Thanks a lot James Yeager

[aslinged]

This is an interesting thread. Low post count, claims to know and value knowledge....illustrates generic public school type talking points, fails apparently to grasp inalienable (let me break that down for you buddy: you know what a lien is? Like with money and such, yeah. You, God, government, a majority no one can put the lien on these rights and if they do it is 1-immoral 2-illogical and 3-illegal under these documents), and yet evidences a dogged attack on anyone pointing out his failings of logic with respect to government issued rights vs. natural rights. Hmmm. With all your education and years of experience BB, an observer would imagine you'd have run into this enormously important distinction.

So is it an ignorance of this area of philosophy OR would you like to go ahead and declare, outright, for the record that you believe government issues rights?

 

[BillB1960]

Not only don't you know what you're talking about, you don't read well either. Let's see...Dictators...hmmm, how about Sadam Hussein? Let's see, Hitler committed suicide, but we hanged a bunch of his henchmen. Qaddafi, Antonescu, Mussolini, etc.

Now, the same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence also wrote the Bill of Rights. That's the first 10 Amendments. The Bill of Rights is a series of limitations on the power of the U.S. federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. That document was drafted in 1776 to proclaim the INHERENT (meaning "God-given") rights of men, including the right to rebel against "inadequate" government. It influenced a number of later documents, including the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the United States Bill of Rights (1789), and the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).

Numerous writings of the founding fathers of the USA refer to these rights as inherent in all people, and bestowed upon them by their Creator, not any government. Your arguments are based on some pretty simplistic and naive reasoning. Read some history and get back to me.

Wow...took you a while to google all that didn't it? Find all that on Wiki did ya? Congrats.

Since when did the US hang any of those dictators? Where were the trials held if they were tried and where did the executions take place? You going to take credit for the French Revolution and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran while you're at it?

 

[BillB1960]

Tried to keep it simple because you can't even figure out who you are talking to, never mind what you are saying. Years of public school education and you are the result. Praise the state.

Nice tagging, by the way.

I didn't tag anything skippy.

 

[dmancornell]

I didn't tag anything skippy.

Post #101:

Post #90:



Stupid troll is stupid.[/COLOR]

Can't troll, can't edit properly. Troll level: end yourself tier. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[BillB1960]

This is an interesting thread. Low post count, claims to know and value knowledge....illustrates generic public school type talking points, fails apparently to grasp inalienable (let me break that down for you buddy: you know what a lien is? Like with money and such, yeah. You, God, government, a majority no one can put the lien on these rights and if they do it is 1-immoral 2-illogical and 3-illegal under these documents), and yet evidences a dogged attack on anyone pointing out his failings of logic with respect to government issued rights vs. natural rights. Hmmm. With all your education and years of experience BB, an observer would imagine you'd have run into this enormously important distinction.

So is it an ignorance of this area of philosophy OR would you like to go ahead and declare, outright, for the record that you believe government issues rights?

So you honestly believe that the government can't change the Constitution to redefine our rights do ya?

You might want to look up 'naive' in the dictionary before you post anymore in this thread.

 

[BillB1960]

Post #101:

Can't troll, can't edit properly. Troll level: end yourself tier. Absolutely pathetic.

Good lord, you're insulting me about some mythical forum etiquette? Seriously? Can you stoop any lower? Weak sauce skippy...very weak.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Wow...took you a while to google all that didn't it? Find all that on Wiki did ya? Congrats.

So, you're saying you would have taken my word for it? Didn't think so. I like to back up my opinions with facts. Foreign concept?

Since when did the US hang any of those dictators? Where were the trials held if they were tried and where did the executions take place? You going to take credit for the French Revolution and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran while you're at it?

Um, you know, usually the US tries to cooperate with other countries. We don't own the world, you know. Here's how it works. The US supplies most of the muscle. The UN and the locals provide some help. In the end we hand over the perps to their people for disposal. It looks more legitimate that way. They didn't execute Noriega, such a shame.

And as a matter of fact, yes, we do take some of the credit for inspiring the French Revolution. We demonstrated that it could be done. Of course, the French then screwed it up like they do everything else.

 

[aslinged]

Ad hominem and avoidance of question noted.

You ask if the Constitution can be changed to redefine my rights. It's a simple as this: words on the paper can be altered but that does not change my rights. My rights are not given to me by the Constitution, nor by government. My rights came with being born. Just as they come to any human being born. The fact that those rights are not acknowledged in Sudan or Mexico or in the US does not change their fact of existence. They are above government. Government is charged with upholding those rights not issuing or moderating them. And for your edification, this isn't my opinion. These are the facts, as dictated by logic. Can government violate my rights and call it legal? Duh.

Is it okay for someone to shoot you if you are not assaulting them?

If not, why is it okay for some people to write words on paper, get others to agree those words and then shoot you?

So you honestly believe that the government can't change the Constitution to redefine our rights do ya?

You might want to look up 'naive' in the dictionary before you post anymore in this thread.

 

[oknow]

So, you're saying you would have taken my word for it? Didn't think so. I like to back up my opinions with facts. Foreign concept?



Um, you know, usually the US tries to cooperate with other countries. We don't own the world, you know. Here's how it works. The US supplies most of the muscle. The UN and the locals provide some help. In the end we hand over the perps to their people for disposal. It looks more legitimate that way. They didn't execute Noriega, such a shame.

And as a matter of fact, yes, we do take some of the credit for inspiring the French Revolution. We demonstrated that it could be done. Of course, the French then screwed it up like they do everything else.

but they did get the fries right



( I know they didn't make french fries )