God given rights?

[PratchettFan]

I'm not really sure whether we are agreeing or disagreeing. So let me try to explain my point and you tell me if I am off base.

A sperm is a cell from the male. It has exactly the same DNA as any other cell in the male body. It is not unique. The egg is a cell from the female. It has exactly the same DNA as any other cell in the female. It is not unique. When the egg is fertilized by the sperm, it creates a zygote. This has an entirely unique DNA, different than either the male or female. It is a completely new human being.

That is 100% correct and deserved highlighting...

Nope...a sperm has HALF the DNA of the male....the egg has HALF the DNA of the female.

I don't think so, but I have been wrong before and it is possible I am wrong now. Can you refer me to something on that?

 

[DiamondDave]

1) No i will enjoy my kids and realize they can't do everything yet. Being a parent is not equal to jail time.
2) true
3) Being conservative and teaching them the ideals is no better than being a meth addict.
4) Nope
5) Me of all people? Here let me school you in how i am not a nanny stater.
You should be able to drink what you want, smoke what you want, Not wear a helmet, not wear a seatbelt, do what you want to your own body. You shouldnt be mandated to buy health insurance, nor mandated to do anything against your will. I dont believe in vaginal Probes or that you shouldnt be able to marry who you want.

No unlike you, i walk the walk. Your life is none of my business nor do i care about you. My children will learn to respect others, have manners, and be polite when needed. They will learn what it is like to earn something.

Look you want to be a ******* retard and blame the ills of the world on Liberals go ahead. Thats your choice to be ignorant. I on the other hand know better and know that liberals are not all evil and they can do some good in the world. Just like conservatives. Thats the difference between I and you a partisan fucktard.

1) Never said it was jail time.. serving someone is not imprisoning someone
3) Yeah.. because all of those independent hard working meth addicts out there ... nice try at a comeback, but a total fail... you teach dependence, you teach redistribution, you teach stealing from Peter to give to Paul, you teach wrong
4) It is indeed... it is a developing human being with its own unique DNA signature, whether you like it or not
5) You repeatedly support nanny state entitlements, unequal treatment, redistribution, and every other nanny state scheme in the book... then you try and associate protecting rights and freedom and life to being a nanny stater as a distraction technique (a failed one though) and THAT makes you laughable....

And I am hardly partisan and point out the issues wrong with the party I happen to be registered to, if only to be able to vote in the primary... I show my support for any adult to be with and start a family with any other adult they choose, and strive to keep government out of it except for true governmental issues... I show my differing views from the republicans on social issues... I show where I sit very libertarian until it comes to punishment for convicted crimes and things of that sort... you lockstep and follow your progressive extremist masters, and follow every spouted mantra to the tee... but it is funny to see you try and paint others as partisan after you spilled all the partisan paint all over yourself

1) i never said you said it was. I dont serve my kids, never will. They are not kings
3) lol....Meth addicts are greedy little ***** who will do anything to get the next high. You would do anything to make a buck. It was perfectly fine that i stated that. You said something really stupid, so i answered with something equally as stupid. I am just playing down to your level. You know nothing about me, but you imply i am a liberal. I know nothing about you, so i will imply you like to **** cows.
4)Nope it has the potential to be a human being, till it comes out of the womb it is a parasite.
5) LOL i point out how i am not a nanny stater and you go ahead and claim i am one anyways. Man you are a ******* joke and apparently have a huge ego ta boot. You are that full of yourself that you know me better than i do.
You repeatedly support nanny state entitlements, unequal treatment, redistribution
Go ahead, point out where i do this. This should be awesome.

lol nah you don't, but its amusing how you paint me in such a way and then go ahead and do what you claim i am doing.

good job cowfucker.

1) You can only serve kings?? You cannot serve others?? Serving is forced?? Man, are you stupid
3) If you were on track, it would have been a point... Since you are completely wrong, you have none.. per usual....
4) No, idiot... it is a DEVELOPING human, with its own unique DNA... a parasite... wow... but I can see how you would think that with your support of entitlement junkies being parasites on our governmental system... but keep flailing, it is funny
5) You indeed support and state your support for programs, laws, etc that promote and expand the nanny state, then turn around and try and say you're not a nanny stater.... it is funny... and when I promote things such as law enforcement and/or personal responsibility you claim THAT is nanny state.. that is funnier
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/229375-the-welfare-state-food-stamp-scam-4.html#post5477555 (support of nanny state student loan programs and welfare)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...to-pay-federal-income-tax-22.html#post4766382 looks like you're in support of unequal taxation and look http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ds-why-is-that-a-bad-thing-5.html#post5119419 use of nanny state food stamps and hence, support of it...
The problem is that you only think it is a nanny state when it is law enforcement etc, and do not think it is nanny state to support and have people living off the system and backs of earners, and do not think it is a nanny state when you put your same use of services on the bill of another... when you support some paying and others taking, you support the nanny state

****
I took a break posting this to have a smoke and recollect my thoughts

In any way.... I am done with this part of the argument/debate/whatever... and I will say sorry that I have taken it to you somewhat personal and I will take it no further from here on that....

So on that note... different as we may be... have a good 4th... and I am sure we'll butt heads again

 

[DiamondDave]

That is 100% correct and deserved highlighting...

Nope...a sperm has HALF the DNA of the male....the egg has HALF the DNA of the female.

I don't think so, but I have been wrong before and it is possible I am wrong now. Can you refer me to something on that?

Again

See gametes

 

[flacaltenn]

No, it did not come from government. Government comes from man. Laws come from man. Rights come from man. "Inalienable rights" is a phrase which has meaning only so long as man says it has meaning. You can toss in God if that makes you feel better, but that changes nothing.

See -- now there's your conceptual problem. The enlightened Founders recognized this, look at the results and wanted to do it differently.. The pessimistic Might makes Right scenario you paint is WAAAAAY to risky as to the outcome.. The Founders weren't gonna copy that paradigm after putting lives on the line in a Revolution against the reigning SuperPower..

So they started from the premise that it's GOVERNMENT powers should be enumerated, not human rights. And the reservation of ALL Liberties were entrusted to the Creator and should be self-evident. If that tarnishes your brass bunkie -- tough shit. It completely and utterly provides a guarantee that the North Koreans, the Zimababweans, and many in the Arab world can only WISH they had..

Your rights are NOT specified in the Constitution..

NOT PROVIDED BY MAN as you repeatedly claim.

You better HOPE the intent of that was perfectly clear..

Duh? Rights not specified in the constitution? Why are those first ten amendments called the "Bill of Rights"? ( we won't mention rights spelled out in the rest of the amendments)

There are times when the effort to be partisan gets downright ridiculous.

Must be that the "village" failed to provide you with the explanation for the Bill of Rights. Lemme let Walter Williiams 'splain it to you....

Why a Bill of Rights? - Walter E. Williams - Page 1

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about
how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on
human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The
enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In
essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of
our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not
listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the
U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the
Ninth saying, "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." That
means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the
states of the people.

That's the operative part of the explanation.. The Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to enumerate your rights -- only to focus Congress on some issues that needed to be elaborated on.. Did you REALLY miss this part of the debate in Civics class? Or has your political upbringing erased those memories of the Founding because it was deemed irrelevant?

Williams summarizes it thusly...

Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights?
The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with
our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they
have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from
enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press?
The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress
would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of
Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of
Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair
trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a
constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of
government. They knew that some government was necessary but they
rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they
sought to limit government and provide us with protections.

Perfect.. When I said OUR rights in America DO NOT come from man -- I wasn't lying. And it's gonna be a hard slog for any political faction to assert the pessimistic capitulating view that CongressCritters and the Supremes determine your destiny..

Need any other details bunky? You SHOULD read the Owner's Manual...

 

[PratchettFan]

Nope...a sperm has HALF the DNA of the male....the egg has HALF the DNA of the female.

I don't think so, but I have been wrong before and it is possible I am wrong now. Can you refer me to something on that?

Again

See gametes

I did. I don't see anything which says that a the sperm and egg carry half of the dna of the donor. Not that that impacts my point, but I would like to know one way or the other.

 

[Plasmaball]

.[/QUOTE]

1) You can only serve kings?? You cannot serve others?? Serving is forced?? Man, are you stupid
3) If you were on track, it would have been a point... Since you are completely wrong, you have none.. per usual....
4) No, idiot... it is a DEVELOPING human, with its own unique DNA... a parasite... wow... but I can see how you would think that with your support of entitlement junkies being parasites on our governmental system... but keep flailing, it is funny
5) You indeed support and state your support for programs, laws, etc that promote and expand the nanny state, then turn around and try and say you're not a nanny stater.... it is funny... and when I promote things such as law enforcement and/or personal responsibility you claim THAT is nanny state.. that is funnier
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/229375-the-welfare-state-food-stamp-scam-4.html#post5477555 (support of nanny state student loan programs and welfare)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...to-pay-federal-income-tax-22.html#post4766382 looks like you're in support of unequal taxation and look http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ds-why-is-that-a-bad-thing-5.html#post5119419 use of nanny state food stamps and hence, support of it...
The problem is that you only think it is a nanny state when it is law enforcement etc, and do not think it is nanny state to support and have people living off the system and backs of earners, and do not think it is a nanny state when you put your same use of services on the bill of another... when you support some paying and others taking, you support the nanny state

****
I took a break posting this to have a smoke and recollect my thoughts

In any way.... I am done with this part of the argument/debate/whatever... and I will say sorry that I have taken it to you somewhat personal and I will take it no further from here on that....

So on that note... different as we may be... have a good 4th... and I am sure we'll butt heads again[/QUOTE]


1) lol i will not be in service to my kids. Thats your problem if you look at it that way.
2) A fetus needs the mother, the mother does not need the fetus. The fetus lives off the mother and what she provides. Thats what a parasite does. It feeds off another vessel without any benefit.
3)LOL no i am dead on. You said something stupid and now need to deflect that what i said was wrong.
4)No i never said because you support that that you are a nanny stater. I said if you supported pro-life policies you are.

You really have a problem with projecting things onto other people in order to have an argument with them.

Oh boy lets look at your links. The first one if you would read in context says nobody wants to see the system scammed. Being for a safety net does not mean you are for a nanny state. Again thats you projecting.

Poor paying the taxes..again thats not nanny state there lady. That was about Intense working against himself by wanting to raise his own taxes.

Using food stamps isnt about nanny stating either. Of course i think that nanny state is about laws and not about welfare. Because it isn't cowfucker.

YOU, and YOU alone think nanny state involves the rest of that crap, it doesn't and thats why you never see anyone else calling it the nanny state welfare programs.

Good job on failing to find evidence that i support nanny states in any fashion. All you did was project your own personal opinions onto someone else in order to make up your own argument.

I dont care about your 4th.

 

[SniperFire]

That is a nice sentiment. However, it still makes no difference at all. What history shows us is that unless a people is willing to acquire their rights through their own determination, will and blood, they will have none. You may say the desire for these rights is inspired, but the rights themselves are always taken - never given. It is that same determination, will and blood which maintains those rights. You may believe this is an inspiration arising from some higher power, but it is still the individual and the group willing to stand up for themselves which attains the goal.

I do not believe any higher power needs to inspire us. I believe we inspire ourselves. You may believe otherwise, as is your right. Either way, the end product and how it is acheived is the same.

What you don't get is that America is founded on the understanding that inalienable rights exist - independent on ' a people' acquiring them.

No, it wasn't. This is the foundation of our republic:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Believe what you wish, that is your right. Worship as you please, that is your right. But regardless, the foundation upon which this republic is built is that ultimate authority and responsibility rests with the people and nowhere else.

Our entire system of government is based around the unalienable rights enjoyed by mankind, granted to us from Nature's God.

People like you, from the first caveman swinging a club and calling himself king to tyrants such as Stalin, have believed might makes rights.

And that always ends ugly.

That is what happens when man makes the 'rights.'

 

[onecut39]

See -- now there's your conceptual problem. The enlightened Founders recognized this, look at the results and wanted to do it differently.. The pessimistic Might makes Right scenario you paint is WAAAAAY to risky as to the outcome.. The Founders weren't gonna copy that paradigm after putting lives on the line in a Revolution against the reigning SuperPower..

So they started from the premise that it's GOVERNMENT powers should be enumerated, not human rights. And the reservation of ALL Liberties were entrusted to the Creator and should be self-evident. If that tarnishes your brass bunkie -- tough shit. It completely and utterly provides a guarantee that the North Koreans, the Zimababweans, and many in the Arab world can only WISH they had..

Your rights are NOT specified in the Constitution..

NOT PROVIDED BY MAN as you repeatedly claim.

You better HOPE the intent of that was perfectly clear..

Duh? Rights not specified in the constitution? Why are those first ten amendments called the "Bill of Rights"? ( we won't mention rights spelled out in the rest of the amendments)

There are times when the effort to be partisan gets downright ridiculous.

Must be that the "village" failed to provide you with the explanation for the Bill of Rights. Lemme let Walter Williiams 'splain it to you....

Why a Bill of Rights? - Walter E. Williams - Page 1

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about
how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on
human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The
enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In
essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of
our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not
listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the
U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the
Ninth saying, "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." That
means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the
states of the people.

That's the operative part of the explanation.. The Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to enumerate your rights -- only to focus Congress on some issues that needed to be elaborated on.. Did you REALLY miss this part of the debate in Civics class? Or has your political upbringing erased those memories of the Founding because it was deemed irrelevant?

Williams summarizes it thusly...

Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights?
The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with
our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they
have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from
enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press?
The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress
would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of
Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of
Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair
trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a
constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of
government. They knew that some government was necessary but they
rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they
sought to limit government and provide us with protections.

Perfect.. When I said OUR rights in America DO NOT come from man -- I wasn't lying. And it's gonna be a hard slog for any political faction to assert the pessimistic capitulating view that CongressCritters and the Supremes determine your destiny..

Need any other details bunky? You SHOULD read the Owner's Manual...

So you are telling me God wrote the Bill of Rights? Wouldn't it have been more impressive had it been burned into slabs of stone like the ten commandments?

Men (government) wrote the laws. Men (government) grant rights. Men (government) take away rights. To my knowledge god has never granted anything nor has he prevented anything from being taken.

Grow up!

 

[flacaltenn]

Duh? Rights not specified in the constitution? Why are those first ten amendments called the "Bill of Rights"? ( we won't mention rights spelled out in the rest of the amendments)

There are times when the effort to be partisan gets downright ridiculous.

Must be that the "village" failed to provide you with the explanation for the Bill of Rights. Lemme let Walter Williiams 'splain it to you....

Why a Bill of Rights? - Walter E. Williams - Page 1



That's the operative part of the explanation.. The Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to enumerate your rights -- only to focus Congress on some issues that needed to be elaborated on.. Did you REALLY miss this part of the debate in Civics class? Or has your political upbringing erased those memories of the Founding because it was deemed irrelevant?

Williams summarizes it thusly...

Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights?
The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with
our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they
have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from
enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press?
The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress
would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of
Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of
Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair
trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a
constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of
government. They knew that some government was necessary but they
rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they
sought to limit government and provide us with protections.

Perfect.. When I said OUR rights in America DO NOT come from man -- I wasn't lying. And it's gonna be a hard slog for any political faction to assert the pessimistic capitulating view that CongressCritters and the Supremes determine your destiny..

Need any other details bunky? You SHOULD read the Owner's Manual...

So you are telling me God wrote the Bill of Rights? Wouldn't it have been more impressive had it been burned into slabs of stone like the ten commandments?

Men (government) wrote the laws. Men (government) grant rights. Men (government) take away rights. To my knowledge god has never granted anything nor has he prevented anything from being taken.

Grow up!

Oh now the squealing starts.. Just because nobody ever explained the existence of the Bill of Rights to you before is no reason to flog the messenger. I did NOT tell you that God wrote the Bill of Rights --- so just calm down -- let it sink in.. And realize that you might not agree with the way this country's government was invented -- but it's gonna be nigh impossible to change the facts.

Unless of course -- you evoke that Might makes Right -- Darwinian arrogance of yours and decide to FORCE a reinvention..

Let me repeat...

---->> Your rights are NOT specified in the Constitution..

---->> Your rights are also NOT PROVIDED BY MAN as you repeatedly claim.

---->> You better HOPE the intent of that was perfectly clear..

 

[HUGGY]

Senator Paul Ryan. Senator, GOP leader, writer of budgets.

In this little interview he says rights come from god and are not given by governments. That may be true but God is incredibly bad at keeping those rights for his people and never once has he intervened, personally, to lend a hand. It has always been our job to raise the armies, take the casualties and shoulder the burden while God sits idly by without even a muted cheer.

Even the founders knew better. The declaration states that, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men". I guess there is no need for those first ten amendments to the constitution either. With god on our side who the hell needs a Bill of Rights?

Being an atheist god and I have a tenuous relationship and if Ryan does not mind I prefer a rule of law to a theocracy.

Ryan is here

Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God | The Raw Story

The declaration is here. (Although our patriotic and learned rightwingnuts should have no need of verification. This holy text should be burned into their memory if not their soul)

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

For the good of the country Ryan needs a one on one meeting with "god" as soon as it can be arranged.

 

[DiamondDave]

The government being a nanny to take care of the needs of people who act like children and don't do what is necessary to take care of themselves, is not nanny stating... but law enforcement and laws protecting life and rights is nanny stating

Seriously... you can't make this shit up

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey OneCut, PrachetFan --

Get your calendars out.. We should do this again next July 3rd.. Perfect time to clear up any misconceptions about the intent of the Founders..

Got me totally in the spirit for the Holiday.. Have a good one..

 

[buckeye45_73]

If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments?

Because you have the wrong premise, Why mandate people buy stuff? I hear two arguements with liberals, one is they arent paying for their health insurance and have to be made to buy it (the mandate), then on the other hand all these poor uninsured people? So which is it? are they not buying because they want to save a few bucks or are they not buying because they cant?

 

[flacaltenn]

If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments?

Because you have the wrong premise, Why mandate people buy stuff? I hear two arguements with liberals, one is they arent paying for their health insurance and have to be made to buy it (the mandate), then on the other hand all these poor uninsured people? So which is it? are they not buying because they want to save a few bucks or are they not buying because they cant?

U won't get an answer. The 40 Million poor disenfranchised were the ENTIRE reason for the ACA fiasco. Now that it's a tax -- they are all lazy selfish moochers who don't want to pay for themselves.. WE are gonna pay for them.. That I know..

 

[HUGGY]

The government being a nanny to take care of the needs of people who act like children and don't do what is necessary to take care of themselves, is not nanny stating... but law enforcement and laws protecting life and rights is nanny stating

Seriously... you can't make this shit up

Sounds like your god is the champeen nanny.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Senator Paul Ryan. Senator, GOP leader, writer of budgets.

In this little interview he says rights come from god and are not given by governments. That may be true but God is incredibly bad at keeping those rights for his people and never once has he intervened, personally, to lend a hand. It has always been our job to raise the armies, take the casualties and shoulder the burden while God sits idly by without even a muted cheer.

Even the founders knew better. The declaration states that, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men". I guess there is no need for those first ten amendments to the constitution either. With god on our side who the hell needs a Bill of Rights?

Being an atheist god and I have a tenuous relationship and if Ryan does not mind I prefer a rule of law to a theocracy.

Ryan is here

Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God | The Raw Story

The declaration is here. (Although our patriotic and learned rightwingnuts should have no need of verification. This holy text should be burned into their memory if not their soul)

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

One’s civil liberties manifest as a consequence of his humanity; in a more poetic context it could be said those rights are ‘god given.’ Either way, our rights are indeed inalienable, immutable, and irrevocable. Civil rights may not be taken nor given by any government, constitution, or act of man – and they predate any government or constitution.

This doctrine is the cornerstone of the rule of law.

In essence the 14th Amendment to the Constitution codifies this doctrine, where the Bill of Rights apply not only to the Federal government, but to state and local governments as well. Consequently, an American’s civil liberties are safeguarded regardless the jurisdiction of his residence – he will always have the full protection of the law, he will always have full access to the law.

“I think this at the end of the day is a big philosophy difference,” he continued. “What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.”

As for Ryan, the quoted above indicates that he’s an ignorant partisan hack.

There is nothing in the ACA that creates ‘rights,’ that’s a willful republican lie.

 

[flacaltenn]

Senator Paul Ryan. Senator, GOP leader, writer of budgets.

In this little interview he says rights come from god and are not given by governments. That may be true but God is incredibly bad at keeping those rights for his people and never once has he intervened, personally, to lend a hand. It has always been our job to raise the armies, take the casualties and shoulder the burden while God sits idly by without even a muted cheer.

Even the founders knew better. The declaration states that, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men". I guess there is no need for those first ten amendments to the constitution either. With god on our side who the hell needs a Bill of Rights?

Being an atheist god and I have a tenuous relationship and if Ryan does not mind I prefer a rule of law to a theocracy.

Ryan is here

Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God | The Raw Story

The declaration is here. (Although our patriotic and learned rightwingnuts should have no need of verification. This holy text should be burned into their memory if not their soul)

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

One’s civil liberties manifest as a consequence of his humanity; in a more poetic context it could be said those rights are ‘god given.’ Either way, our rights are indeed inalienable, immutable, and irrevocable. Civil rights may not be taken nor given by any government, constitution, or act of man – and they predate any government or constitution.

This doctrine is the cornerstone of the rule of law.

In essence the 14th Amendment to the Constitution codifies this doctrine, where the Bill of Rights apply not only to the Federal government, but to state and local governments as well. Consequently, an American’s civil liberties are safeguarded regardless the jurisdiction of his residence – he will always have the full protection of the law, he will always have full access to the law.

“I think this at the end of the day is a big philosophy difference,” he continued. “What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.”

As for Ryan, the quoted above indicates that he’s an ignorant partisan hack.

There is nothing in the ACA that creates ‘rights,’ that’s a willful republican lie.

This is probably a first.. I'm gonna thank-you for that.. All except the part where I get to pay for 40 Million uninsured because --- they "need it"? --- they "cant afford it" --- they have a RIGHT TO IT??

Wasn't that the Operating Battle Cry for passing the ACA? That they had a RIGHT to access healthcare? Why blame that on Ryan?
You really did miss the paragraph BEFORE the one you quoted where Ted's widow DECLARES her dead husband's demand that it be MADE a right..

“This health care reform was the cause of my husband’s life,” she explained. “He believed that it was a moral issue, that it defined the character of who we were as a society, who we were as a country, and that decent quality, affordable health care should be fundamental right and not a privilege.”

Anytime I'm forced to pay for a new entitlement it's gonna be real hard to ever back that entitlement down since instituting it DOES creates a de facto "right" of access.

 

[PratchettFan]

Hey OneCut, PrachetFan --

Get your calendars out.. We should do this again next July 3rd.. Perfect time to clear up any misconceptions about the intent of the Founders..

Got me totally in the spirit for the Holiday.. Have a good one..

Excellent idea. I'm glad we could help straighten that out for you.

Have a great 4th, my friend.

 

[Contumacious]

There is nothing in the ACA that creates ‘rights,’ that’s a willful republican lie.

Not defending the republicans, but objecting to the so-called ACA:

Insurers will become supericher and the poor will have their care subsidized, so there are your new rights:

Obama Hellcare: Bad Medicine

It mandates that every American purchase
a government-designed insurance package,
while fundamentally reordering the insurance
market and turning insurers into something
resembling public utilities, privately
owned while their operations are substantially
regulated and circumscribed by Washington.
Insurance coverage will be extended
to millions more Americans as government
subsidies are expanded deep into the middle
class. Costs will be shifted between groups,
though ultimately not reduced..."

.

 

[GuyPinestra]

There is nothing in the ACA that creates ‘rights,’ that’s a willful republican lie.

No defending the republicans but objecting to the so-called ACA:

Insurers will become supericher and the poor will have their care subsidized, so there are your new rights:

Obama Hellcare: Bad Medicine

It mandates that every American purchase
a government-designed insurance package,
while fundamentally reordering the insurance
market and turning insurers into something
resembling public utilities, privately
owned while their operations are substantially
regulated and circumscribed by Washington.
Insurance coverage will be extended
to millions more Americans as government
subsidies are expanded deep into the middle
class. Costs will be shifted between groups,
though ultimately not reduced..."

.

And the truth shall set you FREE!!!