Bill of Non-Rights: Do you agree or not?

[Ringel05]

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

Even that does not give one the right to free healthcare but what one does have is the right to sue the responsible party for redress of grievances to include "pain and suffering".

So, you can get your money out of it---if you can stay alive long enough for it to get through the courts.

You or your heirs.

Are you able to justify that?

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

 

[emilynghiem]

You do not have the right to free health care.

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

Dear Disir if corporations were held to respect the same Bill of Rights to protect individuals from abuse or oppression by collective entities with more influence or resources,
then such abuses could be stopped before they occur.

You are right in that since we cannot afford the cost of cancer, which isn't free,
and neither can the corporations "restore" life and health to those who lose them to cancer,
then such practices should be barred in the first place that would otherwise cause cancer or other disease.

Making health care a free right isn't going to help
stop the CAUSES of cancer that are preventable.

Even if the corporation responsible agrees to pay all costs of health care,
wouldn't the people rather have their health and life and NOT have the plant or site built there?

 

[Disir]

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

You do not have the right to free health care.

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

 

[emilynghiem]

You do not have the right to free health care.

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Dear FA_Q2
I would say not only is the corporation responsible for the damage owe costs,
but what State allowed the corporation to operate and put their interests first before protection of other citizens?

The abuse should have been stopped BEFORE costing the public the resources to deal with cancer and other disease and environmental damage.

Had the people had equal right to petition to redress grievances as the corporate interests were given,
this whole scenario can be prevented.

Holding the corporation liable for paying the health care costs is one thing.
I'd hold the state responsible for making sure corporations don't violate civil rights of individuals
in order to qualify for licensing to operate in that state.

 

[Ringel05]

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.

I'm not discussing whether it can be added or not, (added because no matter which Amendment you or politicians and lawyers try to spin it doesn't currently exist), I'm discussing what is there without personal judgment.

 

[Disir]

You do not have the right to free health care.

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

 

[Disir]

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.

I'm not discussing whether it can be added or not, (added because no matter which Amendment you or politicians and lawyers try to spin it doesn't currently exist), I'm discussing what is there without personal judgment.

I don't need an amendment for it. It can be done within the constitution.

 

[Ringel05]

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.

I'm not discussing whether it can be added or not, (added because no matter which Amendment you or politicians and lawyers try to spin it doesn't currently exist), I'm discussing what is there without personal judgment.

I don't need an amendment for it. It can be done within the constitution.

Which Amendment would you amend or reinterpret?

 

[FA_Q2]

You do not have the right to free health care.

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Yes, you openly violate others rights 'just like that.'

 

[FA_Q2]

You do not have the right to free health care.

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Dear FA_Q2
I would say not only is the corporation responsible for the damage owe costs,
but what State allowed the corporation to operate and put their interests first before protection of other citizens?

The abuse should have been stopped BEFORE costing the public the resources to deal with cancer and other disease and environmental damage.

Had the people had equal right to petition to redress grievances as the corporate interests were given,
this whole scenario can be prevented.

Holding the corporation liable for paying the health care costs is one thing.
I'd hold the state responsible for making sure corporations don't violate civil rights of individuals
in order to qualify for licensing to operate in that state.

That is nice in thory, not so much in practice.

When things like this happen it is not usually because of things that are known before. Typically the envisioned dump site would be unaware of the damage until after it takes effect. If they knew before then you are talking about criminal charges as well as civil.

As far as making the state responsible, that is a silly notion as far as I am concerned. WE make up the state and the state does not 'pay' for anything - WE do by proxy through taxation. Assuming that the people did not have right of redress because there were some bad outcomes is not entirely sensible.

 

[Disir]

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.

I'm not discussing whether it can be added or not, (added because no matter which Amendment you or politicians and lawyers try to spin it doesn't currently exist), I'm discussing what is there without personal judgment.

I don't need an amendment for it. It can be done within the constitution.

Which Amendment would you amend or reinterpret?

Tax and spend clause. In fact, simply strike the "65 and older" line from medicare.

 

[norwegen]

We have a right to keep and bear arms; no one must purchase firearms for us.

Rights do not impose on our neighbors.

 

[Disir]

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Yes, you openly violate others rights 'just like that.'

There is no justification in allowing it to happen to begin with.

 

[Ringel05]

What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?

Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.

I'm not discussing whether it can be added or not, (added because no matter which Amendment you or politicians and lawyers try to spin it doesn't currently exist), I'm discussing what is there without personal judgment.

I don't need an amendment for it. It can be done within the constitution.

Which Amendment would you amend or reinterpret?

Tax and spend. In fact, simply strike the "65 and older" line from medicare.

So it's not free......
The argument was whether it's a right or not, that literally means is it guaranteed in the Constitution or not, that's the aspect of the argument you're missing. It's not a guaranteed right under the constitution, what you're focusing on is legislative action not a constitutional right but calling it a right.

 

[norwegen]

We do have a right to a new car, a big-screen TV, and other luxuries. We also have a right to be offended.

I would not want go through life not ever being offended.

 

[Ringel05]

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

And that has noting to do with the contention that you have a right to free healthcare.

You are responsible for your actions as is the dump site. Should their actions cause you harm then they are liable. There is no justification to force others into covering healthcare for you because someone somewhere may or may not do something that might cause you harm.

Like a tax.......bam, just like that.

Yes, you openly violate others rights 'just like that.'

There is no justification in allowing it to happen to begin with.

What does that have to do with the rights argument? You're off on a tangent.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You do not have the right to free health care.

But, you do.

Sorry, but you don't. A "right" comes with no cost to your neighbor.

When your neighbor has to pay for your "rights", he becomes your slave. We abolished slavery (Republicans did anyway).

Wrong answer. If you set up a dump site x amount of miles away from a town and the people in the town are showing an increase in cancer or even asthma then you have an issue. People that are sick are less productive.

Why dont you start again and say what you really mean.

 

[Ringel05]

We do have a right to a new car, a big-screen TV, and other luxuries. We also have a right to be offended.

I would not want go through life not ever being offended.

I'm an equal opportunity offender, how may I be of service........?

 

[norwegen]

A government that dispenses rights is tyrannical.