The Obamacare scam is failing and exposes its built-in treachery

[emilynghiem]

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

WTF? I was referring to your claim that my post consisted of "two contradictory statements". What did you mean by that?

It all has to do with the concept of "rights." While I agree that you and Emily are talking about one thing and I another, the fact that the words "equal rights" is written down somewhere does not make them equal IRL. My previous post gave you three examples which I doubt you can address, but don't worry about it. Just uphold your Letter of the Law and your perception of grievance at having to "serve" others.

OK Arianrhod
I will accept the challenge of addressing the equal rights in terms of slavery and unequal social status of people.

People with criminal illness, inability to manage themselves or their own households to be financially stable and independent, people with learning or physical disabilities are basically not equally protected or privileged
as people with more resources or abilities in these areas.

For example, a business person with family and personal experience owning and managing real estate so income comes in, expenses are written off taxes, and people are hired to do most of the work so they don't have to,
are NOT equal with someone struggling to stay out of prison, off drugs, and keep a job just to pay for daily expenses.

My proposal: to develop campus facilities in every district where jobs/educational internships can be created mentoring and providing services to help train people to become self-sufficient and legally/financially/politically independent.

Where are the resources going to come from?
By teaching and agreeing among residents in each district to
QUIT sending people to prison, to save 50K a year per person who
doesn't cost taxpayers to stay in jail, and to invest that much in saving
into creating internships and mentorships, PAID jobs in education
and training in various fields so people can be hired and work to support
themselves and their communities.

And YES Arianrhod the number one field I would create
internships and residencies in is medical services, nursing,
health care, mental health and social services.

So by reforming the prison system to be training and housing
facilities for medical and mental health programs that WORK
the money, resources, manpower etc that are saved
can be invested in health care, education and housing
on a SUSTAINABLE basis through a campus system
where students and clients are rotated through as soon as the graduate
and move to higher levels.

SEE http://www.campusplan.org

Even if people are at different levels of development, education,
training and growth, they can be respected, included and participate
equally and move at their own pace. Even if we are not all equal
in our abilities to learn, teach, receive or provide services.

I have proposed to take this "sustainable campus plan" developed in
the national historic district of Freedmen's Town and Allen Parkway Village
historic public housing,
and expand it to create campus facilities along the BORDER.
http://www.earnedamnesty.org

So restitution from sweatshop/slave labor, drug and human trafficking
can be reinvested in rebuilding these communities to offer sustainable
jobs
housing
services
education
without anyone having to cross borders illegally to access opportunities resources
and programs.

We have slavery and trafficking today because we don't have housing facilities
and schools set up to manage training for workers starting at the bottom.
If we build programs modeled after the APV campus concepts and Rice University student college system, we can provide safe means of protecting workers
regardless of unequal social, financial, or legal status that can be addressed
through the program, organized in tiers similar to academic class level to meet
the needs and demands of students and workers enrolled, similar to work-study programs.

by converting prisons and sweatshops into schools with student housing, health and social services onsite, and work-study programs, we can gradually move away from "slave labor wages" and help students and workers in training to become independent.
http://www.rightsfortheworkers.org

 

[dblack]

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

WTF? I was referring to your claim that my post consisted of "two contradictory statements". What did you mean by that?

It all has to do with the concept of "rights." While I agree that you and Emily are talking about one thing and I another, the fact that the words "equal rights" is written down somewhere does not make them equal IRL. My previous post gave you three examples which I doubt you can address, but don't worry about it. Just uphold your Letter of the Law and your perception of grievance at having to "serve" others.

You didn't really read the post you responded to, did you?

You claimed my post was "two contradictory statements". Stop dancing and explain what you meant. Or admit you were just flinging bullshit.

 

[emilynghiem]

Two contradictory statements...unless you believe you have rights that others don't.

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

WTF? I was referring to your claim that my post consisted of "two contradictory statements". What did you mean by that?

It all has to do with the concept of "rights." While I agree that you and Emily are talking about one thing and I another, the fact that the words "equal rights" is written down somewhere does not make them equal IRL. My previous post gave you three examples which I doubt you can address, but don't worry about it. Just uphold your Letter of the Law and your perception of grievance at having to "serve" others.

You didn't really read the post you responded to, did you?

You claimed my post was "two contradictory statements". Stop dancing and explain what you meant. Or admit you were just flinging bullshit.

Not at all dblack

from what I see of Arianrhod
A has a sincere concern that you and I
aren't just pushing and defending what "we want and believe"
in order to deny the same of others who want and believe
in what they are defending as the right thing.

Not BS but real concern that we are pushing some
double standard, only arguing because we want or don't want something.

Ironically, it seems the opposite.
Arianrhod seems so bent on defending the right of people
who believe in govt health care as mandatory,
there is no understanding or respect for people who believe otherwise.

I have presented a campus model by which health care
can be provided on a sustainable basis, where govt
might manage the sites and security, but the services
are provided voluntarily and not required for people to
participate or enroll UNLESS convicted of a crime for
which they owe restitution. Please see previous post.

Arianrhod does this approach alleviate your fears
that other means of providing for health care won't be equal?
That there ARE more sustainable cost effective means
that don't require forcing taxpayers to "pay for insurance through govt mandates", but people will
invest and participate VOLUNTARILY as these programs are
proven to work to rebuild and reorganize communities and resources?

All we have to do is bring leaders together to redirect
resources from prisons into medical schools facilities and programs.
And then we can pay for services with money we're already spending.

In terms of slavery, Arianrhod,
dblack and I tend to come from the viewpoint that "dependence on govt" is never going to make people equal, but put them at the mercy of govt officials who would then hold the purse strings to health care and have the upper hand like the Master.

I find that for true EQUALITY, people will need to experience FULL OWNERSHIP to be equal with other people who own their own land, businesses, or control of budgets.

So that's why I propose to set up campus training programs in each district so EVERYONE can access equal education and mentorships in various fields, levels and areas from business to legal and govt administration. If people OWN their own districts and programs, then we can be EQUAL, by having equal access, equal knowledge, equal support and equal freedom to invest our own resources and represent our interests directly.

This is close to a direct democracy, but we can choose to go through reps, such as by district and party, and then higher up through state and federal. But the point is to give people equal choice to represent and manage our own resources ourselves for equal empowerment and ownership.

Without that, we will never see equality.

 

[dblack]

How so?

Well, you can start with the irony of a man writing "all men are created equal" while contemplating the slaves working his fields, and progress through August 18, 1920 when the other 51% of "men" were finally "allowed" to vote. Or you can convince yourself that a kid born with spina bifida has the same hypothetical "rights" as a kid who was born healthy, but it doesn't matter that he can't utilize them.

John Galt, I suspect, would have left the disabled kid on the hillside for the buzzards.

WTF? I was referring to your claim that my post consisted of "two contradictory statements". What did you mean by that?

It all has to do with the concept of "rights." While I agree that you and Emily are talking about one thing and I another, the fact that the words "equal rights" is written down somewhere does not make them equal IRL. My previous post gave you three examples which I doubt you can address, but don't worry about it. Just uphold your Letter of the Law and your perception of grievance at having to "serve" others.

You didn't really read the post you responded to, did you?

You claimed my post was "two contradictory statements". Stop dancing and explain what you meant. Or admit you were just flinging bullshit.

Not at all dblack

from what I see of Arianrhod
A has a sincere concern that you and I
aren't just pushing and defending what "we want and believe"
in order to deny the same of others who want and believe
in what they are defending as the right thing.

That's fine. I was asking about a specific comment claiming my statements were contradictory, and I was curious why they saw it that way. But asking only produced a general screed. I'd really like to know what they were talking about. Often examining things that are obvious to one side and invisible to the other can give us real insight.

As far as "wanting" and "believing", the only way in which government should be concerned with them is protecting our rights to want and believe whatever we want. Actions are another matter. No one should be able to bully anyone else, and that includes government.

Arianrhod seems so bent on defending the right of people
who believe in govt health care as mandatory,
there is no understanding or respect for people who believe otherwise.

I don't think the problem is a refusal of each side to accept the validity of the other's views. The problem is the equivocation that goes on, even after we acknowledge that we're not talking about the same things. Arianrhod's conception of "rights" has nothing to do with freedom. It's squarely focused on empowerment.

We start so many of these discussions with a false sense of common ground. For example, you and Arianrhod might agree that government should protect our rights. But you're not agreeing at all, because what you mean by rights is incompatibly different.

I sense you really want to restore common ground in political discourse, and I think that's a great goal. But if we're really going to do that, we need to be precise with language and make sure we're not just deluding ourselves.

 

[Arianrhod]

Let's try this one more time. You wrote:

The problem is that the two of you don't share a common conception of human rights.

To which I agree, and to which I'd reiterate that you and Emily do agree far more than I agree with either of you. It's an academic exercise for those who've never experienced consequences.

Then you wrote:

We're coming at it from the perspective that the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect our rights, which we construe to be freedoms, not claims on service from others.

Which contradicts your first statement, because either there is a universal human right or there isn't (i.e., you feel put upon because you have to "serve" others).

It's as if you don't perceive that human society is based on human interaction and, to a great extent, reciprocity. Even a message board is based on the assumption that there are other people out there who will respond to you.

Pretending you don't understand what they're posting is an interesting technique. The less mature will throw fits and flame you. Others will argue with you until you get bored and resort to one-liners.

I'd prefer to sit back and watch you and Emily whisper about me as if I'm not here, like a couple of third-grade girls.

 

[dblack]

Let's try this one more time. You wrote:

The problem is that the two of you don't share a common conception of human rights.

To which I agree, and to which I'd reiterate that you and Emily do agree far more than I agree with either of you. It's an academic exercise for those who've never experienced consequences.

Then you wrote:

We're coming at it from the perspective that the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect our rights, which we construe to be freedoms, not claims on service from others.

Which contradicts your first statement, because either there is a universal human right or there isn't (i.e., you feel put upon because you have to "serve" others).

It's as if you don't perceive that human society is based on human interaction and, to a great extent, reciprocity. Even a message board is based on the assumption that there are other people out there who will respond to you.

This is, and I'm being sincere whether you believe it or not, fascinating. Because this makes virtually no sense to me at all. That's not a slam. I assume it makes perfect sense to you, or you wouldn't have bothered posting it. Again, it's because we're simply not on the same page regarding the meanings of the words. Can you explain what you mean by a 'universal human right'? In particular what about your conception of the term makes the idea of government protecting it contradictory?

Pretending you don't understand what they're posting is an interesting technique. The less mature will throw fits and flame you. Others will argue with you until you get bored and resort to one-liners.

I'd prefer to sit back and watch you and Emily whisper about me as if I'm not here, like a couple of third-grade girls.

You're clearly upset and taking this personally. It wasn't mean that way.

 

[Arianrhod]

This is, and I'm being sincere whether you believe it or not, fascinating. Because this makes virtually no sense to me at all. That's not a slam. I assume it makes perfect sense to you, or you wouldn't have bothered posting it. Again, it's because we're simply not on the same page regarding the meanings of the words. Can you explain what you mean by a 'universal human right'? In particular what about your conception of the term makes the idea of government protecting it contradictory?

It doesn't make it contradictory except when people like Emily try to put conditions on it. "Well, of course individual humans deserve protection against predatory banks, insurers, or any large group entity with sufficient power to try to take their rights away...but NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!!"

Somehow, for the strict constructionist, government should only protect its citizens from immigrants and refugees, not home-grown predators.

Let's not even get into preventive health care. The flu pandemic of 1918 killed approximately 675,000 Americans; between 20-50 million worldwide. Funnily, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention things like that. Guess it's up to intelligent people to figure it out for themselves.

 

[dblack]

This is, and I'm being sincere whether you believe it or not, fascinating. Because this makes virtually no sense to me at all. That's not a slam. I assume it makes perfect sense to you, or you wouldn't have bothered posting it. Again, it's because we're simply not on the same page regarding the meanings of the words. Can you explain what you mean by a 'universal human right'? In particular what about your conception of the term makes the idea of government protecting it contradictory?

It doesn't make it contradictory except when people like Emily try to put conditions on it. "Well, of course individual humans deserve protection against predatory banks, insurers, or any large group entity with sufficient power to try to take their rights away...but NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!!"

Somehow, for the strict constructionist, government should only protect its citizens from immigrants and refugees, not home-grown predators.

Let's not even get into preventive health care. The flu pandemic of 1918 killed approximately 675,000 Americans; between 20-50 million worldwide. Funnily, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention things like that. Guess it's up to intelligent people to figure it out for themselves.

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

 

[Arianrhod]

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

 

[Arianrhod]

So that's why I propose to set up campus training programs in each district so EVERYONE can access equal education and mentorships in various fields, levels and areas from business to legal and govt administration. If people OWN their own districts and programs, then we can be EQUAL, by having equal access, equal knowledge, equal support and equal freedom to invest our own resources and represent our interests directly.

This is close to a direct democracy, but we can choose to go through reps, such as by district and party, and then higher up through state and federal. But the point is to give people equal choice to represent and manage our own resources ourselves for equal empowerment and ownership.

Without that, we will never see equality.

Excellent idea. Where do the investment dollars come from?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is, and I'm being sincere whether you believe it or not, fascinating. Because this makes virtually no sense to me at all. That's not a slam. I assume it makes perfect sense to you, or you wouldn't have bothered posting it. Again, it's because we're simply not on the same page regarding the meanings of the words. Can you explain what you mean by a 'universal human right'? In particular what about your conception of the term makes the idea of government protecting it contradictory?

It doesn't make it contradictory except when people like Emily try to put conditions on it. "Well, of course individual humans deserve protection against predatory banks, insurers, or any large group entity with sufficient power to try to take their rights away...but NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!!"

Somehow, for the strict constructionist, government should only protect its citizens from immigrants and refugees, not home-grown predators.

Let's not even get into preventive health care. The flu pandemic of 1918 killed approximately 675,000 Americans; between 20-50 million worldwide. Funnily, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention things like that. Guess it's up to intelligent people to figure it out for themselves.

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

Good idea.

Any time the use of the term "right" comes up with regard to health care, I have to laugh.

Right to what....a colonoscopy every month ?

 

[Arianrhod]

Any time the use of the term "right" comes up with regard to health care, I have to laugh.

Of course you do, because you're clueless about prevention vs treatment/cure.

Right to what....a colonoscopy every month ?

For you, maybe. For normal people, here are the guidelines:

ASGE: Practice Guidelines

Given that colon cancer is in large part a disease of those age 60 and over, an intelligent person would understand that the patient having a screening prior to Medicare eligibility and paying for it on his own insurance - and possibly catching any precancerous lesions in the early stages - would not cost Sunny Boy as much as waiting until an elderly person has metastatic cancer whose costs are picked up by Medicare, i.e., the taxpayer.

 

[emilynghiem]

So that's why I propose to set up campus training programs in each district so EVERYONE can access equal education and mentorships in various fields, levels and areas from business to legal and govt administration. If people OWN their own districts and programs, then we can be EQUAL, by having equal access, equal knowledge, equal support and equal freedom to invest our own resources and represent our interests directly.

This is close to a direct democracy, but we can choose to go through reps, such as by district and party, and then higher up through state and federal. But the point is to give people equal choice to represent and manage our own resources ourselves for equal empowerment and ownership.

Without that, we will never see equality.

Excellent idea. Where do the investment dollars come from?

thanks Arianrhod
the same sources we use now: either a mix of public and private:
* where funds from prisons, schools and health services can be
reorganized
* govt can give taxpayers and investors taxbreaks on investments or
donations, or interest on microloans, made into the programs of their choice
so there are financial incentives to invest in development of schools/services just like a business where people write this off their taxes
* POLITICAL PARTIES can redirect their campaign donations and funds DIRECTLY into programs and policies being promised to their members.
If they are collecting millions if not billions from members, why not
invest that directly into the reforms instead of running on empty promises?


To cover the billions if not trillions needed,
what I propose is to assess RESTITUTION owed to taxpayers
for EACH CASE of money we ALREADY spent that was either wasted, abused or misspent on unauthorized contracts, corruption, corporate profit at public expense etc.

We start hiring LAWYERS like legal teams through law schools
on a COMMISSION basis to start researching wrongs, and collecting
on behalf of taxpayers, mediating settlement agreements and
charging the LEGAL FEES TO THE WRONGDOERS as a deterrent.

Why should WE pay if contractors abuse
* war funding to make huge profits while Vets are denied health care
* prison, public housing and public school funds
* corporate welfare such as the trillions paid to insurance companies
under the ACA

NOTE A: if the money is already spent and isn't there to be paid back,
that is STILL NOT THE FAULT of fraud victims to pay for the crimes of others.

So what I propose is that the public claim land, property and programs
as COLLATERAL on debts and damages we are owed, and work out
a payment plan for the wrongdoers
* to reimburse the wrongfully amounts
paid to them for unauthorized spending in violation of Constitutional laws
and process (or the Code of Ethics if private interests profited at public expense
under a "conflict of interest")
* to pay interest and legal fees on the cost of corrections
* and for the wronged parties to hold collateral, so that if the wrongdoers cannot pay back the debt, investors who DO pay it back get to own shares in the collateral. So we REWARD citizens for investing in corrections, and penalize
wrongdoers who fail to compensate and take responsibility.

We don't punish taxpayers with costs of the wrongs of others.
We should give credits, interest and even shares in collateral for investing
in solutions and corrections.

NOTE B: While these debts are not paid back, I propose we set up
accounts through the Federal Reserve and issue CREDITS to taxpayers.
These CREDITS can be in the form of electronic data such as banks
and credit cards use, and then pay for the reforms and development
of programs that way.

OR the Fed can issue actual NOTES against the debts assessed
as owed to taxpayers, and circulate currency that can pay for the
reform programs to be developed as restitution to the communities wronged.

I would organize this through the Federal Reserve,
and work with each major Party to delegate tasks, cases and areas
of researching restitution owed to taxpayers, such as the following:
* assigning the Green Party to assess the cost of damages and restoration
of environmental destruction (of forests, rivers, water systems, land fills,
toxic waste and pollution, ocean, emissions from energy and batteries,
discarded materials from cars and computers, etc.) and invest in
sustainable energy and recyclable materials that don't damage the environment
* assigning the Republicans and Democrats who have researched the war spending and illicit contracts to assess the trillions in cost of war to taxpayers and work out plans to pay this back to help Vets reform the VA, then expand on that to
start providing health care to all other populations once a working model is set up.
i would recommend the GOP work on Vets and VA reform
while the Dems work on prison/death penalty reforms to extract
and redirect resources from there into effective sustainable health care
and work toward universal coverage.
* the Greens and Libertarians can also work out localized plans for independent
coops, labor pools, and worker-owned networks, including independent currency.
See Introducing HOUR Money
this independent currency is the model I would propose for
issuing bonds or currency against restitution, debts and damages owed to taxpayers.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is, and I'm being sincere whether you believe it or not, fascinating. Because this makes virtually no sense to me at all. That's not a slam. I assume it makes perfect sense to you, or you wouldn't have bothered posting it. Again, it's because we're simply not on the same page regarding the meanings of the words. Can you explain what you mean by a 'universal human right'? In particular what about your conception of the term makes the idea of government protecting it contradictory?

It doesn't make it contradictory except when people like Emily try to put conditions on it. "Well, of course individual humans deserve protection against predatory banks, insurers, or any large group entity with sufficient power to try to take their rights away...but NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!!"

Somehow, for the strict constructionist, government should only protect its citizens from immigrants and refugees, not home-grown predators.

Let's not even get into preventive health care. The flu pandemic of 1918 killed approximately 675,000 Americans; between 20-50 million worldwide. Funnily, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention things like that. Guess it's up to intelligent people to figure it out for themselves.

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

Good idea.

Any time the use of the term "right" comes up with regard to health care, I have to laugh.

Right to what....a colonoscopy every month ?

Yes Sun Devil 92 and with rights come responsibilities.

So if you want these rights, you share responsibilities to
set up a cost effective system that can serve the local
residents on a one-on-one basis like doctors used to do.
We set up localized clinics through every school district, where interns and residents can be supervised while providing public health services as part of their medical education and training,
then we can ALL afford to access regular checkups and visits.

If you want the right or privilege to apply for a license and drive a car on the road, then you have to pay for the car and safe upkeep plus insurance, and agree to follow the rules of the road. Then you have the right to participate in that way, by accepting all the legal and financial responsibilities involved.

You want the same freedom as other people have
to drive themselves to work or do what they want,
you have the "right to SEEK the same level of
independence," but it costs money and requires
responsibilities that cannot be demanded of others to provide for you.

It CAN be developed through a combination of free enterprise, educational models, and business/charitable services.

We do have the RIGHT to set this up if we want sustainable accessible health care.

 

[dblack]

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

It's beyond stupid that the left can't differentiate between rights and convenience.

That was what drove the founders crazy.

Self evident is that if someone falls in the street, people should and will help them to safety.

It is also self evident is that nobody is required by law to do so.

 

[Arianrhod]

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is, and I'm being sincere whether you believe it or not, fascinating. Because this makes virtually no sense to me at all. That's not a slam. I assume it makes perfect sense to you, or you wouldn't have bothered posting it. Again, it's because we're simply not on the same page regarding the meanings of the words. Can you explain what you mean by a 'universal human right'? In particular what about your conception of the term makes the idea of government protecting it contradictory?

It doesn't make it contradictory except when people like Emily try to put conditions on it. "Well, of course individual humans deserve protection against predatory banks, insurers, or any large group entity with sufficient power to try to take their rights away...but NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!!"

Somehow, for the strict constructionist, government should only protect its citizens from immigrants and refugees, not home-grown predators.

Let's not even get into preventive health care. The flu pandemic of 1918 killed approximately 675,000 Americans; between 20-50 million worldwide. Funnily, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention things like that. Guess it's up to intelligent people to figure it out for themselves.

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

Universal human right is a code.

I am sure you know what it means.

 

[Arianrhod]

Universal human right is a code.

I am sure you know what it means.

In the U.S. of Healthy White Endangered Male, it usually means this:



Of course, the kid with spina bifida can be any color; his "rights" are an imposition on the WEM.

 

[dblack]

I was hoping you'd define "universal human right" in some way that would shed some light on what you said earlier.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Apparently they aren't.

Well, we speak for ourselves - they seem quite self-evident to me. Clearly you see it differently, but I'm not sure how. If you'd rather keep it a secret, that's fine, but I am curious.

How self-evident were they to the slaves in Thomas Jefferson's fields? How self-evident were they to the generations of American women who couldn't vote? How self-evident are they to the kid with spina bifida?

As self-evident as they are to anyone else, I'd suppose. Being a slave, a woman deprived of her voice or someone suffering from a crippling disease doesn't make one stupid. In fact, especially in the case of the slaves, these are the people most likely to have an intense, personal appreciation of liberty.