Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[LoneLaugher]

JoeB,

You and I agree - because if we're to read the constitution from a "maybe there isn't a creator" standpoint, then rights NESSESSARILY were not endowed by our creator.

On topic though. I grew up around poor people. There are system abusers. But the fact that people just love being poor, unemployed and on welfare (speaking of a majority who are) is blatantly false.

Try going outside. Political discourse is not really all revealing, but moreso an over simplification. You can't understand until you step outside of your bubble.

I never said it was. I'm sure they hate being poor and unemployed. But they also don't understand that the way to not be so is to work for it.
When I was in teh National Guard, in an inner city Chicago unit, we had a lot of guys with that mentality. They were showing up, they got a check. What? You expect us to actually take this training stuff seriously, Sarge? And unload trucks and set up tents?

My biggest complaint with liberalism is that it fosters a mentality that "the world owes you". My biggest problem with conservatism is that it has a mentality of "I've got mine, screw you."

Can't we get to a happy medium where work is encouraged as an ethic, but we all try to be reasonably fair to each other?

What bullshit.

 

[kwc57]

Check all that apply: Adult Americans have a rigfht to be provided with…

Deliver us from the rightist ideologues, jeez…

Snappy retort! Boy, you sure put Fox in her place. Will you be publishing soon?

 

[kwc57]

They still believed in slavery....who the fuck cares what they thought about social services?

It was the 18th century........before even Dickens

During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton's work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton and the New York Manumission Society | Everyday Citizen

John Jay founded the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated or the New York Manumission Society, and became its first president in 1785.
New York Manumission Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society.
Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In Philadelphia at the start of the Revolution, Quakers founded the Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery and Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin would become its president in 1787. In Pennsylvania and New York, Quaker congregations began to expel slave owners. Methodists, on fire from the revivalist Great Awakening, came to see God's love and freedom as universals, and preachers set out to convert blacks. Methodists voted to remove slaveholders from church membership.
Finding Slaves in Unexpected Places : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It would be four years before New Hampshire acted, but Vermont moved quickly and freed its slaves in 1777. Soon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island began gradual emancipation. By the 1790 census, there were no slaves to be counted in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Ibid.

Sorry....but our Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when it came to slavery and human rights in general. But what the heck.....it was the 18th century what did they know about human rights?

They started a progression that eventually lead to the liberties we enjoy today but it was future generations that eventually granted those liberties

That is why we cannot take the writings of the founding fathers as gospel. They could never comprehend the complexities of our society .....why would we want them to make decisions for us?

Take a peek around that tree and what do you see......oh my GOSH, a forest!!! You really aren't this stupid are you RW? Please tell me it's just that you like to argue a point.

 

[kwc57]

The founding fathers were for the most part religious and righteous men. But their core values were shaped in the 18th century. Those core values believed that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women were subservient to men and lacked the intelligence to make critical decisions, Indians were mere savages to be denied the rights of man.
Modern judges trying to get inside the minds of the founding fathers is mere fantasy. The founding fathers had no concept of what our society is like and what it's needs are. To apply a What Would Jesus Do? Methodology is merely using the founding fathers to support your political opinions. For the most part, if you asked the founding fathers how to resolve modern challenges you would get piss poor advice

I don't think we would get piss poor advice if they lived today instead of the late 18th century, because they would make the effort to be as informed today on all the dynamics as they were then.

None of the anecdotal references in your post have a damn thing to do with the principles embodied in the founding documents and ultimately incorporated into the Constitution. A principle is a principle no matter what the circumstances to which it is applied. If we keep the principle in focus, it works no matter what.

However, I think the 'free stuff' group in our society are so enamored with the Santa Claus, Big Brother, all benevolent pipedream of government that they no longer value or cherish the Constitution and would cheerfully chuck it in favor of some new big government concept. I think they are intentionally trying to discredit the Constitution and those who wrote it and I think they are figuratively rewriting it for their own interests which of course is the government ordering the right kind of society that incvludes the right to have others provide them with free stuff. And they are not the least bit interested in even acknowledging, much less discussing any possible negative consequences of that.

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

Really? Do tell what update there was to freedom of speech in the constitution to make it more applicable to our time?

 

[kwc57]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

Yeah, right...as civil as your post is, you mean?

Could you point out the "uncivil" parts for the rest of the class?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think we would get piss poor advice if they lived today instead of the late 18th century, because they would make the effort to be as informed today on all the dynamics as they were then.

None of the anecdotal references in your post have a damn thing to do with the principles embodied in the founding documents and ultimately incorporated into the Constitution. A principle is a principle no matter what the circumstances to which it is applied. If we keep the principle in focus, it works no matter what.

However, I think the 'free stuff' group in our society are so enamored with the Santa Claus, Big Brother, all benevolent pipedream of government that they no longer value or cherish the Constitution and would cheerfully chuck it in favor of some new big government concept. I think they are intentionally trying to discredit the Constitution and those who wrote it and I think they are figuratively rewriting it for their own interests which of course is the government ordering the right kind of society that incvludes the right to have others provide them with free stuff. And they are not the least bit interested in even acknowledging, much less discussing any possible negative consequences of that.

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

You really have some very wrong ideas about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote, or promoted. I suggest that you spend some time reading some of their writings--ALL of their writings and not selected sound bites from leftist websites.

Now please re-read the OP and try really hard and I bet you can understand the thesis that this thread is about.

We have one group of Americans who still embrace the concept of unalienable rights and self governance whether or not they are aware of where those values originated.

We have another group of Americans who pretty much ignores the Constitution, the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, and the consequences of social programs because they are focused on the free stuff that big government provides and/or promises. That free stuff is the most important thing that drives their concept of government and social policy.

Do you agree or disagree with this. Do you see this as okay or not okay?

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

 

[Dragon]

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

If that's the attitude you're going to take, then you are engaging in deceptive propaganda and deserve nothing but contempt.

 

[rightwinger]

JoeB,

You and I agree - because if we're to read the constitution from a "maybe there isn't a creator" standpoint, then rights NESSESSARILY were not endowed by our creator.

On topic though. I grew up around poor people. There are system abusers. But the fact that people just love being poor, unemployed and on welfare (speaking of a majority who are) is blatantly false.

Try going outside. Political discourse is not really all revealing, but moreso an over simplification. You can't understand until you step outside of your bubble.

There are system abusers at all levels of the population. As soon as you lay down rules there are people who will automatically look for ways to bend them or break them

Conservatives love to point the finger at welfare cheats as the reason our economy is struggling. But the largest drain on our economy is the tax cheats and it is the 1% who benefit the most from those loopholes.

After all....they wrote them

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think we would get piss poor advice if they lived today instead of the late 18th century, because they would make the effort to be as informed today on all the dynamics as they were then.

None of the anecdotal references in your post have a damn thing to do with the principles embodied in the founding documents and ultimately incorporated into the Constitution. A principle is a principle no matter what the circumstances to which it is applied. If we keep the principle in focus, it works no matter what.

However, I think the 'free stuff' group in our society are so enamored with the Santa Claus, Big Brother, all benevolent pipedream of government that they no longer value or cherish the Constitution and would cheerfully chuck it in favor of some new big government concept. I think they are intentionally trying to discredit the Constitution and those who wrote it and I think they are figuratively rewriting it for their own interests which of course is the government ordering the right kind of society that incvludes the right to have others provide them with free stuff. And they are not the least bit interested in even acknowledging, much less discussing any possible negative consequences of that.

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

Really? Do tell what update there was to freedom of speech in the constitution to make it more applicable to our time?

. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Seems simple enough doesn't it? I understand it, why wouldn't all generations look at it the same way I do

If an 18th century slave were to file a case claiming his first amendment rights were being violated it seems obvious that any court reading the first amendment would agree with him

That slaves right to free speech was nonexistent that slave could not publish a newspaper or protest his condition in life. That slave could not assemble with other slaves and peacefully protest. He could not petition the government

Hundreds of court cases have been written to refine and clarify the scope of the first amendment. There are more to come. Each generation has new challenges, new technologies and new interpretations of what liberty entails

The founding fathers had no concept of what that involves

 

[kwc57]

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

Really? Do tell what update there was to freedom of speech in the constitution to make it more applicable to our time?

. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Seems simple enough doesn't it? I understand it, why wouldn't all generations look at it the same way I do

If an 18th century slave were to file a case claiming his first amendment rights were being violated it seems obvious that any court reading the first amendment would agree with him

That slaves right to free speech was nonexistent that slave could not publish a newspaper or protest his condition in life. That slave could not assemble with other slaves and peacefully protest. He could not petition the government

Hundreds of court cases have been written to refine and clarify the scope of the first amendment. There are more to come. Each generation has new challenges, new technologies and new interpretations of what liberty entails

The founding fathers had no concept of what that involves

Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid goes to the bone. You're absolutley hopeless.

 

[Nosmo King]

Really? Do tell what update there was to freedom of speech in the constitution to make it more applicable to our time?

. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Seems simple enough doesn't it? I understand it, why wouldn't all generations look at it the same way I do

If an 18th century slave were to file a case claiming his first amendment rights were being violated it seems obvious that any court reading the first amendment would agree with him

That slaves right to free speech was nonexistent that slave could not publish a newspaper or protest his condition in life. That slave could not assemble with other slaves and peacefully protest. He could not petition the government

Hundreds of court cases have been written to refine and clarify the scope of the first amendment. There are more to come. Each generation has new challenges, new technologies and new interpretations of what liberty entails

The founding fathers had no concept of what that involves

Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid goes to the bone. You're absolutley hopeless.

Snappy retort! Boy, you sure put Rightwinger in his place. Will you be publishing soon?

The phrase you're thinking of now is either "I've been hoisted upon my own pitard!" or "D'oh!" depending on how much you read.

 

[DiamondDave]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

You have the right to the freedom which you can use to gain those things all for yourself

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

You really have some very wrong ideas about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote, or promoted. I suggest that you spend some time reading some of their writings--ALL of their writings and not selected sound bites from leftist websites.

Now please re-read the OP and try really hard and I bet you can understand the thesis that this thread is about.

We have one group of Americans who still embrace the concept of unalienable rights and self governance whether or not they are aware of where those values originated.

We have another group of Americans who pretty much ignores the Constitution, the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, and the consequences of social programs because they are focused on the free stuff that big government provides and/or promises. That free stuff is the most important thing that drives their concept of government and social policy.

Do you agree or disagree with this. Do you see this as okay or not okay?

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Well if you didn't like the thesis of the OP that specifically refers to 'free stuff', you were free to post in any of the other numerous threads on USMB. You were free to check any of the options in the poll and explain why it is just and fair and the American way that I be required to provide you with any or all of the items on that list and also explain how that does not violate my rights. I don't see that you have done that.

Now declaring my efforts to stay with the topic as 'being obsessed with free stuff' is pretty lame don't you think?

You are certainly free to explain how the Constitution is no longer a valid document for modern times. You say that the original intent of the Constitution is doing with it what I wish, while there is no suggestion that your dismissal of original intent is doing with it what you wish. That really looks like hypocrisy however much that was not intended.

You have alternated between praising the Founders and dissing them, accusing them, and proclaiming them no longer relevent. And in your last post you objected to the thesis and went ad hominem by telling me what I believe, what I choose, etc. when you cannot point to any post to back that up.

There seems to be a disconnect when I say that the Constitution was intended to protect our unalienable rights and you translate those rights to 'free stuff' with the implication that the Constitution protects the right for others to provide free stuff????? It would be really easy to read your remarks that way. I certainly have said nothing to suggest that, however.

And you have quite firmly avoided answering questions direcvtly put to you.

All of which confirms to me that you probably have nothing and I am thus far the winner of that debate.

So. . . .anybody. . . . can you make a case for a right to require others to provide you free stuff?

 

[rightwinger]

You really have some very wrong ideas about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote, or promoted. I suggest that you spend some time reading some of their writings--ALL of their writings and not selected sound bites from leftist websites.

Now please re-read the OP and try really hard and I bet you can understand the thesis that this thread is about.

We have one group of Americans who still embrace the concept of unalienable rights and self governance whether or not they are aware of where those values originated.

We have another group of Americans who pretty much ignores the Constitution, the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, and the consequences of social programs because they are focused on the free stuff that big government provides and/or promises. That free stuff is the most important thing that drives their concept of government and social policy.

Do you agree or disagree with this. Do you see this as okay or not okay?

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Well if you didn't like the thesis of the OP that specifically refers to 'free stuff', you were free to post in any of the other numerous threads on USMB. You were free to check any of the options in the poll and explain why it is just and fair and the American way that I be required to provide you with any or all of the items on that list and also explain how that does not violate my rights. I don't see that you have done that.

Now declaring my efforts to stay with the topic as 'being obsessed with free stuff' is pretty lame don't you think?

You are certainly free to explain how the Constitution is no longer a valid document for modern times. You say that the original intent of the Constitution is doing with it what I wish, while there is no suggestion that your dismissal of original intent is doing with it what you wish. That really looks like hypocrisy however much that was not intended.

You have alternated between praising the Founders and dissing them, accusing them, and proclaiming them no longer relevent. And in your last post you objected to the thesis and went ad hominem by telling me what I believe, what I choose, etc. when you cannot point to any post to back that up.

There seems to be a disconnect when I say that the Constitution was intended to protect our unalienable rights and you translate those rights to 'free stuff' with the implication that the Constitution protects the right for others to provide free stuff????? It would be really easy to read your remarks that way. I certainly have said nothing to suggest that, however.

And you have quite firmly avoided answering questions direcvtly put to you.

All of which confirms to me that you probably have nothing and I am thus far the winner of that debate.

So. . . .anybody. . . . can you make a case for a right to require others to provide you free stuff?

If I may be blunt

Your OP and it's associated poll looks like it was written by a child

You have no concept of the complexity of the Constitution, 200 years of case law, the role of government or specifically, the bill of rights

Your repeated whines of "poor people get free stuff and that is not in the Constitution" highlights the absurdity of your thread

 

[Foxfyre]

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Well if you didn't like the thesis of the OP that specifically refers to 'free stuff', you were free to post in any of the other numerous threads on USMB. You were free to check any of the options in the poll and explain why it is just and fair and the American way that I be required to provide you with any or all of the items on that list and also explain how that does not violate my rights. I don't see that you have done that.

Now declaring my efforts to stay with the topic as 'being obsessed with free stuff' is pretty lame don't you think?

You are certainly free to explain how the Constitution is no longer a valid document for modern times. You say that the original intent of the Constitution is doing with it what I wish, while there is no suggestion that your dismissal of original intent is doing with it what you wish. That really looks like hypocrisy however much that was not intended.

You have alternated between praising the Founders and dissing them, accusing them, and proclaiming them no longer relevent. And in your last post you objected to the thesis and went ad hominem by telling me what I believe, what I choose, etc. when you cannot point to any post to back that up.

There seems to be a disconnect when I say that the Constitution was intended to protect our unalienable rights and you translate those rights to 'free stuff' with the implication that the Constitution protects the right for others to provide free stuff????? It would be really easy to read your remarks that way. I certainly have said nothing to suggest that, however.

And you have quite firmly avoided answering questions direcvtly put to you.

All of which confirms to me that you probably have nothing and I am thus far the winner of that debate.

So. . . .anybody. . . . can you make a case for a right to require others to provide you free stuff?

If I may be blunt

Your OP and it's associated poll looks like it was written by a child

You have no concept of the complexity of the Constitution, 200 years of case law, the role of government or specifically, the bill of rights

Your repeated whines of "poor people get free stuff and that is not in the Constitution" highlights the absurdity of your thread

Thank you very much for your civility and personal assessment of me and the thread. (cough) I now absolutely declare myself the winner of this part of the debate as any debate judge would score you a big fat zero for your inability to defend your statements and your increasing hostility expressed in ad hominem and personal insults toward your opponent. And please know that we won't think the less of you if you choose not to so passionately engage in such a 'childish' discussion and focus your attentions elsewhere. I for one would appreciate that.

 

[DiamondDave]

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Well if you didn't like the thesis of the OP that specifically refers to 'free stuff', you were free to post in any of the other numerous threads on USMB. You were free to check any of the options in the poll and explain why it is just and fair and the American way that I be required to provide you with any or all of the items on that list and also explain how that does not violate my rights. I don't see that you have done that.

Now declaring my efforts to stay with the topic as 'being obsessed with free stuff' is pretty lame don't you think?

You are certainly free to explain how the Constitution is no longer a valid document for modern times. You say that the original intent of the Constitution is doing with it what I wish, while there is no suggestion that your dismissal of original intent is doing with it what you wish. That really looks like hypocrisy however much that was not intended.

You have alternated between praising the Founders and dissing them, accusing them, and proclaiming them no longer relevent. And in your last post you objected to the thesis and went ad hominem by telling me what I believe, what I choose, etc. when you cannot point to any post to back that up.

There seems to be a disconnect when I say that the Constitution was intended to protect our unalienable rights and you translate those rights to 'free stuff' with the implication that the Constitution protects the right for others to provide free stuff????? It would be really easy to read your remarks that way. I certainly have said nothing to suggest that, however.

And you have quite firmly avoided answering questions direcvtly put to you.

All of which confirms to me that you probably have nothing and I am thus far the winner of that debate.

So. . . .anybody. . . . can you make a case for a right to require others to provide you free stuff?

If I may be blunt

Your OP and it's associated poll looks like it was written by a child

You have no concept of the complexity of the Constitution, 200 years of case law, the role of government or specifically, the bill of rights

Your repeated whines of "poor people get free stuff and that is not in the Constitution" highlights the absurdity of your thread

Please show in the constitution where case law is to be used to judge constitutional intent... is that the same place where the judicial branch has the power to legislate from the bench??

Just because persons or branches of a power hungry government do things to grab more power and try and make it sound justified, does not make it justified... the powers granted are very specific...

 

[Foxfyre]

Please show in the constitution where case law is to be used to judge constitutional intent... is that the same place where the judicial branch has the power to legislate from the bench??

Just because persons or branches of a power hungry government do things to grab more power and try and make it sound justified, does not make it justified... the powers granted are very specific...

More specifically, I would like somebody to show me where it says in the Constitution that it is the right of any citizen to be provided any product or service by others.

I would like for anybody to explain a rationale for how it does not violate my rights to confiscate what I lawfully earned or acquired and give it to somebody else.

Unless (the generic) you want to say that the courts are infallible and determine what is right and wrong, in which case you would have to say that it was right and just to own slaves and practice segregation both of which previous Supreme Courts have upheld, let's take the courts out of this and reason together.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Wow! This has been a most informative read, and I'm glad that I took the time to do so. It's clear from the 8 pages here that the premise of the OP is valid, as we've had the ideological divide illustrated quite clearly.

Foxfyre, I appreciate the thought and effort you've put into this discussion, and the reserve you've shown in some of your replies. I fear I would not have remained so level-headed.

 

[Sallow]

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

You really have some very wrong ideas about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote, or promoted. I suggest that you spend some time reading some of their writings--ALL of their writings and not selected sound bites from leftist websites.

Now please re-read the OP and try really hard and I bet you can understand the thesis that this thread is about.

We have one group of Americans who still embrace the concept of unalienable rights and self governance whether or not they are aware of where those values originated.

We have another group of Americans who pretty much ignores the Constitution, the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, and the consequences of social programs because they are focused on the free stuff that big government provides and/or promises. That free stuff is the most important thing that drives their concept of government and social policy.

Do you agree or disagree with this. Do you see this as okay or not okay?

You have a simplistic view of the Constitution

To you, it is your document to do with as you wish. You believe that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly have any merit

Most offensively, you look at Constitutionally elected government and because it does not meet your political persuasion you claim they are trampling on the Constitution

Your childish objections to "free stuff" only applies to free stuff that others receive while your free stuff is somehow constitutionally protected

Nobody has a lesser understanding of the principles of our nation than a libertarian

Absolutely.

You'll also notice..that no "Libertarian" ever started a government. Rather..they seek to bend governments already up and running to their particular view point.

 

[Sallow]

Please show in the constitution where case law is to be used to judge constitutional intent... is that the same place where the judicial branch has the power to legislate from the bench??

Just because persons or branches of a power hungry government do things to grab more power and try and make it sound justified, does not make it justified... the powers granted are very specific...

More specifically, I would like somebody to show me where it says in the Constitution that it is the right of any citizen to be provided any product or service by others.

I would like for anybody to explain a rationale for how it does not violate my rights to confiscate what I lawfully earned or acquired and give it to somebody else.

Unless (the generic) you want to say that the courts are infallible and determine what is right and wrong, in which case you would have to say that it was right and just to own slaves and practice segregation both of which previous Supreme Courts have upheld, let's take the courts out of this and reason together.

The government doesn't "confiscate" anything. It's part of the social pact..you pay in..and you get benefits..you don't like it?

Islands for Sale, Private Islands, Luxury Real Estate

Feel free.