It's really very simple...but it takes a lesson in vocabulary and a paradigm shift for libs to understand what the bill of rights say.

Please read this slowly.....The bill of rights says precisely what the government...(this next part is important)...CAN NOT DO....to a citizen.

It's never has, and hopefully never will be, the other way around.

(06-11-2012 03:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:42 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:30 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:24 PM)Rebel Wrote:  5th amendment. Boom!

The gov't gives you all of your rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, you just witnessed the difference between Prog leftists and conservatives/libertarians.

If you can't recognize that for example woman did not have the right to vote until the government gave them that right you are in another world. Before 1920 woman could not vote after 1920 woman could vote. What changed? The government gave them the right to vote. I could go on and on. Slavery, legal voting age, right to bear arms, Miranda rights, rights of the Geneva convention, etc.

I find this point of view offensive. According to what you have stated in this thread:

You believe that women didn't have the right to vote until the government granted it to them. I believe they always had the right and were unlawfully kept from voting.

You believe that blacks were truly not free men and had no rights. I believe that they were always free and wrongfully persecuted by Democrats for generations.

You believe your rights supersede my rights as long as you think your rights are for what you perceive to be the greater good.

This represents everything I HATE about progressive liberals. They don't understand that we all have the same rights and always have. The law is there to ensure equal application of those rights. Not grant them.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!!

(06-11-2012 03:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:42 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:30 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:24 PM)Rebel Wrote:  5th amendment. Boom!

The gov't gives you all of your rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, you just witnessed the difference between Prog leftists and conservatives/libertarians.

If you can't recognize that for example woman did not have the right to vote until the government gave them that right you are in another world. Before 1920 woman could not vote after 1920 woman could vote. What changed? The government gave them the right to vote. I could go on and on. Slavery, legal voting age, right to bear arms, Miranda rights, rights of the Geneva convention, etc.

I find this point of view offensive. According to what you have stated in this thread:

You believe that women didn't have the right to vote until the government granted it to them. I believe they always had the right and were unlawfully kept from voting.

You believe that blacks were truly not free men and had no rights. I believe that they were always free and wrongfully persecuted by Democrats for generations.

You believe your rights supersede my rights as long as you think your rights are for what you perceive to be the greater good.

This represents everything I HATE about progressive liberals. They don't understand that we all have the same rights and always have. The law is there to ensure equal application of those rights. Not grant them.

Well I guess you'll have to be offended then. It is a fact that women did not have the right to vote until it was granted to them. Blacks were not citizens or people in this country until that right was granted to them. If you have a problem with that then take it up with the founders.
Using your logic or lack there of, I have always had the right to gov't run health care, gay marriage, and a free college education. I have just been unlawfully kept these things.

(06-11-2012 05:40 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 03:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:42 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:30 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The gov't gives you all of your rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, you just witnessed the difference between Prog leftists and conservatives/libertarians.

If you can't recognize that for example woman did not have the right to vote until the government gave them that right you are in another world. Before 1920 woman could not vote after 1920 woman could vote. What changed? The government gave them the right to vote. I could go on and on. Slavery, legal voting age, right to bear arms, Miranda rights, rights of the Geneva convention, etc.

I find this point of view offensive. According to what you have stated in this thread:

You believe that women didn't have the right to vote until the government granted it to them. I believe they always had the right and were unlawfully kept from voting.

You believe that blacks were truly not free men and had no rights. I believe that they were always free and wrongfully persecuted by Democrats for generations.

You believe your rights supersede my rights as long as you think your rights are for what you perceive to be the greater good.

This represents everything I HATE about progressive liberals. They don't understand that we all have the same rights and always have. The law is there to ensure equal application of those rights. Not grant them.

Well I guess you'll have to be offended then. It is a fact that women did not have the right to vote until it was granted to them. Blacks were not citizens or people in this country until that right was granted to them. If you have a problem with that then take it up with the founders.
Using your logic or lack there of, I have always had the right to gov't run health care, gay marriage, and a free college education. I have just been unlawfully kept these things.

Thank you for making my point. You have the right to an education. Not a free one. You have the right to healthcare. Not free healthcare. Gays can marry if a church will perform the ceremony(freedom of religion and all). You have the right to a college education. Not a free college education. If people are kept from pursuing these things then yes...that's illegal as they have the right to pursue these things. Not to force someone else to pay for it. Are you retarded?

The civics teachers these clowns had either were a) dumb as a box of rocks or b) purposefully taught them the **** they think is correct.

One of the greatest civics teachers of all time taught me this - in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is the people who get to decide what is and isn't a right. If the American public decides that universal healthcare is a right, then it will be. If you don't like that line of thinking, go take it up with Thomas Jefferson.

Natural rights are the only real "rights." You own your body and the works of your hands. I prefer the common definitions in old state constitutions like this one:
"[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. - NH State Constitution 1784"

The only restrictions or laws that are valid are those that prohibit the violations of others' natural rights, i.e. laws against theft, violence, fraud, etc.

Every other modern asserted "right" is really a wish or spending entitlement, it is not a right you are born with or possess inherently. Free healthcare, college, etc. are wishes, nothing more.

The Philosophy of Liberty

This video is a good explanation of natural rights.

(06-11-2012 09:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  One of the greatest civics teachers of all time taught me this - in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is the people who get to decide what is and isn't a right. If the American public decides that universal healthcare is a right, then it will be. If you don't like that line of thinking, go take it up with Thomas Jefferson.

Decided to open this up because the topic is interesting..

Why take it up with Jefferson? he left you a note..

... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

bull****. The Constitution by which we have set up our government decides what is, or is not, within, federal and state/local jurisdiction.

If a sovereign state wants to enact some idiotic legislation, as long as that power is not enumerated powers of the federal government, it can and should be able to so, even to its own detriment. However, the Constitution clearly outlines that the federal government has no such power unless it is in the enumerated powers or via amendment.

The federal government has consistently overstepped its Constitutional authority. THings are beginning to change, however.

This is not a simple democracy, it is a republic. Feel free to educate me on how a group of people from other states have a right to mandate non-Constitutional requirements on a sovereign state without an amendment. We as a country have been lazy for generations in enforcing this sovereignty, but times are a changing.

(06-11-2012 09:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  One of the greatest civics teachers of all time taught me this - in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is the people who get to decide what is and isn't a right. If the American public decides that universal healthcare is a right, then it will be. If you don't like that line of thinking, go take it up with Thomas Jefferson.

So, if a majority of people get together and decide a minority should be slaves, it's OK with you. Real smart, light brite. We are NOT a Goddamned Democracy, you fuken moron.

ODU Smitty, Old Dirty, Jessica XXXXXXX, damn, I might have to send my kids to ODU.

(06-08-2012 09:31 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes, because a nation with 15 figures ($100T+) of wealth shouldn't let its people die in the streets from preventable causes while its billionaires throw gold toilets on their Ferraris. Do you think opposing this will somehow curry the favor of the billionaires? Maybe they'll give you a little dog collar and let you oogle their mansions some day? Maybe even sit in their lap! Well good luck with that.

Your right to make decisions as to your wealth and health status does not infringe on my right to be free from the responsibility to support your poor choices. Even though we are both citizens, I have NO responsibility to fund your decisions.

(06-11-2012 11:20 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ODU Smitty, Old Dirty, Jessica XXXXXXX, damn, I might have to send my kids to ODU.

You forgot the Dancin' Monarch.

(06-11-2012 11:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 09:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  One of the greatest civics teachers of all time taught me this - in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is the people who get to decide what is and isn't a right. If the American public decides that universal healthcare is a right, then it will be. If you don't like that line of thinking, go take it up with Thomas Jefferson.

So, if a majority of people get together and decide a minority should be slaves, it's OK with you. Real smart, light brite. We are NOT a Goddamned Democracy, you fuken moron.

Try to keep up, junior. I didn't say it was OK, right, wrong, moral, or anything else except a legal right. At the end of the day, no matter how we philosophically parse things, the legal right is what matters most because that is the practical reality. I also said nothing about majorities and direct democracy, nor does that have a bearing on whether or not the public has the ultimate power to decide rights. The public most certainly does via election of representatives. Our constitutional republic does not rely on the public to make such decisions, but the public most definitely has the power to do so within the framework of our government. As usual, you have failed to think past the most superficial layer of the issue. Of course saying that you think is an insult to the concept.

(06-11-2012 11:22 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 09:31 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes, because a nation with 15 figures ($100T+) of wealth shouldn't let its people die in the streets from preventable causes while its billionaires throw gold toilets on their Ferraris. Do you think opposing this will somehow curry the favor of the billionaires? Maybe they'll give you a little dog collar and let you oogle their mansions some day? Maybe even sit in their lap! Well good luck with that.

Your right to make decisions as to your wealth and health status does not infringe on my right to be free from the responsibility to support your poor choices. Even though we are both citizens, I have NO responsibility to fund your decisions.

Because getting sick is a choice? Only in right-wing bizarro world.

(06-12-2012 07:42 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 11:22 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 09:31 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes, because a nation with 15 figures ($100T+) of wealth shouldn't let its people die in the streets from preventable causes while its billionaires throw gold toilets on their Ferraris. Do you think opposing this will somehow curry the favor of the billionaires? Maybe they'll give you a little dog collar and let you oogle their mansions some day? Maybe even sit in their lap! Well good luck with that.

Your right to make decisions as to your wealth and health status does not infringe on my right to be free from the responsibility to support your poor choices. Even though we are both citizens, I have NO responsibility to fund your decisions.

Because getting sick is a choice? Only in right-wing bizarro world.

So you are willing to deny healthcare to people whose decisions cause them to need healthcare if we cover those who just "get sick"?

(06-11-2012 10:00 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Natural rights are the only real "rights." You own your body and the works of your hands. I prefer the common definitions in old state constitutions like this one:
"[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. - NH State Constitution 1784"

The only restrictions or laws that are valid are those that prohibit the violations of others' natural rights, i.e. laws against theft, violence, fraud, etc.

Every other modern asserted "right" is really a wish or spending entitlement, it is not a right you are born with or possess inherently. Free healthcare, college, etc. are wishes, nothing more.

The Philosophy of Liberty

This video is a good explanation of natural rights.

Grade A as always.

(06-11-2012 11:22 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 09:31 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes, because a nation with 15 figures ($100T+) of wealth shouldn't let its people die in the streets from preventable causes while its billionaires throw gold toilets on their Ferraris. Do you think opposing this will somehow curry the favor of the billionaires? Maybe they'll give you a little dog collar and let you oogle their mansions some day? Maybe even sit in their lap! Well good luck with that.

Your right to make decisions as to your wealth and health status does not infringe on my right to be free from the responsibility to support your poor choices. Even though we are both citizens, I have NO responsibility to fund your decisions.

The Constitution says otherwise.

(06-12-2012 02:37 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 11:22 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 09:31 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes, because a nation with 15 figures ($100T+) of wealth shouldn't let its people die in the streets from preventable causes while its billionaires throw gold toilets on their Ferraris. Do you think opposing this will somehow curry the favor of the billionaires? Maybe they'll give you a little dog collar and let you oogle their mansions some day? Maybe even sit in their lap! Well good luck with that.

Your right to make decisions as to your wealth and health status does not infringe on my right to be free from the responsibility to support your poor choices. Even though we are both citizens, I have NO responsibility to fund your decisions.

The Constitution says otherwise.

Where? ...waiting...

(06-12-2012 02:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 02:37 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 11:22 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 09:31 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes, because a nation with 15 figures ($100T+) of wealth shouldn't let its people die in the streets from preventable causes while its billionaires throw gold toilets on their Ferraris. Do you think opposing this will somehow curry the favor of the billionaires? Maybe they'll give you a little dog collar and let you oogle their mansions some day? Maybe even sit in their lap! Well good luck with that.

Your right to make decisions as to your wealth and health status does not infringe on my right to be free from the responsibility to support your poor choices. Even though we are both citizens, I have NO responsibility to fund your decisions.

The Constitution says otherwise.

Where? ...waiting...

probably the Ginsberg version