National Archives slaps 'harmful content' warning on Constitution

Why yall lie so damned much?

originally posted by: DAVID64

You know when you see something so stupid you have no words and just stand there and go "WTF ? " .....this is one of those moments.

Can we just fire these F'ers?

Was that too graphic?

originally posted by: jimmyx
Geez, millions of documents they referred to, but of course the right-wing knuckle-draggers thinks it’s only referring to the founding documents

This is the only level that you can talk to righties…use simple one-liners that will reflect how they feel, regardless if it is true or complete.

You have four lines...

Its THE document, not a document. See the difference. Plus who is the team checking every document and making some judgement call, and more importantly who the HELL would be offended or threaten by it.

Oh no...I need my safe room because I read the Constitution, thank God for the harsh language disclaimers...lol

Just totally stupid over all...

What I imagine leftists are doing when they read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights

I wish someone could explain why TF everything in this country needs to be babyproofed. Who needs these "warnings"? The materials in the archives weren't written with the consideration of what type of delicate snowflake would be reading them. I'm sure the authors assumed it would be mature rational people. If they "offend" someone's sensibilities, that's on them and nobody else. It's no one's job to accommodate them and we shouldn't try, they need to grow up.

a reply to: Metallicus

Yep nazi burned books, here in the US is stamps of warning, history is becoming damaging and unhealthy to human health.

Keep the generations dump and stupid, marxism and socialism needs to be enforced, no need for history.

a reply to: jimmyx

The constitution of the US of America should never be align with any other dump document around, because on itself is the base of what our nation was founded on.

Is history, is rights, is one and only.

Liberals, marxist and socialist hate it and anybody that hates America. that means democrats politicians and others

originally posted by: jimmyx
Geez, millions of documents they referred to, but of course the right-wing knuckle-draggers thinks it’s only referring to the founding documents

This is the only level that you can talk to righties…use simple one-liners that will reflect how they feel, regardless if it is true or complete.

Well why don't they simply clarify ???? 😃

So, politely let them know how you feel about it!!!!

I did.

Because this is just shameful.
GD Snowflakes. I've had enough of bowing to their "delicate sensitivities"

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Metallicus

Maybe a qualified cadre of patriots should take those documents and hide them somewhere very safe. To me this move means they're in danger of destruction.

Why?

They're there online, in full. They're in most government school books, they're literally all over America. The archives have high resolution scans and the originals and original copies are well preserved in many archives all over the US.

If you actually look at the information, it says that this label is a general one that applies to the archives -- there's stuff in there that's offensive to some. It doesn't say (as the clickbait headline wants you to believe) that the founding documents are offensive and should be censored.

Yes, it’s a warning for the entire catalog but it shouldn’t be on the same page or associated with The Constitution, DOI or the BOR. People are to stupid nowadays to understand or pay attention to the actual context of the warning, sad but true. This is still a huge fail on the part of the National Archives.

Ever notice most of these people are over 70?

They don't have a lot of time left. Gotta get rid of those checks and balances, or they'll die before their life long utopian dream is complete!!!


You can racistify any document into unpopularity so long as at least one passage is now, or was at one time, racist. Or racistify any candidate out of office if they ever once said something that can be spun into being possibly racist.

(But selectively, mind you. Joe Biden wasn't really afraid his children would grow up "in a jungle" if the schools were integrated. )

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Metallicus

Maybe a qualified cadre of patriots should take those documents and hide them somewhere very safe. To me this move means they're in danger of destruction.

Why?

They're there online, in full. They're in most government school books, they're literally all over America. The archives have high resolution scans and the originals and original copies are well preserved in many archives all over the US.

If you actually look at the information, it says that this label is a general one that applies to the archives -- there's stuff in there that's offensive to some. It doesn't say (as the clickbait headline wants you to believe) that the founding documents are offensive and should be censored.

But you can spam those out of existence by posting so many altered fakes that people begin to question whether the scans are genuine.

So long as the original copy exists, intact, it can always be proven.

People involved in NWO stuff are constantly being recorded saying that "history will be on our side" and elsewhere saying "history is told by the victors". I think they really believe that if they reduce their country to totalitarianism, the next generation won't know there was ever anything better.

a reply to: Metallicus

How can you be 'warrior' and find something this mild to be 'disgusting'? Isn't war and murder much more disgusting?

In any case, we have to remember that even the much-respected constitution is just a paper, a contract, a declaration, words on ink, etc.

Its purpose was not to give us anything, its purpose was to limit the powers of government and corporations so they can't enslave people. I know that this could be called 'liberty', and thus considered it 'giving the people something', but I mean people don't get rights or anything similar from a paper, ink, words, etc. regardless of who creates or writes them.

We already HAVE those rights the constitution and bill of rights and other papers are written to respect.

These papers, these words exist in relation to limiting the powers of government-like artificial entities, not to give people something specific.

It doesn't matter what they do to this kind of papers in relation to what the people have - the people still have the same rights, and would, even if nothing had been written about them. Even after all constitutions are destroyed, every human being still has unalienable human rights.

If governments, people in power and corporations do not want to respect human rights, if they are hell-bent in not only breaking them, but creating a situation, world and reality where they can do so without problems or very small problems, a paper, poem, writing, bunch of words or blotches of ink are not going to protect people anyway.

The constitution is not the saviour that stands between people's rights and liberty, freedom and happiness and corporate-governmental, military-industrial-complexial tyranny. People will have to claim their rights and use them, regardless of what stands in some paper or declaration, people will have to stand up and not let governments and corporations walk all over them - constitution or no constitution, people have rights and their ACTIONS will determine for how long they can have the freedom to use them.

The constitution is proof of what the peoples' intention was: to have freedoms.

In their day, things corporate enslavement were possibilities that hadn't been imagined, and which they had never faced, and therefore knew nothing about. It's only natural they didn't think to put protections for that in there.


What they faced was political nepotism. The extreme kind, where your pedigree determined your whole value. If you weren't noble you were a peasant the nobles could toy with.


For you, perhaps that is the unimagined and unimaginable evil. Yet the political allies of the president of our own country launched a full on impeachment attempt in order to block an investigation into the corrupt financial dealings of the president's son.

In Communist nations, political connections determined who went to the gulags and who ate nice food and got driven around by a chauffer. How well do you think Xi Jinping lives? How badly do you think some people in his country have it? (Hint: there are clinics in China that can guarantee an organ match to nearly 100%)

originally posted by: Shoujikina


The constitution is not the saviour that stands between people's rights and liberty, freedom and happiness and corporate-governmental, military-industrial-complexial tyranny. People will have to claim their rights and use them, regardless of what stands in some paper or declaration, people will have to stand up and not let governments and corporations walk all over them - constitution or no constitution, people have rights and their ACTIONS will determine for how long they can have the freedom to use them.

A thing shouldn't have to protect you from every possible evil in order to be considered a useful protection.

A bullet proof vest won't protect you from a flame thrower. A seat belt won't prevent you from getting Covid.