Liberals! Where Is Your Self-Respect??

[konradv]

You're confusing the granting of a right with the defense of the right or enforcement of law.

Governments don't grant rights. We grant ourselves rights by the government we choose. You're confusing who's granting what. Government is an inanimate thing controlled by US. If it's not doing what you want, work to change it.

I get that, but you would feel you had a right to protect your own family, property, life, etc., even if there was no government there to help protect it for you. Hell even animals in the wild will protect their young, defend their den/nest, fight to protect their kill/food sources from scavengers, etc. IOW, even wild animals have a sense of rights. Thats why they're called "natural" rights. So what I mean is your hypothetical was irrelevant.

Sure you have a right to self defense. That's the only "natural right" I'd acknowledge, but it only goes as far as you're able to take it. To achieve the wider range of rights we enjoy requires a government to guarantee them, because very few would be able to do it on their own. If one can't assert it as a given in all circumstances, what makes it "natural"? It's actually unnatural, because it requires something NOT found in nature, an association we usually call "government".

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Liberals! Where Is Your Self-Respect??

OUR self-respect?????


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMypXCUWMw]CNN Laughs It Up Over Sarah Palin Interview - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arehMcyi930]Yes sarah PALIN is stupid watch ! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.

This is wrong.

There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.

"Belafonte’s Advice to Obama: Imprison Opposition “Like a Third World Dictator” (Video)"
Enlightened Marxist Harry Belafonte was on with pal Al Sharpton this week. His advice for Obama was to imprison opposition like a “third world dictator.”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...opposition-like-a-third-world-dictator-video/

1. that has nothing to do with what I said

2. can you ever make a post that has your own opinion in it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.

"Belafonte’s Advice to Obama: Imprison Opposition “Like a Third World Dictator” (Video)"
Enlightened Marxist Harry Belafonte was on with pal Al Sharpton this week. His advice for Obama was to imprison opposition like a “third world dictator.”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...opposition-like-a-third-world-dictator-video/

1. that has nothing to do with what I said

2. can you ever make a post that has your own opinion in it?

Every single thing I post is my opinion, dolt.


o·pin·ion
/əˈpinyən/
Noun
Definition of OPINION

1
a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b : approval, esteem
2
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b : a generally held view
3
a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
Opinion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


dolt noun \ˈdōlt\
: a stupid person
: you


Try to stick to words you understand....as limiting as that will prove to be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PROVE IT. If there's no government and I'm stronger than you, what's to prevent me from doing anything I want to you?

You're confusing the granting of a right with the defense of the right or enforcement of law.

Governments don't grant rights. We grant ourselves rights by the government we choose. You're confusing who's granting what. Government is an inanimate thing controlled by US. If it's not doing what you want, work to change it.

Governments do grant rights. They have to because governments decide what are or are not rights.

There is no such thing as God given right. There can be theories that there are God given rights, but such rights do not exist as facts,

since God does not exist as a fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Belafonte’s Advice to Obama: Imprison Opposition “Like a Third World Dictator” (Video)"
Enlightened Marxist Harry Belafonte was on with pal Al Sharpton this week. His advice for Obama was to imprison opposition like a “third world dictator.”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...opposition-like-a-third-world-dictator-video/

1. that has nothing to do with what I said

2. can you ever make a post that has your own opinion in it?

Every single thing I post is my opinion, dolt.


o·pin·ion
/əˈpinyən/
Noun
Definition of OPINION

1
a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b : approval, esteem
2
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b : a generally held view
3
a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
Opinion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


dolt noun \ˈdōlt\
: a stupid person
: you


Try to stick to words you understand....as limiting as that will prove to be.

You posted a video made by someone else, without any meaningful comment by yourself.

Nothing in that act qualifies as an opinion.

 

[neomalthusian]

Sure you have a right to self defense. That's the only "natural right" I'd acknowledge,

Self-defense of what?

To achieve the wider range of rights we enjoy requires a government to guarantee them, because very few would be able to do it on their own.

What are some examples you're referring to here? Because we clearly should not assume we define rights the same way. Sounds like you think certain outcomes are rights (ie positive rights).

If one can't assert it as a given in all circumstances, what makes it "natural"? It's actually unnatural, because it requires something NOT found in nature, an association we usually call "government".

Yep, there's our point of departure. Rights are supposed to be negative (ie rights not to be deprived or unduly interfered with). You're saying a right only exists when we are entitled to protection or provision of it from the external. This has been written about and thought about and philosophized about for eons. I'm for negative rights, you for positive.

 

[jillian]

When you peel back the onion, all they really care about is the free gubmint stuff.

once again for you lying loons...

red states take more money from the feds than they put in

blue states put in more money than they take...

tell ya what.. stop living off of OUR dime.

thanks for playing.

now please go back to collecting yoru government check and using our government medical services.... while you drive on government roads and use government-subsidized gasoline... and eat government subsidized farm products...

This is largely to support their disproportionately large gubmint dependent minority populations, and said earmarks are largely the doing of the Liberals.

You have failed.


LOL

nice psychotic laugh... very hitchcockesq.

are you saying that you have proportionately larger minority populations in red states than we do in blue states... but your minority populace votes GOP?

you want to re-think that? or should i say, would you like to try to actually think?

the largest single group on welfare is white single mothers.

maybe you yahoos should teach your kids about birth control...

 

[neomalthusian]

You're confusing the granting of a right with the defense of the right or enforcement of law.

Governments don't grant rights. We grant ourselves rights by the government we choose. You're confusing who's granting what. Government is an inanimate thing controlled by US. If it's not doing what you want, work to change it.

Governments do grant rights. They have to because governments decide what are or are not rights.

There is no such thing as God given right. There can be theories that there are God given rights, but such rights do not exist as facts,

since God does not exist as a fact.

As another person said, "either by god or by universal consensus."

Your sense that you have a right to protect your child from a strange aggressor occurs naturally within you, whether we've asked government to craft a law around it or not. You feel similarly about protecting yourself, your property, etc. So do I. We all do. These rights are not function of our laws tha acknowledge or defend them. Our laws are functions of the rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Governments don't grant rights. We grant ourselves rights by the government we choose. You're confusing who's granting what. Government is an inanimate thing controlled by US. If it's not doing what you want, work to change it.

Governments do grant rights. They have to because governments decide what are or are not rights.

There is no such thing as God given right. There can be theories that there are God given rights, but such rights do not exist as facts,

since God does not exist as a fact.

As another person said, "either by god or by universal consensus."

Your sense that you have a right to protect your child from a strange aggressor occurs naturally within you, whether we've asked government to craft a law around it or not. You feel similarly about protecting yourself, your property, etc. So do I. We all do. These rights are not function of our laws tha acknowledge or defend them. Our laws are functions of the rights.

Our laws decide which actions we think are our rights are really going to be rights, in the real world.

The God given rights crowd opposes the idea of 'consensus'. They believe the rights exist on their own. IOW, they are daft.

 

[neomalthusian]

Governments do grant rights. They have to because governments decide what are or are not rights.

There is no such thing as God given right. There can be theories that there are God given rights, but such rights do not exist as facts,

since God does not exist as a fact.

As another person said, "either by god or by universal consensus."

Your sense that you have a right to protect your child from a strange aggressor occurs naturally within you, whether we've asked government to craft a law around it or not. You feel similarly about protecting yourself, your property, etc. So do I. We all do. These rights are not function of our laws tha acknowledge or defend them. Our laws are functions of the rights.

Our laws decide which actions we think are our rights are really going to be rights, in the real world.

The God given rights crowd opposes the idea of 'consensus'. They believe the rights exist on their own. IOW, they are daft.

It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.

For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A woman says,

I'm going to have an abortion because it's my God given right.

But, this woman lives in a conservative governed America where the Constitution has been amended to make all abortion illegal.

What happens then? Do the conservatives, who themselves repeatedly invoke the principle of 'God given rights' and who repeatedly ridicule liberals, and others, for allegedly not embracing that overriding truth,

do they say, oh, well, when you put it that way, Okay!! We've made an error. We've banned a God given right. We'll fix that immediately!


EH????????

 

[NYcarbineer]

As another person said, "either by god or by universal consensus."

Your sense that you have a right to protect your child from a strange aggressor occurs naturally within you, whether we've asked government to craft a law around it or not. You feel similarly about protecting yourself, your property, etc. So do I. We all do. These rights are not function of our laws tha acknowledge or defend them. Our laws are functions of the rights.

Our laws decide which actions we think are our rights are really going to be rights, in the real world.

The God given rights crowd opposes the idea of 'consensus'. They believe the rights exist on their own. IOW, they are daft.

It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.

For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?

There are no such thing as God given rights. It's a rhetorical device used to attach importance to certain rights. The supernatural stamp of approval. Only MEN get to decide what gets stamped and what doesn't.

 

[neomalthusian]

A woman says,

I'm going to have an abortion because it's my God given right.

But, this woman lives in a conservative governed America where the Constitution has been amended to make all abortion illegal.

What happens then?

Introducing the most complicated moral dilemma of all time has a bit of an obfuscating effect on the discussion, wouldn't you say?

 

[neomalthusian]

It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.

For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?

There are no such thing as God given rights.

That's fine, please just answer my question. Do we have any rights to our lives, to protect ourselves and our families and our properties, etc. as a natural state of being human, or do we only have them when a government establishes a law acknowledging and protecting them?

I think people living in a state of anarchy do have rights and that those rights can be violated even though there's no government or justice system to declare it a violation.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion is a violation of human rights.

As NYC knows. That's why progressives pretend killing is a human right, while at the same time maintaining human rights are meaningless.

 

[konradv]

As another person said, "either by god or by universal consensus."

Your sense that you have a right to protect your child from a strange aggressor occurs naturally within you, whether we've asked government to craft a law around it or not. You feel similarly about protecting yourself, your property, etc. So do I. We all do. These rights are not function of our laws tha acknowledge or defend them. Our laws are functions of the rights.

Our laws decide which actions we think are our rights are really going to be rights, in the real world.

The God given rights crowd opposes the idea of 'consensus'. They believe the rights exist on their own. IOW, they are daft.

It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.

For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?

If there's no government, what are rights? They're just something you'd like to have, but would be unrealized, unless you're strong enough to defend them. They have no independent reality beyond the ability to enforce them.

 

[neomalthusian]

Our laws decide which actions we think are our rights are really going to be rights, in the real world.

The God given rights crowd opposes the idea of 'consensus'. They believe the rights exist on their own. IOW, they are daft.

It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.

For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?

If there's no government, what are rights? They're just something you'd like to have,

Not just me, but people universally. No one disputes one's right not to be murdered, assaulted, etc. It's so widely recognized that we feel them as inherent to being alive. We ask a government to help us uphold/protect/defend/enforce laws about them because we recognize them as rights already, as natural, psychological and undeniable, not just legal/administrative. There is no government needed for us to sense and KNOW we have these rights. They're THAT fundamental and universal.

Maybe you're having a hard time grasping it because you're lumping too many entitlements/positive rights in with the fundamental/natural/negative ones?

 

[SniperFire]

once again for you lying loons...

red states take more money from the feds than they put in

blue states put in more money than they take...

tell ya what.. stop living off of OUR dime.

thanks for playing.

now please go back to collecting yoru government check and using our government medical services.... while you drive on government roads and use government-subsidized gasoline... and eat government subsidized farm products...

This is largely to support their disproportionately large gubmint dependent minority populations, and said earmarks are largely the doing of the Liberals.

You have failed.


LOL

nice psychotic laugh... very hitchcockesq.

are you saying that you have proportionately larger minority populations in red states than we do in blue states... but your minority populace votes GOP?

you want to re-think that? or should i say, would you like to try to actually think?

the largest single group on welfare is white single mothers.

maybe you yahoos should teach your kids about birth control...

Why should I 'rethink' the simple facts?

The percentages of minorities on government dependency is thru the roof.

The high percentages of minorities in the 'red states' you are dissing drives up their numbers on welfare and things such as educational failure. When you dis 'red state' dependency, you are really slamming all of those poor southern blacks and Indian populations which skew the numbers.

You libtards should know this. You push for such gubmint dependency amongst minorities to keep them locked into voting Democrat.

What did LBJ say again? Oh, yeah:

'I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years!"




But the funny thing is, you won't admit your 'accomplishments.'

LOL

 

[ilia25]

the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.

Are you forgetting about something? Like democracy, which let the people -- not elites -- to decide on the rights issues?