The difference between Communism and Socialism

[Bfgrn]

The works of Saul Alinsky at it's best will only work on those who do not know how to use them against those who try to use them. Think about that for a second.
My intent of asking the question was to find out what Life liberty and property had to do with life liberty and the presuit of happness? and keep it in the context that the OP was trying to make.

Jefferson’s intellectual heroes were Newton, Bacon, and Locke, and it was actually in Locke that he must have found the phrase. It appears not in the Two Treatises on Government but in the 1690 essay Concerning Human Understanding. There, in a long and thorny passage, Locke wrote:

The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.

Just the ideas that inspired our intellectual Founders were primarily European imports, so that defining American phrase, “the pursuit of happiness,” is not native to our shores. Furthermore, as the quotation from Locke demonstrates, “the pursuit of happiness” is a complicated concept. It is not merely sensual or hedonistic, but engages the intellect, requiring the careful discrimination of imaginary happiness from “true and solid” happiness. It is the “foundation of liberty” because it frees us from enslavement to particular desires.

The Greek word for “happiness” is eudaimonia. In the passage above, Locke is invoking Greek and Roman ethics in which eudaimonia is linked to aretê, the Greek word for “virtue” or “excellence.” In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote, “the happy man lives well and does well; for we have practically defined happiness as a sort of good life and good action.” Happiness is not, he argued, equivalent to wealth, honor, or pleasure. It is an end in itself, not the means to an end. The philosophical lineage of happiness can be traced from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle through the Stoics, Skeptics, and Epicureans.

Jefferson admired Epicurus and owned eight copies of De rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, a Roman disciple of Epicurus. In a letter Jefferson wrote to William Short on October 13, 1819, he declared, “I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” At the end of the letter, Jefferson made a summary of the key points of Epicurean doctrine, including:

Moral.—Happiness the aim of life.
Virtue the foundation of happiness.
Utility the test of virtue.

Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of “the pursuit of happiness,” they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. That is why Alexander Hamilton and other founders referred to “social happiness.”
The Surprising Origins and Meaning of the “Pursuit of Happiness”


The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence.
John F. Kennedy

and your point would be? giving things to people is not the intent of the Constitution

We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

At a recent TEA Party protest in Washington DC, House Minority Leader John Boehner stood before a crowd of thousands. Encouraging them to stand against the proposed health care bill in the House (which is now endorsed by the AARP), he spoke of a great founding document, the U.S. Constitution. Holding his personal copy of the document in his hand, Boehner recited the Preamble to the crowd:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident," Boehner said, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Without a doubt, many TEA Party protesters at the event felt a sense of pride in hearing those words.

Some, however, probably felt a bit confused. Indeed, the document that Boehner was quoting was not the Constitution -- it was the Declaration of Independence.

Boehner confuses Constitution with Declaration, and grievances within document to current events


I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

If the Declaration of Independence was consider a law then those who would push for sepration of church and state would not have a leg to stand on.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

 

[JBeukema]

No hell they did not maybe in your fantasy world...

de facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact"

De facto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

, but not in the real world. You need to stop telling me to read when you are the one lacking. No one gave the Federal Government the ok to supersede the U.S. Constitution the 10th amendment has never been amended. It takes more than just the opinion of a Supreme Court justice to amend the Constitution. Do you understand?

Texas V. White did. When the States were denied their right to secede, along with efforts to end their ability to nullify federal laws, the Fed gained a monopoly on the ability to determine the limits of its own power.

Here's a book for you: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Questions-About-American-History-Supposed/dp/0307346684]Amazon.com: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (9780307346681):…[/ame]

See chapters 4, 10, 15, 19, 25, and 27


“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
No one gave the federal Government that much authority. The Constitution can be amended using two methods. The first method begins in the Congress. If two-thirds of the members of both chambers (House of Representatives and the Senate) vote for the amendment, it is sent to the various state legislatures. Three-quarters of the state legislatures must approve the amendment before it can be adopted.
The second method for amending the Constitution involves the convening of conventions. This method has never been used. A Constitutional Convention can be called by Congress or by the Petition of two-thirds of the states, resulting in conventions involving three-quarters of all states.
This is the only way the 10th amendment can be made void.[/quote]

 

[JBeukema]

The works of Saul Alinsky at it's best will only work on those who do not know how to use them against those who try to use them. Think about that for a second.
My intent of asking the question was to find out what Life liberty and property had to do with life liberty and the presuit of happness? and keep it in the context that the OP was trying to make.

Jefferson’s intellectual heroes were Newton, Bacon, and Locke, and it was actually in Locke that he must have found the phrase. It appears not in the Two Treatises on Government but in the 1690 essay Concerning Human Understanding. There, in a long and thorny passage, Locke wrote:

The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.

Just the ideas that inspired our intellectual Founders were primarily European imports, so that defining American phrase, “the pursuit of happiness,” is not native to our shores. Furthermore, as the quotation from Locke demonstrates, “the pursuit of happiness” is a complicated concept. It is not merely sensual or hedonistic, but engages the intellect, requiring the careful discrimination of imaginary happiness from “true and solid” happiness. It is the “foundation of liberty” because it frees us from enslavement to particular desires.

The Greek word for “happiness” is eudaimonia. In the passage above, Locke is invoking Greek and Roman ethics in which eudaimonia is linked to aretê, the Greek word for “virtue” or “excellence.” In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote, “the happy man lives well and does well; for we have practically defined happiness as a sort of good life and good action.” Happiness is not, he argued, equivalent to wealth, honor, or pleasure. It is an end in itself, not the means to an end. The philosophical lineage of happiness can be traced from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle through the Stoics, Skeptics, and Epicureans.

Jefferson admired Epicurus and owned eight copies of De rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, a Roman disciple of Epicurus. In a letter Jefferson wrote to William Short on October 13, 1819, he declared, “I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” At the end of the letter, Jefferson made a summary of the key points of Epicurean doctrine, including:

Moral.—Happiness the aim of life.
Virtue the foundation of happiness.
Utility the test of virtue.

Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of “the pursuit of happiness,” they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. That is why Alexander Hamilton and other founders referred to “social happiness.”
The Surprising Origins and Meaning of the “Pursuit of Happiness”


The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence.
John F. Kennedy

and your point would be?

That you're a fucking moron

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No hell they did not maybe in your fantasy world...

de facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact"

De facto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

, but not in the real world. You need to stop telling me to read when you are the one lacking. No one gave the Federal Government the ok to supersede the U.S. Constitution the 10th amendment has never been amended. It takes more than just the opinion of a Supreme Court justice to amend the Constitution. Do you understand?

Texas V. White did. When the States were denied their right to secede, along with efforts to end their ability to nullify federal laws, the Fed gained a monopoly on the ability to determine the limits of its own power.

Here's a book for you: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Questions-About-American-History-Supposed/dp/0307346684]Amazon.com: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (9780307346681):…[/ame]

See chapters 4, 10, 15, 19, 25, and 27


“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
No one gave the federal Government that much authority. The Constitution can be amended using two methods. The first method begins in the Congress. If two-thirds of the members of both chambers (House of Representatives and the Senate) vote for the amendment, it is sent to the various state legislatures. Three-quarters of the state legislatures must approve the amendment before it can be adopted.
The second method for amending the Constitution involves the convening of conventions. This method has never been used. A Constitutional Convention can be called by Congress or by the Petition of two-thirds of the states, resulting in conventions involving three-quarters of all states.
This is the only way the 10th amendment can be made void.

[/QUOTE]
I guess what I said went way over your head. There are only two ways to amend an amendment, a supereme court Justice cannot not do it. If they could they would have done it to the Second Amendment it would have already been changed or repealed.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

If the Declaration of Independence was consider a law then those who would push for sepration of church and state would not have a leg to stand on.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Herein lies your problem...you want to make the tenets of this nation a simple monolithic doctrine like dictatorships and despots employed. They're not. They were crafted by mostly wise men in a different era, and it is in our best interest to educate ourselves by reading and intelligently trying to decipher and understand ALL that they wrote, thought, legislated and made law and apply it to today's world and problems. Our country is made up of living and breathing human beings, not dead men in wigs. We even need to understand that language and the meaning of words have changed from the days of our founders. Originalists and right wing cretins like Rush Limbaugh and fascist theocrats like Jerry Falwell argue(d) that the 4th Amendment doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because it doesn't use the word 'privacy' But in our founder's day the word "privacy" was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, "I need a moment of privacy" as a way of excusing themselves to go use the "privy" or outhouse. Chamberpots were kept around the house for people to relieved themselves.

The Constitution wasn't written as a vehicle to grant us rights. We don't derive our rights from the constitution.

Rather, in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable - inseparable - from humans themselves. We are born with rights by simple fact of existence, as defined by John Locke and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the Founders wrote. Humans are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.

The Declaration, the writings of many of the Founders and Framers, and no shortage of other documents made amply clear the Founders' and the Framers' sentiments that human rights were solely the province of humans, and that governments don't grant rights but, rather, that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic We, The People - the holders of the rights - grant to our governments whatever privileges our government may need to function (while keeping the rights for ourselves).

This is the fundamental difference between kingdoms, theocracies, feudal states, and a democratic republic. In the former three, people must beg for their rights at the pleasure of the rulers. In the latter, the republic derives its legitimacy from the people, the sole holders of rights.
ref.

Thomas Jefferson used the word 'creator', not God when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Some people believe our creator is something different than the God you choose to worship. So your Church/state argument is irrelevant and void.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

If the Declaration of Independence was consider a law then those who would push for sepration of church and state would not have a leg to stand on.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Herein lies your problem...you want to make the tenets of this nation a simple monolithic doctrine like dictatorships and despots employed. They're not. They were crafted by mostly wise men in a different era, and it is in our best interest to educate ourselves by reading and intelligently trying to decipher and understand ALL that they wrote, thought, legislated and made law and apply it to today's world and problems. Our country is made up of living and breathing human beings, not dead men in wigs. We even need to understand that language and the meaning of words have changed from the days of our founders. Originalists and right wing cretins like Rush Limbaugh and fascist theocrats like Jerry Falwell argue(d) that the 4th Amendment doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because it doesn't use the word 'privacy' But in our founder's day the word "privacy" was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, "I need a moment of privacy" as a way of excusing themselves to go use the "privy" or outhouse. Chamberpots were kept around the house for people to relieved themselves.

The Constitution wasn't written as a vehicle to grant us rights. We don't derive our rights from the constitution.

Rather, in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable - inseparable - from humans themselves. We are born with rights by simple fact of existence, as defined by John Locke and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the Founders wrote. Humans are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.

The Declaration, the writings of many of the Founders and Framers, and no shortage of other documents made amply clear the Founders' and the Framers' sentiments that human rights were solely the province of humans, and that governments don't grant rights but, rather, that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic We, The People - the holders of the rights - grant to our governments whatever privileges our government may need to function (while keeping the rights for ourselves).

This is the fundamental difference between kingdoms, theocracies, feudal states, and a democratic republic. In the former three, people must beg for their rights at the pleasure of the rulers. In the latter, the republic derives its legitimacy from the people, the sole holders of rights.
ref.

Thomas Jefferson used the word 'creator', not God when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Some people believe our creator is something different than the God you choose to worship. So your Church/state argument is irrelevant and void.

Where did you read where I said the Constitution gives any rights? It protects our rights. and the first comment you made was uncalled for. You need to change your Avatar how dare you use an image of the liberty bell.

 

[Bfgrn]

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

If the Declaration of Independence was consider a law then those who would push for sepration of church and state would not have a leg to stand on.

Herein lies your problem...you want to make the tenets of this nation a simple monolithic doctrine like dictatorships and despots employed. They're not. They were crafted by mostly wise men in a different era, and it is in our best interest to educate ourselves by reading and intelligently trying to decipher and understand ALL that they wrote, thought, legislated and made law and apply it to today's world and problems. Our country is made up of living and breathing human beings, not dead men in wigs. We even need to understand that language and the meaning of words have changed from the days of our founders. Originalists and right wing cretins like Rush Limbaugh and fascist theocrats like Jerry Falwell argue(d) that the 4th Amendment doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because it doesn't use the word 'privacy' But in our founder's day the word "privacy" was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, "I need a moment of privacy" as a way of excusing themselves to go use the "privy" or outhouse. Chamberpots were kept around the house for people to relieved themselves.

The Constitution wasn't written as a vehicle to grant us rights. We don't derive our rights from the constitution.

Rather, in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable - inseparable - from humans themselves. We are born with rights by simple fact of existence, as defined by John Locke and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the Founders wrote. Humans are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.

The Declaration, the writings of many of the Founders and Framers, and no shortage of other documents made amply clear the Founders' and the Framers' sentiments that human rights were solely the province of humans, and that governments don't grant rights but, rather, that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic We, The People - the holders of the rights - grant to our governments whatever privileges our government may need to function (while keeping the rights for ourselves).

This is the fundamental difference between kingdoms, theocracies, feudal states, and a democratic republic. In the former three, people must beg for their rights at the pleasure of the rulers. In the latter, the republic derives its legitimacy from the people, the sole holders of rights.
ref.

Thomas Jefferson used the word 'creator', not God when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Some people believe our creator is something different than the God you choose to worship. So your Church/state argument is irrelevant and void.

Where did you read where I said the Constitution gives any rights? It protects our rights. and the first comment you made was uncalled for. You need to change your Avatar how dare you use an image of the liberty bell.

You need to do better, crying is not an argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Herein lies your problem...you want to make the tenets of this nation a simple monolithic doctrine like dictatorships and despots employed. They're not. They were crafted by mostly wise men in a different era, and it is in our best interest to educate ourselves by reading and intelligently trying to decipher and understand ALL that they wrote, thought, legislated and made law and apply it to today's world and problems. Our country is made up of living and breathing human beings, not dead men in wigs. We even need to understand that language and the meaning of words have changed from the days of our founders. Originalists and right wing cretins like Rush Limbaugh and fascist theocrats like Jerry Falwell argue(d) that the 4th Amendment doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because it doesn't use the word 'privacy' But in our founder's day the word "privacy" was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, "I need a moment of privacy" as a way of excusing themselves to go use the "privy" or outhouse. Chamberpots were kept around the house for people to relieved themselves.

The Constitution wasn't written as a vehicle to grant us rights. We don't derive our rights from the constitution.

Rather, in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable - inseparable - from humans themselves. We are born with rights by simple fact of existence, as defined by John Locke and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the Founders wrote. Humans are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.

The Declaration, the writings of many of the Founders and Framers, and no shortage of other documents made amply clear the Founders' and the Framers' sentiments that human rights were solely the province of humans, and that governments don't grant rights but, rather, that in a constitutionally limited democratic republic We, The People - the holders of the rights - grant to our governments whatever privileges our government may need to function (while keeping the rights for ourselves).

This is the fundamental difference between kingdoms, theocracies, feudal states, and a democratic republic. In the former three, people must beg for their rights at the pleasure of the rulers. In the latter, the republic derives its legitimacy from the people, the sole holders of rights.
ref.

Thomas Jefferson used the word 'creator', not God when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Some people believe our creator is something different than the God you choose to worship. So your Church/state argument is irrelevant and void.

Where did you read where I said the Constitution gives any rights? It protects our rights. and the first comment you made was uncalled for. You need to change your Avatar how dare you use an image of the liberty bell.

You need to do better, crying is not an argument.

Five miles above your head zing...........

 

[Contumacious]

Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

HUH?

So was Jefferson referring to the Canadians? Mexicans?

.

 

[Oddball]

I figgered out one difference.

Socialists like to pretend that they're doing the unwashed masses a big fat favor, with their arrogant paternalistic attitudes about how everyone who isn't as brilliant as they are should live their lives. Likewise, they like to sit around contemplating and trying to parse on navel gazing, chin stroking trifles, like the "differences" between socialism and communism.

Under communism they carry on no such haughty elitist airs.... You do it their way or you go to the gulag.

For what that's worth.

 

[Bfgrn]

I figgered out one difference.

Socialists like to pretend that they're doing the unwashed masses a big fat favor, with their arrogant paternalistic attitudes about how everyone who isn't as brilliant as they are should live their lives. Likewise, they like to sit around contemplating and trying to parse on navel gazing, chin stroking trifles, like the "differences" between socialism and communism.

Under communism they carry on no such haughty elitist airs.... You do it their way or you go to the gulag.

For what that's worth.

That's why communism is conservative, not liberal...thank you for making it so clear...CRYSTAL.

 

[JBeukema]

I guess what I said went way over your head.

who is John Locke?

You really need to learn to read before posting again

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I guess what I said went way over your head.

who is John Locke?

You really need to learn to read before posting again

I don't exactly know what you are up to but I do not recall making that statement. As a matter of fact here is my first response on John Locke. I will be notifing the moderators.

Yesterday, 12:25 AM
bigrebnc1775
Page 1 post number 8
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/121708-what-do-you-think-of-this.html


Quote: Originally Posted by ihopehefails
Quote:
Life, liberty, and property were the central, inalienable rights that formed the foundation of the great experiment in self government called the United States of America. The founders of our country never broke apart this sacred triumvirate, because each one of these rights is inextricably bound to the other. No one of these three can exist without the other. Moreover, when all three are secured, it is almost impossible for injustice to exist. Wherever one does find injustice, one invavariably
I found this quote on a website.

Campaign For Liberty

My response was:
What does an English philosopher have to do with
Life liberty and the pursuit of happness? In no way did the founders of this country believe that a central government was to have that much power. Aftrer all they did fight a war against his country to rid theirself of that kind of thinking.
__________________
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

HUH?

So was Jefferson referring to the Canadians? Mexicans?

.

Let's keep the comment I made in context with the discussion

Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

If the Declaration of Independence was consider a law then those who would push for sepration of church and state would not have a leg to stand on.

And this was the comment that I was replying to

Quote:
Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

 

[JBeukema]

I guess what I said went way over your head.

who is John Locke?

You really need to learn to read before posting again

I don't exactly know what you are up to but I do not recall making that statement.

lol


click on these, dumbass:

As a matter of fact here is my first response on John Locke. I will be notifing the moderators.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You really need to learn to read before posting again

I don't exactly know what you are up to but I do not recall making that statement.

lol


click on these, dumbass:

As a matter of fact here is my first response on John Locke. I will be notifing the moderators.

You are a liar. dumbass

 

[JBeukema]

lol

So you've given up on pretending to know anything about the subject?

 

[Sheldon]

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

HUH?

So was Jefferson referring to the Canadians? Mexicans?

.

Let's keep the comment I made in context with the discussion

Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

If the Declaration of Independence was consider a law then those who would push for sepration of church and state would not have a leg to stand on.

And this was the comment that I was replying to

Quote:
Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

reb, you're even terrible at backpedaling!

We were talking about the DOI, not the Constitution. The phrase in question, the phrase that shows you don't comprehend the influence of John Locke, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', is found in the DOI. That is the phrase I brought up, that you responded to, and that Bfgrn then responded to you and explained where it comes from. Then, out of the blue, you said that the Constitution doesn't give us rights. huh? At no point was I or Bfgrn talking about the Constitution. You just went off into lala-land.

You blame your typos and third-grade grasp of grammar on your fat fingers, but I just think you're the board's brand-new village idiot.

 

[Vast LWC]

lol using thinking a tabletop dictionary as a source of you comprehension of socio-political theories and systems.


Go, click, read.

I'm not "using a tabletop dictionary". I KNOW what socialism is. And the definition that I know is the definition that's shared by the rest of the world.

Just because some people are attempting to re-define terms to make them more or less palatable, doesn't make said new definitions "correct".

The term "Socialism" didn't just magically become the same thing as "Democratic Socialism", for instance.

One can certainly have a Socialist state that is ruled by a totalitarian government, and one can have (theoretically) a Communist state with a democratically elected government.