CDZ Liberty

[danielpalos]

I subscribe to this version of Liberty:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Gdjjr]

I subscribe to this version of Liberty:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

Amen!

 

[Gdjjr]

That brings me to my hot button- Public Education, which is a whole 'nother topic, but, they should be teaching it from the 1st grade through PhD's.

Republicans used to run on ending the Department of Education. I dunno what happened.

There used to be a book which was mandatory reading in early American schools. I have a copy in my library some place.

It's titled Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States. It's in a rather easy question and answer format. Includes additional documents not available in the original that explain several important issues!


It'd be a good introductory book for adults in the modern era, to be honest. Great for all ages. Respectfully speaking, of course.

I can remember Republicans talking about how bad the Dept of Education was - it still is- running a campaign on expanding or making it different is still an unconstitutional whatever- Bill Bennett was a proponent of doing away with it and would up running it!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So you have a monopoly on "sublimeTruth" and only by arguing with you will I discover the great wisdom you possess over mankind? Sounds like a mind fuck to me.

lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies. The right wing must be worse.

I don't know a lot about left wing and right wing. It sounds like both sides of a chicken. Today the left and right are like one hand washing the other. There is no fundamental difference between the two at the end of the day. They need each other to make two points that end up going to the same destination.

Having said that, wouldn't mean that you dabble in as many fallacies as anyone else? Isn't that a commonality between political hacks?

No. I prefer to win my arguments not just resort to fallacy, gossip, hearsay, and soothsay. There is a difference.

I don't see where you've done anything of the kind on this thread. But, then again, you never answered me. So, if YOU declare something to be a fallacy, gossip, hearsay or soothsay (sic) then that is like the Word of God and you win any "argument?"

If that's the case, I'm glad this isn't an argument board. This is a discussion board. Was that attitude and those repetitive posts responsible for that vacation the mods gave you recently?

You only have an ad hominem, which is a fallacy and useless for Truth (value) purposes.

You are welcome to re-phrase your question so it is more cogent.

What bumbling idiocy! A question is not an ad hominem or a fallacy. You're getting back to the same trolling that you got banned the last time. We can quit having any kind of discourse if you're going to hurl accusations instead of answering any questions.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Liberty can't be defined as having the liberty to kill somebody just because you don't like them.

Conservatives with strong Libertarian beliefs simply want the government to be small, efficient and staying out of their lives for the most part. They want a free economic system where nobody is forced by the government to give their money to other people.

They want individual Liberties protected like religion, free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. They want minimal taxation.

That doesn't mean Libertarians don't want a criminal justice system or build roads or do the few necessary government services. Most of us would agree to fund national defense providing it used to secure America and not fight other peoples wars simply because the VP's son is on the board of directors of a foreign country making $70K a month.

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Where can I find this definition of pure liberty(sic)?

At some point in American history we were progressing, moving forward, and were the envy of the world. We were never perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but when we worked toward the America as envisioned by the founders / framers, we did things that had never been done in history.

Depending upon which historian you ask, the Roman Empire lasted between 1500 and upward of 2000 years. Yet America, in about a third of that time, outpaced the Roman Empire in every measurement. From scientific advances, to sending missionaries to help the downtrodden and from sending soldiers to help the oppressed to advances in agriculture, we became a "shining city on a hill."

You come here and call people "crazed proponents." You think people are crazy for wanting to bring sanity back to our Republic? Let me give you an independent view.

Currently, both Donald Trump AND the liberals are in love with the idea of Red Flag Laws. That is highly amusing because it was the Republicans that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" AND the National ID / REAL ID Act. Trump summed up his position quite succinctly: "let's take the guns and Due Process later." So, in your mind, those of us wanting to ask about Liberty are "crazed proponents" of an idea that questions those above laws. Apparently you think the Fourth Amendment is an extremist position, right?

Suppose those who care about Liberty could look at the problems those laws were passed under a false pretext and then provide you with a constitutional solution that would address the problem without gutting the Bill of Rights. Would you consider it OR would play the part of a political hack and dismiss such a course of action?

 

[sparky]

Where can I find this definition of pure liberty(sic)?

Maybe it's an ideal that only lasts in a given evironment Porter....

~S~

 

[Mac1958]

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Liberty can't be defined as having the liberty to kill somebody just because you don't like them.

Conservatives with strong Libertarian beliefs simply want the government to be small, efficient and staying out of their lives for the most part. They want a free economic system where nobody is forced by the government to give their money to other people.

They want individual Liberties protected like religion, free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. They want minimal taxation.

That doesn't mean Libertarians don't want a criminal justice system or build roads or do the few necessary government services. Most of us would agree to fund national defense providing it used to secure America and not fight other peoples wars simply because the VP's son is on the board of directors of a foreign country making $70K a month.

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Where can I find this definition of pure liberty(sic)?

At some point in American history we were progressing, moving forward, and were the envy of the world. We were never perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but when we worked toward the America as envisioned by the founders / framers, we did things that had never been done in history.

Depending upon which historian you ask, the Roman Empire lasted between 1500 and upward of 2000 years. Yet America, in about a third of that time, outpaced the Roman Empire in every measurement. From scientific advances, to sending missionaries to help the downtrodden and from sending soldiers to help the oppressed to advances in agriculture, we became a "shining city on a hill."

You come here and call people "crazed proponents." You think people are crazy for wanting to bring sanity back to our Republic? Let me give you an independent view.

Currently, both Donald Trump AND the liberals are in love with the idea of Red Flag Laws. That is highly amusing because it was the Republicans that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" AND the National ID / REAL ID Act. Trump summed up his position quite succinctly: "let's take the guns and Due Process later." So, in your mind, those of us wanting to ask about Liberty are "crazed proponents" of an idea that questions those above laws. Apparently you think the Fourth Amendment is an extremist position, right?

Suppose those who care about Liberty could look at the problems those laws were passed under a false pretext and then provide you with a constitutional solution that would address the problem without gutting the Bill of Rights. Would you consider it OR would play the part of a political hack and dismiss such a course of action?

Does your definition of "liberty" lie along a spectrum, or not? In other words, is there such a thing as "more" or "less" liberty, or do you simply have liberty or you don't?

Because I think that, along with most other issues, liberty exists along a continuum. And as such, we make decisions as a civilization about when and where controls are put in place.

So, a red flag law, or an increase in marginal tax rates, or an increase in government spending is not about your "liberty". It's about choices we make as a country.

There is no Liberty Police. The amount of liberty we enjoy depends on how we vote it, larger or smaller. It's not all or nothing, as its "crazed proponents" act as if they believe.
.

 

[Flash]

[l
Because I think that, along with most other issues, liberty exists along a continuum.

.

This is where you are confused.

It is that redefinition of Liberty by the greedy Left Wingers is what have given us oppression.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies. The right wing must be worse.

I don't know a lot about left wing and right wing. It sounds like both sides of a chicken. Today the left and right are like one hand washing the other. There is no fundamental difference between the two at the end of the day. They need each other to make two points that end up going to the same destination.

Having said that, wouldn't mean that you dabble in as many fallacies as anyone else? Isn't that a commonality between political hacks?

No. I prefer to win my arguments not just resort to fallacy, gossip, hearsay, and soothsay. There is a difference.

I don't see where you've done anything of the kind on this thread. But, then again, you never answered me. So, if YOU declare something to be a fallacy, gossip, hearsay or soothsay (sic) then that is like the Word of God and you win any "argument?"

If that's the case, I'm glad this isn't an argument board. This is a discussion board. Was that attitude and those repetitive posts responsible for that vacation the mods gave you recently?

You only have an ad hominem, which is a fallacy and useless for Truth (value) purposes.

You are welcome to re-phrase your question so it is more cogent.

What bumbling idiocy! A question is not an ad hominem or a fallacy. You're getting back to the same trolling that you got banned the last time. We can quit having any kind of discourse if you're going to hurl accusations instead of answering any questions.

Where is your more cogent argument or question?

 

[Mac1958]

Because I think that, along with most other issues, liberty exists along a continuum.

This is where you are confused. It is that redefinition of Liberty by the greedy Left Wingers is what have given us oppression.

So you either have 100% liberty or no liberty? Is that what you're saying?

You've been conned.
.

 

[Gdjjr]

Does your definition of "liberty" lie along a spectrum, or not? In other words, is there such a thing as "more" or "less" liberty, or do you simply have liberty or you don't?

Because I think that, along with most other issues, liberty exists along a continuum. And as such, we make decisions as a civilization about when and where controls are put in place.

So, a red flag law, or an increase in marginal tax rates, or an increase in government spending is not about your "liberty". It's about choices we make as a country.

There is no Liberty Police. The amount of liberty we enjoy depends on how we vote it, larger or smaller. It's not all or nothing, as its "crazed proponents" act as if they believe.

Incrementally we've lost a lot of our Liberty- and yes, there are Liberty Police- they're called politicians who write laws restricting Liberty and FORCE those laws on the innocent non-criminals in the Country making criminals of citizens who have harmed no one because "we have to do something". (which generates revenue and makes a few feel good at the cost of the many)

Government spending is borrow and tax into oblivion enslaving generation after generation after generation. Being enslaved by debt is hardly civil and it certainly affects *everyone's* Liberty-
Civilization is questionable too in a society that makes the end justify the means by FORCE- if something has to be forced maybe, just maybe it isn't that good for anyone (except the sociopaths in charge) , never mind civilization- civilization will remain civil as long as consensual agreement is at the helm- ALL conflict begins when one forces his will on another. Some things can't be denied.

 

[Gdjjr]

So you either have 100% liberty or no liberty? Is that what you're saying?

Who said that?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Liberty can't be defined as having the liberty to kill somebody just because you don't like them.

Conservatives with strong Libertarian beliefs simply want the government to be small, efficient and staying out of their lives for the most part. They want a free economic system where nobody is forced by the government to give their money to other people.

They want individual Liberties protected like religion, free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. They want minimal taxation.

That doesn't mean Libertarians don't want a criminal justice system or build roads or do the few necessary government services. Most of us would agree to fund national defense providing it used to secure America and not fight other peoples wars simply because the VP's son is on the board of directors of a foreign country making $70K a month.

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Where can I find this definition of pure liberty(sic)?

At some point in American history we were progressing, moving forward, and were the envy of the world. We were never perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but when we worked toward the America as envisioned by the founders / framers, we did things that had never been done in history.

Depending upon which historian you ask, the Roman Empire lasted between 1500 and upward of 2000 years. Yet America, in about a third of that time, outpaced the Roman Empire in every measurement. From scientific advances, to sending missionaries to help the downtrodden and from sending soldiers to help the oppressed to advances in agriculture, we became a "shining city on a hill."

You come here and call people "crazed proponents." You think people are crazy for wanting to bring sanity back to our Republic? Let me give you an independent view.

Currently, both Donald Trump AND the liberals are in love with the idea of Red Flag Laws. That is highly amusing because it was the Republicans that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" AND the National ID / REAL ID Act. Trump summed up his position quite succinctly: "let's take the guns and Due Process later." So, in your mind, those of us wanting to ask about Liberty are "crazed proponents" of an idea that questions those above laws. Apparently you think the Fourth Amendment is an extremist position, right?

Suppose those who care about Liberty could look at the problems those laws were passed under a false pretext and then provide you with a constitutional solution that would address the problem without gutting the Bill of Rights. Would you consider it OR would play the part of a political hack and dismiss such a course of action?

Does your definition of "liberty" lie along a spectrum, or not? In other words, is there such a thing as "more" or "less" liberty, or do you simply have liberty or you don't?

Because I think that, along with most other issues, liberty exists along a continuum. And as such, we make decisions as a civilization about when and where controls are put in place.

So, a red flag law, or an increase in marginal tax rates, or an increase in government spending is not about your "liberty". It's about choices we make as a country.

There is no Liberty Police. The amount of liberty we enjoy depends on how we vote it, larger or smaller. It's not all or nothing, as its "crazed proponents" act as if they believe.
.

Let me take a swag at this and see if I can respond to you in a way you understand it. Thomas Jefferson wrote a couple of things relative to Liberty that give me a starting point:

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." (Extract from Thomas Jefferson’s Argument in the Case of Howell vs. Netherland - April 1770)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." (Extract from Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart Philadelphia Dec. 23. 1791.)

I'm sensing a very liberal argument that some Rights are not absolute as our courts (INCLUDING the United States Supreme Court declared for over 186 years before those who oppose the concept could flip the most liberal body in America (that United States Supreme Court) into reversing the intent of the framers.

Let us be clear about the allegations. You are claiming that if people are not open to forfeiting unalienable Rights, they are "crazed proponents." So, we examine the facts:

1) If you go back to the first posting on this thread, you will find some early court rulings that define unalienable Rights and those decisions tell us that those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, etc. Other rulings and the dicta in many court decisions have also used synonymous language such as irrevocable, God given, and preexisting (even in the Heller v. decision they used that word.)

2) If the left disagreed with those Rights; if they really think that society needs to change, the framers left a process - it's called an Amendment process to change the status quo. George Washington, one of the most authoritative voices on this said:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

3) What we witnessed was a dishonest and unethical approach to repealing Liberty. This is an over-simplification, but since the courts could not change the meaning of the terminology in previous rulings, they reversed their decisions with word games.

The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, reducing it to mere privileges and immunities. Constitutionalist judges would try to maintain the original intent of the Constitution, but the damage was done. Next, the liberals, socialists and communists quit using words like Republic and unalienable. The Republic was replaced by something they now call a "Democratic Republic" (which is much like saying virgin whore) and unalienable Rights were trashed with courts replacing that with something called "inalienable rights." The Republic worked to protect the Rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Unalienable Rights were above the reach of government.

"Inalienable rights" are actually privileges and immunities granted by the government and subject to being invalidated (aliened) with a simple signature by the right government official (like the president did with bump stocks - which violated three provisions of the United States Constitution.) "Inalienable rights" allow your Rights to be withheld, denied, reversed, etc. IF YOU CONSENT. Here is what the courts said:


“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

So MAC1958, we no longer need a facade to hide what the reality is. The left which is comfortable endorsing people like Bernie Sanders, a self identified socialist, is complicit in changing laws on the pretext that such changes will make us safe. In reality, the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID REAL ID Act - E Verify, and now Red Flag Laws being pushed by the Republicans are only tools that create more victims as opposed to resolving any problems in society. Those kinds of laws put teeth into the left's consummate goal of total control on the pretext that it is for the good of society. I'm sure the left would like to pass laws to outlaw the Liberties of those on the right. When they do, they have been aided by the right which gave the government the power to identify and crush anyone that dares to challenge tyranny. You call those who are concerned, "crazed proponents." Is that why the left also has to misrepresent what kind of government those lovers of Liberty envision?

 

[Mac1958]

So you either have 100% liberty or no liberty? Is that what you're saying?

Who said that?

No one. I'm asking for clarification.
.

 

[Gdjjr]

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Liberty can't be defined as having the liberty to kill somebody just because you don't like them.

Conservatives with strong Libertarian beliefs simply want the government to be small, efficient and staying out of their lives for the most part. They want a free economic system where nobody is forced by the government to give their money to other people.

They want individual Liberties protected like religion, free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. They want minimal taxation.

That doesn't mean Libertarians don't want a criminal justice system or build roads or do the few necessary government services. Most of us would agree to fund national defense providing it used to secure America and not fight other peoples wars simply because the VP's son is on the board of directors of a foreign country making $70K a month.

Pure "liberty", as it's defined today by its largely-crazed proponents, would be anarchy.

So those who run around screaming about "liberty" have, at some point, been relieved of the common sense required to understand that like everything else, liberty lies along a continuum. That, like everything else, the key is finding the proper equilibrium and balance between an individual's "liberty" and what is best for the country as a whole.

The shallow, binary thinking that has intellectually paralyzed a segment of our population continues to play a significant role in the decay of our political discourse and the acceleration of our divisions.
.

Where can I find this definition of pure liberty(sic)?

At some point in American history we were progressing, moving forward, and were the envy of the world. We were never perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but when we worked toward the America as envisioned by the founders / framers, we did things that had never been done in history.

Depending upon which historian you ask, the Roman Empire lasted between 1500 and upward of 2000 years. Yet America, in about a third of that time, outpaced the Roman Empire in every measurement. From scientific advances, to sending missionaries to help the downtrodden and from sending soldiers to help the oppressed to advances in agriculture, we became a "shining city on a hill."

You come here and call people "crazed proponents." You think people are crazy for wanting to bring sanity back to our Republic? Let me give you an independent view.

Currently, both Donald Trump AND the liberals are in love with the idea of Red Flag Laws. That is highly amusing because it was the Republicans that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" AND the National ID / REAL ID Act. Trump summed up his position quite succinctly: "let's take the guns and Due Process later." So, in your mind, those of us wanting to ask about Liberty are "crazed proponents" of an idea that questions those above laws. Apparently you think the Fourth Amendment is an extremist position, right?

Suppose those who care about Liberty could look at the problems those laws were passed under a false pretext and then provide you with a constitutional solution that would address the problem without gutting the Bill of Rights. Would you consider it OR would play the part of a political hack and dismiss such a course of action?

Does your definition of "liberty" lie along a spectrum, or not? In other words, is there such a thing as "more" or "less" liberty, or do you simply have liberty or you don't?

Because I think that, along with most other issues, liberty exists along a continuum. And as such, we make decisions as a civilization about when and where controls are put in place.

So, a red flag law, or an increase in marginal tax rates, or an increase in government spending is not about your "liberty". It's about choices we make as a country.

There is no Liberty Police. The amount of liberty we enjoy depends on how we vote it, larger or smaller. It's not all or nothing, as its "crazed proponents" act as if they believe.
.

Let me take a swag at this and see if I can respond to you in a way you understand it. Thomas Jefferson wrote a couple of things relative to Liberty that give me a starting point:

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." (Extract from Thomas Jefferson’s Argument in the Case of Howell vs. Netherland - April 1770)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." (Extract from Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart Philadelphia Dec. 23. 1791.)

I'm sensing a very liberal argument that some Rights are not absolute as our courts (INCLUDING the United States Supreme Court declared for over 186 years before those who oppose the concept could flip the most liberal body in America (that United States Supreme Court) into reversing the intent of the framers.

Let us be clear about the allegations. You are claiming that if people are not open to forfeiting unalienable Rights, they are "crazed proponents." So, we examine the facts:

1) If you go back to the first posting on this thread, you will find some early court rulings that define unalienable Rights and those decisions tell us that those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, etc. Other rulings and the dicta in many court decisions have also used synonymous language such as irrevocable, God given, and preexisting (even in the Heller v. decision they used that word.)

2) If the left disagreed with those Rights; if they really think that society needs to change, they left a process - it's called an Amendment process. George Washington, one of the most authoritative voices on this said:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

3) What we witnessed was a dishonest and unethical approach to repealing Liberty. This is an over-simplification, but since the courts could not change the meaning of the terminology in previous rulings, they reversed their decisions with word games.

The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights, reducing it to mere privileges and immunities. Constitutionalist judges would try to maintain the original intent of the Constitution, but the damage was done. Next, the liberals, socialists and communists quit using words like Republic and unalienable. The Republic was replaced by something they now call a "Democratic Republic" (which is much like saying virgin whore) and unalienable Rights were trashed with courts replacing that with something called "inalienable rights." The Republic worked to protect the Rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Unalienable Rights were above the reach of government.

"Inalienable rights" are actually privileges and immunities granted by the government and subject to being invalidated with a simple signature by the right government official (like the president did with bump stocks - which violated three provisions of the United States Constitution.) "Inalienable rights" allow your Rights to be withheld, denied, reversed, etc. IF YOU CONSENT. Here is what the courts said:


“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

So MAC1958, we no longer need a facade to hide what the reality is. The left which is comfortable endorsing people like Bernie Sanders, a self identified socialist, is complicit in changing laws on the pretext that such changes will make us safe. In reality, the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID REAL ID Act - E Verify, and now Red Flag Laws being pushed by the Republicans are only tools that create more victims as opposed to resolving any problems in society. Those kinds of law put teeth into the left's consummate goal of total control on the pretext that it is for the good of society. I'm sure the left would like to pass laws to outlaw the Liberties of those on the right. When they do, they have been aided by the right which gave the government the power to identify and crush anyone that dares to challenge tyranny. You call those who are concerned, "crazed proponents." Is that why the left also has to misrepresent what kind of government those lovers of Liberty envision?

Well presented!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't know a lot about left wing and right wing. It sounds like both sides of a chicken. Today the left and right are like one hand washing the other. There is no fundamental difference between the two at the end of the day. They need each other to make two points that end up going to the same destination.

Having said that, wouldn't mean that you dabble in as many fallacies as anyone else? Isn't that a commonality between political hacks?

No. I prefer to win my arguments not just resort to fallacy, gossip, hearsay, and soothsay. There is a difference.

I don't see where you've done anything of the kind on this thread. But, then again, you never answered me. So, if YOU declare something to be a fallacy, gossip, hearsay or soothsay (sic) then that is like the Word of God and you win any "argument?"

If that's the case, I'm glad this isn't an argument board. This is a discussion board. Was that attitude and those repetitive posts responsible for that vacation the mods gave you recently?

You only have an ad hominem, which is a fallacy and useless for Truth (value) purposes.

You are welcome to re-phrase your question so it is more cogent.

What bumbling idiocy! A question is not an ad hominem or a fallacy. You're getting back to the same trolling that you got banned the last time. We can quit having any kind of discourse if you're going to hurl accusations instead of answering any questions.

Where is your more cogent argument or question?

I keep asking and you keep deflecting.

 

[Gdjjr]

So you either have 100% liberty or no liberty? Is that what you're saying?

Who said that?

No one. I'm asking for clarification.
.

That isn't what your words say- you're trying to put words in someone's mouth- using a question mark is only adding ambiguity to a statement.

 

[sparky]

There is no Liberty Police

Even if there was, what metric, benchmark or standard would they use Mac?

Seems that's something of a premium here , not trying to put any of you down

~S~

 

[Mac1958]

You call those who are concerned, "crazed proponents."

"Concerned". What a benign, euphemistic way to put it.

Wrong.

Those I call liberty's "crazed proponents" are those who either refuse to, or lack the capacity to, recognize that, as with most things, "liberty" lies along a continuum. It is not a simplistic, binary, all or nothing, either/or proposition. There can be more liberty, there can be less liberty. The question is where a civilization chooses to be.

And no one group gets to decide for the rest of where on that continuum we exist at any moment. Even if that group has been led to believe that it has some kind of vice-like grip on the concept.

I'm glad I could clarify for you.
.

 

[Mac1958]

So you either have 100% liberty or no liberty? Is that what you're saying?

Who said that?

No one. I'm asking for clarification.
.

That isn't what your words say- you're trying to put words in someone's mouth- using a question mark is only adding ambiguity to a statement.

I guess you'll just have to live with it, then.
.