Gromnir

if you ask 'bout mail-in voting, you will get a different answer, but again, the Congressional act which led to the current snafu were not a gop initiative per se. were bipartisan... overwhelming bipartisan. 2006 mail were complete different than today. were not that long ago, but the usps model has changed in a short period o' time. is complicated, but i-phones and the recession bolloxed the assumptions o' Congress when they passed the postal accountability act. first class mail were a big money maker for the post office in those salad days. regardless, this is one evil attributed to the gop which ain't fair. now mail-in voting is a different ball o' wax. curiously, mail-in has received big gop support in previous years, 'cause that is how old people vote. old people actual vote, unlike younger people who complain on the internet but are too busy to get off their arse in november. the gop has a big advantage with old people. the gop loves mail-in... unless there is a pandemic. 2020 is different and has gop inverting their previous position 'cause they are doing everything in their power to suppress voter turnout. with a pandemic widespread in the US more than almost any other western nation, and people reasonable reticent to stand in lines such as were the norm for the wisconsin primaries, the gop assumes many more people than is typical will attempt to vote by mail. is not difficult to see why gop, which benefits from low voter turnout, would sudden be against mail-in voting. HA! Good Fun!

the act passed 410-20 in the house and unanimous consent in senate. as attractive as it might be in these polarized times o' political strife to blame a party for mistakes in hindsight, this were a bipartisan blunder. HA! Good Fun!

timing and trump makes it difficult to ignore at least the possibility o' ulterior motives. for years trump railed against the post office and the sweetheart deal amazon were getting from the usps. has been explained to trump many times how the amazon deal, and similar such agreements with other merchants, benefits the post office, but bezos owns the washington post, so... now trump is railing 'bout mail-in voting at a time when his post master appears hell bent on crippling postal delivery service During a freaking pandemic? ... ordinarily, w/o serious evidence, we assume incompetence as 'posed to malice when tragedy strikes or misfortune occurs. where humans is part o' the equation, the perversity of the universe tends towards the maximum. however, trump is just so complete corrupt that after three years we has added an addendum to our previous presumptions-- if trump is involved, and a situation turns sour, we assume incompetence and malice. perhaps such ain't fair, but as we get deeper into the potus term, rejecting ill intent w/o compelling evidence is having the tendency appear a bit naive. HA! Good Fun!

the main reason we had issue with harris is 'cause she were adopting the same underhanded tactics as gabbard and trump. we were relieved when harris' efforts backfired. now she is biden's vp. HA! Good Fun! ps having spent considerable time in asia we had multiple opportunities to try rat meat, but we avoided for years. not sure why we were so reluctant as we have had squirrel stew many times and am suspecting "farm raised" rats is less unsavory than the long line o' dead squirrels we sent to the great beyond. eventually gave in and tried in thailand. tasted like pork, but it don't save well after cooking. am not sure what chemical reaction takes place with rat, but it becomes noticeable pungent after cooking, and not in a pleasant way.

also, 'cause am admitted enjoying another chance to beat up on the otherwise best forgotten tulsi gabbard thanks to a few folks knee-jerking predictable, when trump false recent and inaccurate accused harris o' calling biden a racist, he were not the first dingbat/wingnut to make such a claim. freaking peas in a pod. HA! Good Fun!

during the democrat candidate debates we expressed our dislike for harris, so won't repeat, but the tulsi bit ain't quite as damning as portrayed, particular given the folks who might give a damn. harris didn't hide evidence which would prevent a man from being on death row. anybody surprised that a skeevy, mendacious homophobe and religious bigot like tulsi gabbard would bend the truth? what harris did were debateable, but weren't as described. short description: a guy who were on death row before dna evidence came to light is still on death row after the evidence was tested. after conviction and sentencing o' a guy named cooper for a particular heinous quadruple-murder, dna evidence were "discovered." were not known if the dna would prove guilt or possible exonerate. after checking, the dna didn't exonerate. in 2016, the attorneys for the death row guy claimed their client would be exonerated if new items were tested. at the time, harris rejected an appeal for clemency based on lawyer's request for new dna testing. as the dna were untested when the appeal for clemency were made and there were no showing the new dna would be exculpatory, harris rejected the appeal until testing were complete. harris didn't hide evidence and she weren't forced by courts to go ahead with dna tests. this is all 'bout a 1985 case. the initial dna were discovered 2004. harris were ca ag from 2011-2017. what is wacky is even following governor gavin newsom stepping in at the 11th hour in 2019, the dna results still ain't public, but seeing as how mr. cooper is still in prison, am thinking this most recent hail mary didn't work out better than the previous deep throws for the endzone. btw, governor brown and schwarzenegger had also rejected clemency appeals by cooper. harris didn't block evidence which would free cooper. as the dna testing had not been completed when the clemency appeal came to harris, a grant o' clemency were deemed premature. there were accusation some o' the original evidence in the case were planted by cops, so perhaps harris shoulda' been more involved in making sure it didn't appear like the state were trying to cover up evidence. dunno. regardless, weren't hiding or blocking by harris. cooper keeps identifying new items which he believes will exonerate. every test thus far, including tests conducted in 2018, has failed to support his contention o' innocence. anybody watching fox where this bit o' misdirection might be getting replayed is gonna be unlikely to care 'bout a potential dangerous prosecutor... unless they is already diehard trump voters who are looking for another reason to hate democrats. after all, the narrative o' overzealous law enforcement is playing a bit different on fox. recall, christopher david is the villain at fox. we keep telling people to check sources. tulsi gabbard is not a strong source. HA! Good Fun! ps so is clear, we don't actual approve o' harris. if we had to choose a more moderate democrat ticket such as is biden/harris, we woulda' gone for booker/klobuchar instead. am genuine a bit uncomfortable defending harris, but the accusations regarding the blocking o' evidence is unfair regardless o' our dislike.

is no chance we take gd cynicism claims serious anytime soon particular in light o' his willingness to promote wacky conspiracies supported only by alt radio bluster and/or dubious internet articles. no selective cynicism recognized. HA! Good Fun!

am such a nerd HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

yeah actually. is a reason why florida is polling in favor o' biden at the moment. too many old people, including a few die hard trumpers, is angry with trump's response to the pandemic. with potential razor thin margins determining victory, trump needs solidify. the one thing we believe trump is correct 'bout is his rejection o' the calls for him to be more inclusive and empathetic. as a campaign strategy, that option is no longer viable. two years ago, or perhaps even in february o' this year, trump coulda' become a President for all americans instead o' trying to find a way to win an election with only his base. no longer. trump may need a miracle, but he knows the miracle ain't gonna come with kumbayas and group hugs. HA! Good Fun!

am not believing trump will win. however, this speech ain't designed to win him the election. no single act is likely to produce a trump victory. a campaign speech at gettysburg, on hallowed ground where fifty thousand american soldiers died, is an affront to the sacrifices o' men far better than trump. southerners may lament the result o' gettysburg but they know well the valor and courage o' too many who died so far away from home. gettysburg were an american tragedy even if it were a victory for the union and while southerners should question the raison d'être o' the confederacy, they don't need feel shame for what happened on the battlefield tween july 1 and 3 in 1863. hallowed ground. miller and bannon know that w/o some kinda monumental scandal or hail mary medical advance, trump victory looks unlikely. doesn't mean they is conceding defeat. no matter how much more frustration and anger it creates, trump and his enablers will continue to work to divide americans. trump is using gettysburg as if it were the compiègne wagon. shouldn't let him get away with such even if we don't see as making a major difference in november. somebody not paying attention. have always been cynical 'bout human nature. is gd who blames government and we keep telling him that The People is the government. First Amendment we champion so frequent is a bar on the tyranny o' the masses. we complain 'bout US polarization in recent years and blame trump as a symptom as opposed to the cause. when gd says we should count on individuals to do the right thing as 'posed to passing laws which mandate sober driving or seat belts or masks, is Gromnir who sneers at the naivety o' trusting our fellow citizens to do the right thing 'cause is the right thing to do. insofar as cynicism, am looking at gd in our rearview mirror... appears extreme far away even if gd cynicism is curious misplaced and selective. such is our disagreement. HA! Good Fun!

not odd at all. not odd for trump. don't be surprised if trump brings up his monuments nonsense and proclaims we must not ignore history and culture. trump wants to give his base a victory speech. for over 100 years southerners has been made to feel guilty 'bout their support o' the confederacy and slavery, but trump is gonna give 'em a victory speech 'bout pride and he is gonna do it at gettysburg. when liberals attack trump for his acceptance speech, it will only further solidify trump's base. HA! Good Fun! ps this is calculated stephen miller and steve bannon bs at its worst, and it is gonna work.

here we are in the middle of a pandemic, with protesters creating chaos in democratic cities across the country and you want to dwell on politics and complain about the location of a speech. how petty. *insert eye roll* you can already hear the response from alt-right radio and fox news pundits, yes? of course it is disrespectful for corporal bone spurs to use gettysburg as a prop. that is exact why he is doing it. do-nothing liberals and swamp creatures will complain and for at least a few hours coronavirus won't be the biggest story... will be just more proof the left isn't interested in fixing problems but is instead so anti-trump they can't let anything go. HA! Good Fun!

please, explain further what is Gromnir's position on antifa and blm. doesn't much sound like our position, but you have such a curiously perverse perspective that we cannot help but wonder what else you will have your imaginary Gromnir proclaim in our absence. am also admitted curious 'bout how vol has come up with comparative murder rates for blm, antifa and the kkk-- am betting he ain't using fbi or any other reputable source. there isn't any kinda blm or antifa leadership of which to speak, so am not sure how they manage to brag. some rando person vol believes is speaking for blm or antifa said something 'bout rape? am gonna need context. will no doubt be disappointed by vol response, but we nevertheless wait for the proofs o' antifa and blm, as organizations, bragging 'bout their use o' rape to advance their goals. vol posts is a bit like watching the lighthouse save that vol is playing all roles and everything is 'bout racism and nazis. fascinating, if a bit disturbing. HA! Good Fun!

... this p00p bugs us on some level, 'cause rewriting history to make certain individuals look good is not helping prevent repeat of old failures. the c-span video of bush addressing the NIH is 30 minutes, but everybody reading should do selves a favor and watch it. HA! Good Fun! ps 4:11 is where bush mentions dr. fauci.

barr is dangerous because he is competent. just one example, but multiple federal judges has criticized barr for his summary o' the mueller report, observing how the conclusions the ag reached were inconsistent with any plausible reading o' the report. is a couple o' crimes possible barr could be charged with related to his summary, but such requires proof o' criminal intent and even if there is such evidence to be found, is it practical to charge? short o' an email where barr states he knew his summary were a criminal misrepresentation o' a federal government document and that his purpose in misrepresenting were to personal benefit trump as 'posed to the PotUS, criminal charges is unlikely. is dozens o' instances where is not reasonable to believe barr were acting in the interest o' the American people as is his duty as ag. however, reasonable is not the language which is appropriate in a criminal prosecution. for criminal, need a significant step beyond unreasonable and typical the intent o' criminal purpose need be proven. barr's dangerous belief the authority o' office o' the President is limitless save for the obvious accountability to the electorate every four years and the possibility o' impeach and convict by Congress is extreme. is almost no legal scholars who share barr's view, but such a fringe reading o' article 2 while misguided and obvious dangerous is not necessarily criminal in and of itself. barr could be impeached and convicted by Congress. maybe. wouldn't necessarily matter if barr were no longer ag. for instance, if the senate weren't a bunch o' sniveling cowards and sycophants and it became obvious earlier this year the senate were gonna vote to convict trump, the President could not have resigned before conviction and then still run for Presidency in november. no longer in office don't necessarily prevent Congress from acting. 'course what would be the point? worse, would establish a dubious precedent. the framers never considered the possibility o' our current Congress. in 1787 it were believed senators would obvious recognize the abuse o' power o' a President or ag and regardless o' partisanship they would be more concerned with the integrity o' the Constitution than party loyalty. how could senators ignore something like fed police acting against the will of state and local government to arrest protesters? w/i a few decades o' the adoption o' the Constitution, the framers no doubt realized their error, but it were already too late. their mistake is our burden. HA! Good Fun! ps barr is our nominee for most dangerous man in washington dc. much o' trump's early legal efforts were marred by gross incompetence and almost comical bungling. barr, whatever his faults, is not incompetent... possible glaring exception were barr's firing o' the us attorney o' ny. competence makes barr a threat to democracy but also makes his prosecution for crimes unlikely.

one way the trump administration is getting away with this nonsense, other than too many Americans turning a blind eye to such excesses, is the fact that extreme few people has been charged. the arrests is a terror tactic, bold and unapologetic, but w/o charges, the basis for a civil rights claim for those whisked away in vans w/o warrants or probable cause is functional eliminated. the feds don't have authority to do what they is doing, but w/o charges to create a cause o' action, the Courts can't stop the fed police from continuing their naked villainy people are being imprisoned (dictionary definition) w/o there being a real threat o' prison. is not as if trump is coming up with these schemes. oh sure, trump is demanding his justice department make a show o' force, but william barr is the guy who is actualizing this crap and weaponizing legislation which is only tangential related to what is being done. the portland protesters is not, save for perhaps in the tortured imagination o' vol, serious attempting to overthrow the government o' the United States of America. nevertheless, william barr is using insurrection laws to arrest and Not charge people as a way o' displaying the tough on crime stance trump wants to project. get rid o' trump in november elections is increasing vital given the extremes william barr is going to to enable the corrupt and tyrannical whims o' the President. HA! Good Fun!

as a non-native, am tending to agree. placebo effect and benefits o' a plan may produce results for any number o' indulgences o' quackery, but am always surprised how quickly noteworthy numbers o' californians latch onto the weirdest fads. granola moms and fixation on celebrity endorsements? no idea what is the root causes. ... 'course pretty much every culture and subculture got weirdness. any number o' rhino and tiger species are facing extinction in part 'cause o' weird "medical" beliefs not attributable to californians. HA! Good Fun!

am recalling in february, when science didn't know 'bout asymptomatic spread and we got videos such as the following: were a nice opportunity to feel justifiable superior to the chinese government. ... fast-forward to august and isn't hard to find youtube video o' some woman being attacked in a home depot 'cause she don't have a mask. is equal ez to find video o' some home depot employee being brutal assaulted 'cause he asked a customer to don a mask. adversity brings out the extremes in people--best and worst. gabriel coulda' waited for 2020. HA! Good Fun!

am familiar with bloom but am also aware o' the school administration and state preoccupation with standardized tests which, regardless o' your colorful and balanced pie, overwhelming stresses knowledge for subjects such as history. your state measures success o' history teachings by measuring the knowledge o' students, and history teachers is functional judged based on the success o' students on such tests. maybe hurl yells, "damn the torpedoes," as he rushes ahead with his own teaching approach, but is hard to imagine such a focus on knowledge fails to impact most educators. is other states radical different? and it don't appear to be functional different for english or other skill focused subjects. maybe tell us 'bout modalities as well? use music to teach english is kewl, but there appears to be a disconnect between what hurl is saying is being taught and the preparedness o' students to actual achieve in higher education and real world. stress again how important is skills and critical thinking to you and other teachers, but university 1a classes is filled with kids who cannot write and the bar exam is increasing being failed 'cause there is a gap in education somewhere, and like it or not, law school education changes very little. Most colleges enroll students who aren’t prepared for higher education ca public universities (community college and csu at least) fixed their remedial learners problem by no longer forcing students to take remedial classes. 'course now csu professors need coddle students 'cause those students weren't educated in high school. am not sure how such is a solution. https://edsource.org/2018/cal-state-starts-new-era-ending-no-credit-remedial-classes/604470 ... we are sending too many kids to university. a college degree is not a golden ticket and should not be viewed as some kinda proof o' worth. utter bs. the thing is, am thinking it is a mistake to continue to lower the bar as a solution when we see students failing. is bass ackwards and doesn't mesh with real world demands. test is too hard, so solution is to change test or let student retest? is not just old guy syndrome which drives our concern. Gromnir did it a certain way, so everybody else needs suffer? no. dumb. as we said, am ok with 5th graders getting the touchy-feely approach, but eventual the students gotta be taught not only subject matter, but survival skills. law school classes, ordinary, got two grading opportunities: midterm and final. that's it. no homework and is only a few classes which have essay/paper requirements. you got two chances to get it right in a law school class and the mid-term counts far less than the final. am ok with such harshness 'cause real world lawyering is even less forgiving, unless your dad or mom has their name on the door o' the firm. @Amentep sounds like you are describing the US medical licensing exam, which strict speaking ain't residency. regardless, is having a +95% first-time passage rate. your time frames is misleading 'cause is actual such an overabundance o' time to complete as 'posed to a race 'gainst the clock. 'ccording to doctors we speak to, the tough exams as part o' their education is med school, but again, am less familiar with testing n' such o' residency if only 'cause doctors we know don't mention such stuff much if at all. HA! Good Fun! ps california bar exam is only offered 2x a year, so kinda apples and oranges regardless.

including territories, is approx three dozen locales where a person may take as many times as need w/o restriction, so based on hurl's curious approach, the prospective attorney may simple go to california or new york if they fail too many times in arizona. 'course again, to take the bar exam in california if one original went to school in arizona would mean the prospective lawyer attended an aba accredited school as 'posed to state accredited or some other state-specific exception. ca also has one o' the more rigorous bar exams with the lowest passage rate in the US, but is actual more forgiving than it once were. for many years and throughout the 90s, were a three-day test (+7 hour days) but as bar passage rates slipped past 50%, changes were made and one day were removed so is now only a two-day kick in the teeth as 'posed to a three-day triathlon: essay question; performance test; multi-state multiple choice. multi-state has stayed same, but the essay and performance test has been effective halved. am not certain why ca were so wedded to three days for so long. were as much an endurance test as anything. we took two other bar exams and am not sure which were graded more difficult or were more difficult to pass (you only know your score if you fail,) but the ca testing were most memorable 'cause o' the fatigue at the end o' day three. HA! Good Fun! ps if you pass the bar first time you may become a bar exam test grader. stoopid. get paid based on number of tests graded. time spent reading and grading an hour-long essay is a matter o' a few minutes. therefore, the people grading is not spending any time delving for answers. most important thing an examinee can do is to make their written responses simple and clear. do not expect to be coddled. pps (apologies) oh... fudge. just checked and last few years has seen precipitous ca bar passage rate drops. the students ca teachers is preparing is becoming less and less capable o' basic foundational stuff 'cause february 2020 ca bar passage rate were 26.8%. regardless, has been steady decline in spite o' fact, as we noted, test were made easier.

as long as one understands is just for the funny, 'cause an indoor activity with folks a few feet apart, direct facing each other and breathing heavy, don't seem like the best example. perhaps redesign masks? sabre masks is best, but still hardly ideal. the wire mesh looks more obtrusive from pov o' your photo. and "fantastic ventilation," has never been our first thought 'pon entering a fencing salon, though admitted it has now been more than five years since last time we picked up our sabre. am usual accepting crap ventilation if is at least well lit. even so, we recognize the joke. HA! Good Fun!

sure, but you need also graduate law school. for a long time, there were a single state exception to the law school requirement: louisiana. no longer an exception. so sure, you can go to Princeton and fail and is possible to then go to university o' virginia, and fail. don't give up and instead go to university of buffalo and fail and final apply and get accepted to american samoa law... which don't actual exist btw. we were talking 'bout teaching and school, yes? this were all in response to a teacher allowing multiple tests takings. am suspecting there might be a law school somewheres which allows a student to re-do ad nauseum, but is not gonna be an aba accredited school, which is gonna at least initial make you presumed goal o' working as an attorney far less likely. teach a kid endless redo is an option is not practical rl experience and it sure as heck don't prepare you for any advanced degree work we ever hear o' neither; not gonna get through law school that way and not grad school for sure. the bar exam? sure. one extra body in a huge room o' sweating and nervous humanity requires no resources to make available another opportunity to charge test fees. is no Teaching involved in the bar exam save self-teach. brings to mind a singular example. we knew the story o' a guy who were a vietnam vet and he literal had brain damage. not dribble cup brain damage, but he had difficulty with certain aspects o' cognition. the guy took the ca bar every year, twice a year, for something like eight years. eventual a veterans group, after veteran's story made local tv news, cobbled together money and came up with specialized tutoring, and the guy failed again, but he did eventual pass the bar. the thing is, the veteran never did law school as he took an extreme unlikely apprenticeship route which is even more difficult today than it were in the 70s. regardless, am not thinking that existence o' an exceptional example somehow proves your point. gonna actual defend the redo test scheme by pointing out it is possible to spend years retaking bar exam or medical boards? need retake test multiple times would seem to be proof that somewhere along the line the educational process failed. if point to graduate law school or med school is to, in part, prepare you to pass bar exam and/or boards, then need retake such tests over and over is just proof the teaching model failed. btw, pretty much every law school posts their first time bar passage rate compared to statewide bar passage rate, 'cause such is deemed an important measure o' relative value o' the education provided. as to your most recent comment, am gonna note how dismissive we were earlier o' the mindless knowledge tests which demand the student regurgitate data or proper identify facts, as if such is somehow meaningful. redo such tests is even more pointless as is zero chance the student proves learning by redo. the bar exam, for example, is not testing knowledge o' facts. even the multi-state multiple choice portion does not simple ask what is the rule of law in dumpor's case. instead there will be a unique question the examinee has likely never considered specific which involves successive assignments by leaseholder and if examinee understands the rule in dumpor's, they should be able to pick the correct answer from the provided list o' options. nevertheless, am understanding hurl don't have a choice. current models and requirements means that he needs cover multiple significant events, people and conflicts during a relative short period o' time, and state exams will then test to make certain his students were actual exposed to all that nonsense which any kid who knows how to access google may self-teach if hurl has provide more important learning skills. am personal amazed so many trained educators nevertheless embrace the current models. hurl teaches middle school, yes? why not take a semester and teach protestant reformation or post civil war reconstruction. nothing else. go deep rather than broad and make certain kids know how to do research and real analysis and critical thinking. teach kids how to read critical and then write persuasive. every kid already knows how to use internet to discover facts, so teach 'em facts is a waste o' effort in our mind. should be teaching kids skills and how to learn. but again, am understanding hurl don't have autonomy. nevertheless, am baffled by current goals o' teaching; even if we is told how important is critical thinking and problem solving, is clear such stuff is not a priority on those standardized tests which measure student/teaching success. HA! Good Fun! ps am not knowing what happened to the vietnam vet after he became a lawyer. our understanding is he went to work for a firm and were successful practicing for at least a few years, but the feel good story were pretty much completed with the eventual bar passage by a guy who had been severe injured in vietnam and nevertheless persevered in spite o' improbable obstacles.

am not sure what med schools hurl is imagining. in grad school and law school we couldn't fail classes w/o risk o' being kicked out o' the program. grad school "fail" meant less than a 3.0. day 1 law school started off with the traditional look-left-and-look-right speech. at least 1/3 won't make the cut. limited spaces and resources meant keeping dead weight 'round waiting for an epiphany moment were not gonna happen. competitive med schools is more relaxed than law school? maybe, but would be a surprise. regardless, you don't graduate med school and know how to do genuine surgery neither. residency is where you learn to be a doctor for reals. ... am admitting we know less 'bout residency than we should. residency models as described to us all sound archaic and stoopid. regardless, am having a hard time imagining young doctors is being coddled during residency. HA! Good Fun! ps is our understanding dentists actual beat doctors for many o' the stuff christine lahti mentions. the business side o' being a dentist is particular unforgiving.

am suspecting gd knows enough to realize such an observation hurts his position rather than helps. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIM WOMEN - FACT SHEET first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution makes wearing o' such garb a protected right. in fact even if you could show that somehow wearing a burqa or hijab somehow endangered fellow citizens (am not even gonna try and imagine a relevant hypothetical) the government would need show they were addressing a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means possible. more extreme and arguable butting up against the good public health angle, amish and christian scientists has won any number o' cases 'gainst the state when there is a conflict 'tween free exercise o' religion and the public welfare. 'course state and fed governments nevertheless has a history o' attempting to curtail religious practices o' fringe or disreputable religions by invoking public health. santerians has been oblique targeted with all kinda transparent health code ordinance adoptions as an attempted end around on the Constitution. such efforts fail near 100%, but state and local governments, responsive to their provincial and bigoted constituencies, keep trying. regardless, the theoretical agreements doesn't help 'cause such ain't actual theoretical in the United States, and "rights" don't mean same thing in the US as they do elsewheres. have attempted to explain previous how free speech in US is different. so too is search and seizure laws and the exclusionary rule is almost complete unique to the US, for better or worse. 'course kinda/sorta/not really similar to your driving example, which am doubting would get much legal traction in any US court, is stuff such as basic health care, which a growing number o' people believe should be a fundamental right. right to drive beyond your private property ain't even close to getting a sniff as far as being a potential Constitutional Amendment, and is nothing which would allow even the most flexible legal scholar to imagine into existing common law, case law or legislative history a fundamental right to drive. health care, on the other hand, is something we see as a legit possible amendment in the foreseeable future. while the current Presidential administration has a rather loose grasp o' law and no respect for the Constitution, the Courts remain protectors o' fundamental rights, and while am knowing this conversation has happened more than once, fundamental rights is treated different in the US compared to many/most western nations. when gd and Gromnir speak o' rights, we ain't necessarily speaking same language as folks in the rest o' the world. before anybody gets all sensitive and channels their inner nationalist, am not suggesting US model is better... save for specific the first amendment protections, which am indeed asserting is better than pretty much everywhere else, so there. dedication to fundamental rights means we are all too often protecting genuine evil doers from government interference and prosecution. defendants who has been proven guilty may walk free. kkk members spewing hate and intolerance may burn crosses and active attempt to sew discord and they get same protections as blm activists or 1970s hippie peaceniks. slumlord son-in-law o' prez uses privacy laws to avoid investigations into his questionable business practices. such is the cost o' liberty and is valid and compelling arguments the US does it wrong... with exception o' first amendment. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. gd may have forgotten the rights o' free speech and religious exercise exists as a prohibition on government action, but am more confident he recognizes the comparative value US Courts afford such rights. HA! Good Fun!