God given rights?

[PratchettFan]

BOTH and practice at the time. Nice try at deflection. The Founders didn't like it and I suggest you look into the 3/5ths Compromise...and after that WE fought a war to rid ourselves of that shame.

TRY AGAIN.

No. There was no slavery in England at the time. It was illegal there. Only here were there slave owners. But it was England that held the tyrants? I think not.

A large portion of the founders were slave owners, so they didn't dislike it that much. The 3/5's compromise was not to reduce slavery, but to give more votes to the slave holding states without extending any rights to the slaves. As to WE fighting. The south fought to retain slavery. In fact, they fought to expand it. So by WE, I assume you mean the north. Which did not fight for that reason at all.

Bullshit.

At the time of the revolution? The English were all into it and didn't abolish it until around 1833.

Try Again.

No. Slavery was made illegal in England in 1772 by the British High Court. The date you are using is when they applied that standard to the rest of the empire.

But heck, I'll concede your point. Both sides were tyrants. God decided our tyranny was better than theirs? We were a better class of slavers, were we? Funny how God didn't seem to listen to the prayers of the slaves. God considered our situation of having to pay taxes far more repressive than people in chains. Seems an odd sense of priorities.

Unless, of course, God wasn't intervening at all.

 

[The T]

No. There was no slavery in England at the time. It was illegal there. Only here were there slave owners. But it was England that held the tyrants? I think not.

A large portion of the founders were slave owners, so they didn't dislike it that much. The 3/5's compromise was not to reduce slavery, but to give more votes to the slave holding states without extending any rights to the slaves. As to WE fighting. The south fought to retain slavery. In fact, they fought to expand it. So by WE, I assume you mean the north. Which did not fight for that reason at all.

Bullshit.

At the time of the revolution? The English were all into it and didn't abolish it until around 1833.

Try Again.

No. Slavery was made illegal in England in 1772 by the British High Court. The date you are using is when they applied that standard to the rest of the empire.

But heck, I'll concede your point. Both sides were tyrants. God decided our tyranny was better than theirs? We were a better class of slavers, were we? Funny how God didn't seem to listen to the prayers of the slaves. God considered our situation of having to pay taxes far more repressive than people in chains. Seems an odd sense of priorities.

Unless, of course, God wasn't intervening at all.

Bullshit.

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833,

Try again.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Natural Rights that the Founders evoked were clearly spelled out in the Declaration. YOU are not LETTING ME defend my rights.

Iran is a country where dissidents also exist. They must not only battle with political power but argue with a tyrannical religious structure. Similiar to the arrogant religious structures that the Founders fled from.. I guarantee you,, there are Iranian students in jail today that can recite OUR Declaration of Independence and they would defend that concept with their lives.. Which is more than I can say about a lot of my fellow 'mericans.

The Delcaration was written by man, not God. It was fought for and defended by men, not God. You retain your rights by the will of men, not God. Where that will does not exist, freedom does not exist.

That's not what the Declaration says.. So you're whining to the contrary doesn't matter does it? The document was inspired by a realization of the failings of governance by men. It was intended to HUMBLE power and authority into treading gently on liberty.
Brilliant and timeless.. And actually -- not at all religious.. Even an atheist could evoke Natural Rights as a basis for civil disobedience.

There is no such thing as natural rights. There are only rights you obtain and keep by blood.

 

[The T]

The Delcaration was written by man, not God. It was fought for and defended by men, not God. You retain your rights by the will of men, not God. Where that will does not exist, freedom does not exist.

That's not what the Declaration says.. So you're whining to the contrary doesn't matter does it? The document was inspired by a realization of the failings of governance by men. It was intended to HUMBLE power and authority into treading gently on liberty.
Brilliant and timeless.. And actually -- not at all religious.. Even an atheist could evoke Natural Rights as a basis for civil disobedience.

There is no such thing as natural rights. There are only rights you obtain and keep by blood.

if what you state is true? WHY are you alive?

Why weren't YOU aborted?

DUMBASS

 

[GuyPinestra]

[
No. There was no slavery in England at the time. It was illegal there. Only here were there slave owners. But it was England that held the tyrants? I think not.

You should crack a history book, you sound like a complete moron. Nooo... You ARE a complete moron.

A large portion of the founders were slave owners, so they didn't dislike it that much.

Less than half of the delegates to the constitutional convention were slave owners, and many of those divested themselves shortly thereafter.

The 3/5's compromise was not to reduce slavery, but to give more votes to the slave holding states without extending any rights to the slaves.

Break out the history book again, you need a little help. The 3/5 Compromise was used to LIMIT the power of the Southern States.

Strike one... strike two... strike three, you're out!!

 

[The T]

[
No. There was no slavery in England at the time. It was illegal there. Only here were there slave owners. But it was England that held the tyrants? I think not.

You should crack a history book, you sound like a complete moron. Nooo... You ARE a complete moron.

A large portion of the founders were slave owners, so they didn't dislike it that much.

Less than half of the delegates to the constitutional convention were slave owners, and many of those divested themselves shortly thereafter.

The 3/5's compromise was not to reduce slavery, but to give more votes to the slave holding states without extending any rights to the slaves.

Break out the history book again, you need a little help. The 3/5 Compromise was used to LIMIT the power of the Southern States.

Strike one... strike two... strike three, you're out!!

Dead accurate. The Founders in oder to get the Southern States onboard came up with it to get the Constitution passed.

 

[Barb]

BOTH and practice at the time. Nice try at deflection. The Founders didn't like it and I suggest you look into the 3/5ths Compromise...and after that WE fought a war to rid ourselves of that shame.

TRY AGAIN.

No. There was no slavery in England at the time. It was illegal there. Only here were there slave owners. But it was England that held the tyrants? I think not.

A large portion of the founders were slave owners, so they didn't dislike it that much. The 3/5's compromise was not to reduce slavery, but to give more votes to the slave holding states without extending any rights to the slaves. As to WE fighting. The south fought to retain slavery. In fact, they fought to expand it. So by WE, I assume you mean the north. Which did not fight for that reason at all.

Bullshit.

At the time of the revolution? The English were all into it and didn't abolish it until around 1833.

Try Again.

Crap. I so don't even like you.

Still, you're quite correct.
Jefferson's "original Rough draught" of Declaration of Independence

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

 

[PratchettFan]

Bullshit.

At the time of the revolution? The English were all into it and didn't abolish it until around 1833.

Try Again.

No. Slavery was made illegal in England in 1772 by the British High Court. The date you are using is when they applied that standard to the rest of the empire.

But heck, I'll concede your point. Both sides were tyrants. God decided our tyranny was better than theirs? We were a better class of slavers, were we? Funny how God didn't seem to listen to the prayers of the slaves. God considered our situation of having to pay taxes far more repressive than people in chains. Seems an odd sense of priorities.

Unless, of course, God wasn't intervening at all.

Bullshit.

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833,

Try again.

As I said, in the empire. However, in England it was abolished in 1772.

Somersett's Case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try again.

 

[The T]

No. Slavery was made illegal in England in 1772 by the British High Court. The date you are using is when they applied that standard to the rest of the empire.

But heck, I'll concede your point. Both sides were tyrants. God decided our tyranny was better than theirs? We were a better class of slavers, were we? Funny how God didn't seem to listen to the prayers of the slaves. God considered our situation of having to pay taxes far more repressive than people in chains. Seems an odd sense of priorities.

Unless, of course, God wasn't intervening at all.

Bullshit.

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833,

Try again.

As I said, in the empire. However, in England it was abolished in 1772.

Somersett's Case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try again.

Wrong.

 

[BlindBoo]

If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments?

When you have a right to have your life protected from others who may wish to take it away... or you have the right to live your life in your own way and do for yourself as you see fit... does not mean that you must have your personal needs taken care of for you at the expense of the freedoms and personal property rights of others

I think we should extend the protection to include sickness and disease. Not sure what you mean by personal needs? We already take care of the uninsured via the ER, so property as you say, is already being taken away to care for them.

 

[Plasmaball]

Sure He does. He certainly intervened a lot during the American Revolution. Ive already pointed out some real events where He was active. If it wasnt for the Hand of Divine Providence Washington and the army would have been crushed within months. The Founders certainly recognized and thanked God for his merciful intervention in the cause of their liberty.

The problem is too many people expect to just ask with out taking any effort on their own. They think talking with God is like ordering a pizza. They say what they want and they expect Him to deliver it with no effort on their part. That's not how God works. It never has been.

A covenant relationship requires action, thought, effort on our part. Not to "save" ourselves. But the preparation to let God work through us is something people completely neglect.

Instead of humbling ourselves, we act with pride. Instead of being grateful, we are covetous. Instead of being honest, we lie when it suits us.

God is bound when we do what He says. He has to bless us with the promises He has promised. But when we dont do what He says we have no promise.

Gimme a break.

There were lots of god-fearing men on the Brit's side during the Revolution too. Who answered their prayers? Or were they praying to the wrong god? Or was it that there simply weren't enough men praying at the same time? Or was it that all Brits were just plain evil during those times and didn't deserve to win?

And what was the other side fighting for? Liberty? Hardly. They were on the side of Tyranny.

Get it ace?

They where fighting for god and crown dipshit.

 

[DiamondDave]

If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments?

When you have a right to have your life protected from others who may wish to take it away... or you have the right to live your life in your own way and do for yourself as you see fit... does not mean that you must have your personal needs taken care of for you at the expense of the freedoms and personal property rights of others

I think we should extend the protection to include sickness and disease. Not sure what you mean by personal needs? We already take care of the uninsured via the ER, so property as you say, is already being taken away to care for them.

Your personal upkeep is your personal need and it is your personal responsibility to provide for your personal needs

I don't think that people should get off free for a service they are receiving, unless the institution or the person delivering the service freely decides to give it for free... I don't care if it is health care or car repair or whatever else

Do I applaud doctors and hospitals who operate free clinics and volunteer time, supplies, efforts, etc?? Yep... Do I applaud drug companies that help out people in hard situations with reduced prices on prescriptions or even free prescriptions?? Yep.... And if you did not agree with a hospital or doctor that did this and chose a doctor who advertised lower prices because they do not offer freebies to anyone, that is your choice.... If you somehow had an aversion to a hospital funding research to cure disease X and refused to be treated there, I also uphold your freedom to have that choice.... If you choose to donate lots of money to a non profit fund or company that assists people in paying for catastrophic health insurance or to pay for basic checkups or whatever, I support your freedom to do so...

I do not agree that that government is constitutionally charged to be an insurance provider, nor do I agree that they have the power to force you to buy a product or service... I do not agree that government should use taxation to confiscate from some to hand entitlement to others in some arbitrary 'you can afford it more' scam

 

[Plasmaball]

So you think the Nazi's had God on their side?

You telling me they didn't think so?

Which is why I find this god is on my side arguement to be funny.

Im not asking what the Nazi's thought... I am asking YOU.

And im asking you if you think they didn't? Its an easy answer......

 

[Plasmaball]

And the reality is God's fingerprints are all over the American Revolution. You think it was just a coincidence that natural events would favor the Colonists over the British again and again in key battles?

Yes...yes I do. You want to see what you want to see.everyone wants to think god is on there side. If I was a god I would be insulted that my believers think I would pick a side.
but then again I am not a god,but I am rational.

And what exactly is irrational about believing God acts in the affairs of man?

Nothing, its just not something I would put down as a fact. You have zero proof outside of faith. Which faith is worth a fart in a bucket.

You can pretend all day long a god intervened, that doesn't make it so.

 

[Plasmaball]

If that were the case, the fetus would have her DNA signature, and not one unique unto itself

Irrelevant. No human being has the right to the use of the body of another human being against their will. Do you disagree with that?

I would say the act of fucking like a rabbit negates your 'against their will' argument...

I would say its none of your business.

 

[Plasmaball]

And what was the other side fighting for? Liberty? Hardly. They were on the side of Tyranny.

Get it ace?

They were on the side of tyranny? Which side had the slave owners?

BOTH and practice at the time. Nice try at deflection. The Founders didn't like it and I suggest you look into the 3/5ths Compromise...and after that WE fought a war to rid ourselves of that shame.

TRY AGAIN.

The founders were pussies when it came to slavery. The 3/5 clause is and was a joke.
The war was the foundes passing the buck onto later generations to deal with the matter.

Nice try at looking like a moron, you succeeded.

 

[Plasmaball]

Bullshit.

At the time of the revolution? The English were all into it and didn't abolish it until around 1833.

Try Again.

No. Slavery was made illegal in England in 1772 by the British High Court. The date you are using is when they applied that standard to the rest of the empire.

But heck, I'll concede your point. Both sides were tyrants. God decided our tyranny was better than theirs? We were a better class of slavers, were we? Funny how God didn't seem to listen to the prayers of the slaves. God considered our situation of having to pay taxes far more repressive than people in chains. Seems an odd sense of priorities.

Unless, of course, God wasn't intervening at all.

Bullshit.

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833,

Try again.

That's what he just said you fucking drunk. Try reading you imbred tard.

 

[Plasmaball]

Bullshit.

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833,

Try again.

As I said, in the empire. However, in England it was abolished in 1772.

Somersett's Case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try again.

Wrong.

Just how braindead are you? You that partisan that you need to be blatantly ignorant in order to be right?

 

[onecut39]

When you're sitting in a concentration camp and experiencing the failings of the "laws of men" --- tell me who YOU are gonna appeal to for your rights....

Are you suggesting prayer? Absolutely nothing has a higher documented failure rate than prayer.

 

[onecut39]

A right given only by man or the created government of man could subsequently be taken away.... when you deem a right as inalienable and given by a power or authority higher than man, you are basically saying that no matter what man may do, deep down all of mankind still should have that right

SHOULD have that right? Nothing more useless that a right you SHOULD HAVE......but don't.