founding fathers were all devout Christians. More so than most Christians today. And they did not join church and state. In fact they gave us the freest nation to have ever existed. Why? Because if you truly understand the message of Jesus Christ then you know that His Gospel cannot work unless mankind is free. The Gospel is not about forcing or coercing people into Heaven, it is all about individual choice. We choose to follow Jesus, He does not force us. We have no right to try to force others to follow Jesus. We have a responsibility to let people know about the Gospel but it is entirely up to that person if they want to live that kind of life or not.

BTW the phrase, "separation of church and state", has been so grossly distorted from what Jefferson meant when he wrote a letter containing that phrase to a group of Baptists in Connecticut. Jefferson NEVER meant that the church was excluded from the state. Churches are the people. The state is the government. The wall was to keep the government from imposing their will on the people, the churches, the business owner, farmers, etc.

To be continued.

"These are people who think that they are carrying out God's will - that they are his messengers. They go on to talk about how they will shape the US as God would see fit."

Most Christians believe that this nation was founded by God, and I am one of them. We believe the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were both inspired by God.

So let me explain. Prosperity will not happen without 2 absolutely critical factors; morality (self governance) and individual liberty. If you take one out of the equation there is no prosperity. And by prosperity I mean as a society as a whole and at the individual level as well.

Our founding fathers were all very well read and brilliant men. They studied all of the worlds system of governments that existed back then. They studied all of the worlds religions. What they deduced was that the morals taught by Jesus Christ were superior for insuring that prosperity. That is not an insult to all other religions and you may disagree with the founding fathers. They had a lot of disagreement within themselves but there were a lot that they did agree on and this is one of them.

This is why this nation, despite what it says in the Treaty of Tripoli, was founded as a Christian nation. But like I said in my previous post, what Jesus taught in the Bible does not work unless mankind is free to choose to follow Jesus. Force and coercion does not work, even though there have been a lot of Christians who have used both. It does not work because in order for you to enter Heaven it absolutely must be because of your choices and not someone else's.

That being the case, the first clause in the first amendment is specifically about freedom of religion, even if your "religion" is atheism. And with that freedom of religion it means that religious people can serve in the government. It means that the government has no right to exclude anyone based on religion, just like it has no right to exclude based on race.

It is a bit of a dichotomy because, while this is (or was) a Christian nation, it is also a secular nation. You are free to never step foot in a church your entire life. You can worship the flying spaghetti monster and sing hymns to Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin all you want. You just have to know that our legal system is based on the Law of Moses and druid law. And our morals and ethics come from Jesus Christ.

"Most Christians believe... nation inspired by god."
And you're fully welcome to believe that, but by my oath as an American Citizen, do not expect others to take it as fact. The First Amendment states that one cannot make a law regarding the establishment of religion. Having mandatory prayer to the Christian God would violate this unless all religions were respected. If the state pays for teachers to lead in prayer, they must be paid to lead all in prayer, not just one group. Otherwise, that's discrimination and a violation of the first amendment.

"So let me explain." You're free to practice your religion. Do as you wish, just understand that yours is an invasive one. It is aggressive in its practices in conversion by the very text in the bible in Matthew 24:14. So if one were so desired to be with their creator, they would push the word of god in a fervor that one starts to wonder how much self-fulfilling prophecies play a part in our society.

"Our founding fathers..." Were also just people. I doubt they would know that technology would be able to arm a single individual the the ability to kill two hundred men in less than five minutes with a hand-held weapon. It's not a gatling cannon or repeating howitzer, it's a rifle. Or SMG or w/e your flavor is. I already said the appeal to the founding fathers is logically flawed from the outset as they aren't here to agree with your assessment on their positions regarding various topics - or anyone else for that matter.

"It's a bit of a dichotomy because..." of nothing. Morality does not require an instruction manual. I don't need to read the bible to know that murder causes suffering or stealing causes grief. If you need an instruction manual you're probably either registering on the ASD spectrum or a sociopath (lacking empathy). I don't reference the spectrum lightly, either.

But since you want to get into the discussion of religion and what you perceive mine to be, I find commonality in the creed of the Unitarian Universalists.

Did you actually listen to what they were saying? It really wasn't much different then how our founding fathers talked. The only difference is that this was a church or some religious group and the founders talked about God just a little bit less than they did.

Did you hear that they want to preserve our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? You just listened to the tone and I would agree the tone was a little upsetting but the message was not. I stopped it because of the tone of the guys voice, I didn't finish it but I think I got the jest of where he was going.

How does this video prove your that conservatives kill people. All I have to do is point you to nearly every school or other mass shooting. Or point you to Antifa and BLM. Or how about the Weather Underground. Or Roe v Wade. Or the Black Panthers. Or the KKK. Or all of the blacks who have been lynched in this country. Or Manifest Destiny which decimated the native Americans. That, and so much more, all came from the Democrats and the left.

Conservatives do not have that history. We don't commit genocide or mass shootings.

"I think you might have been one of the Germans who said 'the nazis aren't evil, they only want to help.'"

So might you have been if you lived in Hitler's Germany. What's your point? In fact it is far more likely that it would be you more than me seeing that the Nazi Party platform is nearly identical to the Democrat Party platform. Go find it online and read it.

"On the subject of evil, I take issue with social connections who start using religion as a means by which to define evil."

Do you realize what you are saying? If evil is not defined by God then there is no standard definition of evil. The very definition of what is and is not evil is defined in the Bible. You can take issue with it all you want, but to do so is just illogical.

"Or, more recently, LGBTQ who in the past ten years have been referred to as abominations."

Recently??? The Bible called homosexual activity a sin millennias ago. The Bible also says that we all have sinned and, therefore, we have no right to judge anyone else for being sinful. The Bible also says the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. There are no conditions about who your neighbor is or what they do.

"I digress, to have your mind concluded keeps you under the thumb of willful ignorance."

I agree. But be careful of who you are calling closed minded because it just might be you.

Going to be replying in parts....

"Did you actually listen to what they were saying? ... The only difference is ... Did you hear that they want to preserve our ... You just listened to the tone and I would agree ..."

I listened to the whole thing. I had to. I was morally obligated to. If I was going to bring them up, I needed to be sure I heard the entire message. The difference that you mention is lacking large amounts of context. While I haven't seen this group's interactions individually, as you said, the tone is recognizable. Given the message, the tone matched what I was picking up on. These are people who feel their existence is threatened. These are people who want to join church and state. These are people who think that they are carrying out God's will - that they are his messengers - they even said, ambassadors.
They go on to talk about how they will shape the US as God would see fit.

That is not what the founders intended for us. Whose values are they seeking to preserve? Not mine. Not anyone I know. This seems to me, to be another practice in the barnum effect bias. The guy talks about anti-wokism (like, really? The quintessential wokester crosses the aisle to listen to what the opposition has to say so that they can walk in their shoes and understand their perspective - which is why I'm here talking speaking with you - tenuous as it is.

How does this video prove your that conservatives kill people.
>> This video and this topic that I am replying to has nothing to do with my topic regarding fundamental conservatives. That's a completely different discussion. Here, we're looking at Christofascists. Also, you're starting to conflate the Republican Party with the Conservative movement to self-identified Conservatives. That, or you failed at pulling a Bugs Bunny.

As for the rest? Republicans with their genocide of LGBTQ? For one, it's in the video. I mean for f**ks sake, the guy says that GOD gave them LEGAL power to exert their belief over others - here's the quote:

"whereas: we have been given legal power from heaven and now exercise our authority."
(You cannot challenge the will of God, his word will become law - constitution be damned.)

"Whereas: we are God's ambassadors and spokespeople OVER the earth."
(We are the voice of God's Will.)

"Whereas: through the power of God, we are the world influencers."
(People will listen to us and we will mold the world to our image.)

"Whereas: because of our covenant with God, we are equipped and delegated by him to destroy every attempted advance of the enemy."
(Due to our conviction and promise to God, we are prepared and given holy duty to carry out his will by force and will destroy anyone who seeks to stop us.) (Notice the ambiguous term "enemy." I've seen it happen, the name of the enemy changes on the day. Kinda like how fortune cookies work. So the adage goes "Satan wears many masks."
"We make our declarations:....

1) We decree that America's Executive branch of government will honor God and defend the constitution."
(The phrase "In God we Trust." Wasn't adopted til the mid 1900s. This was supposed to be a nation that kept religion and government separate. If not, at least religiously diverse. Can you imagine the uproar if we had a Muslim President?)

2) We decree that our legislative branch (congress) will write *only laws that are righteous *and constitutional.
(There's some slip room for what righteous means, but do you think what is righteous for them will be righteous for someone else and vice versa? So, this is actually a decree to say "F**k the first amendment." Certainly leaves that door open.)

[Okay this one just confirmed the last one through verbiage alone.]
3) We decree that our judicial system will issue rulings that are biblical and constitutional.
(So, it must be of the Christian bible operative word: AND constitutional.)

So, by that alone - if Homosexuality is an abomination. If you are transgender or transexual, you will potentially be submitted to torture and inhumane practices like... Conversion therapy. *shudders*.

BLM? Antifa? *sigh* Do we really have to go down that rabbit hole? That's been acknowledged as an issue, sure but again, missing context and relevant facts.

No, Nazis weren't left wing my man. Sorry. Anyone who was left wing was put into concentration camps. Including LGBTQ

"The Bible also says that we all have sinned and, therefore, we have no right to judge anyone else for being sinful. The Bible also says the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. There are no conditions about who your neighbor is or what they do."

Sure, but that's not happening here. Nor is that how Right Wing legislation is being conducted.

"Do you realize what you are saying? If evil is not defined by God then there is no standard definition of evil. The very definition of what is and is not evil is defined in the Bible. You can take issue with it all you want, but to do so is just illogical."

Do you need a bible to tell you that stealing, murder, cheating, and lying* is bad? Morality is derived from empathy and intellect. Not an invisible man in the sky who speaks to you through confirmation bias and barnum effect ad nauseam.

"There we go again with the communism buzzword. Jeeze man."

Communism is quantifiable. One form of communism existed before Marx but that is not the communism, it is not Marx's communism, that is found in the policies of the Democrat party. You can read Marx and see policies that have been promoted by the Democrats. This is not just some insult that we are hurling at the left. It is looking at what the Democrats are pushing and recognizing these principles in Karl Marx's writings.

"Fascist: authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race."

First let me address "ultranationalist". In the past 5 or 10 years or so, I have watched the left explode with this contempt of nationalism. Nationalism is NOT the problem. Hitler was a National Socialist but it was socialism that gave him his power, not nationalism. Stalin called himself an international socialist. The opposite of nationalism is internationalism or globalism. If you want to push a global one world government, then first you have to make nationalism or patriotism evil. The left is being played with misdirection.

People shouldn't use those political/economic systems that have a clear definition and add their own definitions to it to label people they disagree with. Conservatism is NOT fascism. Christianity is NOT fascism.

Too many people in this country want to brand all conservatives and all Christians by these bad people. Bad people exist in ALL groups of people. Narcissists are lead to positions of power like moths to a flame. They crave that attention and power.

"With you saying the Founding Fathers were Christians and had intended for the country to be a certain way, you're pretending to know what their vision was."

Who's pretending. They were prolific in their writings. The problem is modern historians ignore what they wrote so you won't even know what they said in any history or political science class today.

"Let me tell you, this country would not reflect what they would deem socially appropriate - even by the Christians of today"

Unfortunately true. This country is losing the morality that once permeated the nation. We're losing our freedom. And because that we losing our prosperity.

(page 3 of 2)
Addendum: Even though Trump plays the role of the populist, he runs his administration and policies like an oligarchy - so far as it lines his pockets/support/power.

"Hitler was a National Socialist."

Look man, you seem like you could be a real fun guy to talk to - if you knew what you were talking about.

People complain about labels often, and it is a fair complaint - which is the whole point of this meme in the first place. To separate the conservative movement from being a conservative as an individual - two very separate things.

But, I can't continue to discuss topics with you, if you keep on repeating falsehoods that have been verified for years.

I will say this one last time:

Hitler was not a National Socialist. Rather, he was not what the party had desired to be. He was antithetical to it.

Kinda like how Trump say's he's a Republican, but he's really a contemporary right-wing populist. Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

"To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the teetering democratic structures of the Weimar government to attain his goals.

Over the following years the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the party by tying Hitler’s racist nationalism to socialist rhetoric that appealed to the suffering lower middle classes. In doing so, the Strassers also succeeded in expanding the Nazi reach beyond its traditional Bavarian base. By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the left wing of the Nazi Party, but the lot for the ideological soul of the party had been cast.

(Page 1 of 2)

(Page 2 of 2) [I think this is an important topic we can nail down and correct so I will focus on this.]

"(continued from last) Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished."

So, this is to say that the National Socialist movement was fueled and given traction by Hitler *is* technically true. However, it is missing large amounts of context as his views were of the extreme right wing. So much so, that the person who led the original left-wing side of the movement had been murdered under Hitler's orders.

This lie that Hitler was left-wing needs to end. You could say Hitler was "Nino" (Nazi in Name Only) as was the rest of the Third Reich.

"Look man, you seem like you could be a real fun guy to talk to - if you knew what you were talking about"

Go and do your own research. Go to the original sources and don't pay any attention to modern historians. Modern historians have altered, fabricated and just plain lied about our history and it's despicable. That's why I say go to the sources. Find books that where either written by our founders or books that heavily quote the founders. Make sure there are references in the back of where those quotes are found. If possible find those sources and read the quotes in context.

I would never call myself a historian but I have read a lot.

If I got anything wrong, I'll apologize for it. Just do your own research. You'll be shocked at all the crap you have been told when you read the actual words of our founders.

I am not wrong, I just don't listen to the modern historians. They get things wrong all the time.

Did you know there is no historical evidence anywhere that Benjamin Franklin cheated on his wife and fathered a child out of wedlock. Some "historian" found the slander that one of Franklin's political opponent said about Franklin and printed it as the truth.

Did you know that because Thomas Jefferson only had daughters that there is no DNA evidence that he fathered a child with Sally Hemmings? They used the DNA of the descendants of Jefferson's uncle. There is Jefferson DNA in Hemmings descendants but there's no way to prove it is from Thomas Jefferson. There were 25 male Jeffersons living in the area. It could be any one of them. It doesn't rule Thomas out but he only has a 1/25 chance of being the father.

Also did you know that both Washington and Jefferson became opposed to slavery but were prevented by Virginia state law from freeing their slaves. Jefferson served as a state legislator and tried unsuccessfully to overturn that law several times.

There's a whole world of truth out there that has been hidden from the public since the Progressive Era.

"Do your own research."

So, can you tell me who rewrote the history of the Nazi party and why?

Why would Socialist Democrats lie about being imprisoned in internment camps? Why would they put badges on their clothes? Why would they cast themselves to the fire? Why would Nazis represent themselves as socialists for the working class, then pander to the rich and elite?

It seems we don't have a socialist problem, but with big companies wanting to have all the money; a greed problem. Seems like every time the working class gets organized, big companies move in to take control.

Seems to me that what you're trying to say is that by rewriting history, the working class repeatedly works against its own interests by looking out for itself as every time in history especially when paper trails are involved.

"And you're fully welcome to believe that, but by my oath as an American Citizen, do not expect others to take it as fact."

I don't expect many people to believe what I said. There has been a very successful revision of our history by the left. But when you go to the original sources, the writings of our founding fathers, and ignore the BS in our college history books you get a completely different story. So, you're right. I expect most everyone will believe the lies they are told because those lies are repeated over and over and over and they have been repeated for decades.

"The First Amendment states that one cannot make a law regarding the establishment of religion."

Did you know that there were about 4 or 5 states after the nation was formed that declared a state religion? I am not saying that I agree with it, but it is a fact of history and they were not in violation of the Constitution. Do you know why? Because the 14th amendment hadn't been ratified until years later. Prior to that the Bill of Rights only put limits on the Federal Government and not the states. But anyway, I digress.

The reason why the establishment clause was put in the Constitution is because in Europe people were forced to pay taxes to support a religion they didn't belong to. The founders were all read up on Adam Smith's "Wealth of a Nation" book. Smith wrote that the government can only take from the people if they give an equal or greater service back to the people they took the money from. Man, I sure wish just 1 politician today understood and would act on that principle.

We aren't forced to pay taxes to support some other religion, instead we are forced to pay taxes to support millions of things that we do not support. My tax dollars are supporting Planned Parenthood. Thomas Jefferson called kind of taxation "sinful and abhorrent".

That is why we do not have a state religion. The left does not understand the reason, they take the word "establish" and run with it. Establish does not mean endorse. You are NOT establishing a religion by having prayer in schools. As long as students opt out then I have no problem with prayer in school. We all had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, so what's the big deal with prayers? And the Pledge was written by a socialist who wants students to swear fealty to a flag. What is up with that? What should happen is, every day, our politicians should swear fealty to the people and to the Constitution.

Red-herring on the socialist with the pledge of a flag. That's another rabbit hole you want me to go down, and I refuse. I'm done doing rabbit holes with you. If you're asking questions regarding the pledge, you didn't understand the pledge. Which means you probably bore false witness.

Again, you're missing the point about established religion. I'll use your own logic with taxes.

I don't want to pay taxes for only Christian prayer to be held at schools. If sanctioned prayer will be held at schools it should be held for all religions and yes, even satanism. (At least, that's what a true first amendment enthusiast would want.)

It's fine if *you* don't want to pay taxes for Planned Parenthood. That's fine. Make all the laws you want. Problem is, states are voting to have them banned instead of defunded by state or federal funds. So, that argument doesn't really hold water in the realistic sense. Perhaps, this is what you want, but that's obviously not what the majority of the Christian right wants.

Should I also go on with your "wasn't ratified until the 14th amendment" rhetoric with abortion too? Because that wasn't made illegal until 1821; outlawed in Connecticut for ONLY post-quickening (when the fetus can be felt moving). This extremism with no abortions whatsoever is utter powerplay horseshit for males who don't understand the female body. I mean, if you're more restrictive than your great great great grandparents? Ya got some issues. I digress. Let's re-examine how you talk about religion and this 14th amendment ratification with this issue here. By your logic, abortion should be legal eh?

But, then again it still isn't about Planned Parenthood. It's about abortion as an all-encompassing notion. Even if abortions were paid for by private insurance and the co-payer, it'd still be illegal in some states today.

Sorry, I admit I am getting a little edgy because a lot of points your making have kind of a double standard feeling and I may be misunderstanding. I'm going to work on not being so toxic going forward. I just get this tickle at the back of my neck when I am referred to directly or indirectly as "sinner." It's kind of like moral segregation with the one who holds "The Book on Morality" as the judge jury and executioner when it comes to who's moral and who isn't. Pretty sure there's a passage in there somewhere about people casting stones..

Yes

Then ask. I will condescend from my high horse and pontificate an answer. 😂🤣😂

Ok. My question is:
Why does the universe exist?

42

while I do not agree with your political opinion I do respect it and appreciate the reference.

I am serious about my political opinions but all I really want to do is just have fun.

Ok, thanks.