Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

[ihopehefails]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

 

[froggy]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and all three of these stripped from americans by the gov.

 

[rightwinger]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence. While they are inspirational words, they are not legally binding
What is legally binding is the Constitution which does, in fact, talk about justice and equality.
The utopia crap is just right wing nonsense. Liberals never use it

 

[FireGod]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

OK so with the recent SCOTUS ruling a corporation is for all intents and purposes is an individual with the right to free speech, however is not allowed to vote. (Hmmm seems to be a disconnect there somewhere.) So by your logic corporations should be able to rape the land, rape the consumer and rape the worker with little to no consequence? Money talks in the end because nothing else is worth listening to.

 

[ihopehefails]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence. While they are inspirational words, they are not legally binding
What is legally binding is the Constitution which does, in fact, talk about justice and equality.
The utopia crap is just right wing nonsense. Liberals never use it

I've looked in the federalist papers and can't find one place where it says that the constitution is there to create utopia or a just society. It does mention certain things that are needed for a just government where everyone is treated fairly by the law and courts. Outside of that though there is nothing that states the constitution was created to create "social justice".

 

[lawbuff]

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence. While they are inspirational words, they are not legally binding
What is legally binding is the Constitution which does, in fact, talk about justice and equality.

Constitutional law, however, states we have the right to "engage in the common occupations of life" and to enjoy the "orderly pursuit of happiness".

 

[ihopehefails]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

OK so with the recent SCOTUS ruling a corporation is for all intents and purposes is an individual with the right to free speech, however is not allowed to vote. (Hmmm seems to be a disconnect there somewhere.) So by your logic corporations should be able to rape the land, rape the consumer and rape the worker with little to no consequence? Money talks in the end because nothing else is worth listening to.

OK. Lets follow you logic and assume that the government is now giving person status to inanimate objects such as corporation, homes, chairs, computers, cars, and any other non-human entity. Which one of those things can actually do the things a person can do? Answer, a corporation because they are composed of people unlike homes, chairs, computers, cars, and etc.

This ruling does not give the anyone, namely a corporation, the right to break any further existing laws. It does allow them to contribute to causes that benefit them which should be something everyone should fight for even if you don't like what is being said afterall the old slogan is the answer to bad speech is good speech.

Would you not agree with that?

 

[ihopehefails]

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence. While they are inspirational words, they are not legally binding
What is legally binding is the Constitution which does, in fact, talk about justice and equality.

Constitutional law, however, states we have the right to "engage in the common occupations of life" and to enjoy the "orderly pursuit of happiness".

Where is that written in the constitution?

 

[lawbuff]

Where is that written in the constitution?

I said Constitutional LAW, not facially in the document, I can link the case if anyone wants.

 

[ihopehefails]

Where is that written in the constitution?

I said Constitutional LAW, not facially in the document, I can link the case if anyone wants.

I actually have to treat something that was not created by the amendment process itself as identical to the law itself?

 

[lawbuff]

Where is that written in the constitution?

I said Constitutional LAW, not facially in the document, I can link the case if anyone wants.

I actually have to treat something that was not created by the amendment process itself as identical to the law itself?

I don't get it?

 

[ihopehefails]

I said Constitutional LAW, not facially in the document, I can link the case if anyone wants.

I actually have to treat something that was not created by the amendment process itself as identical to the law itself?

I don't get it?

I was referring to case law. That doesn't count because it is not the law that was created by any legislative process.

 

[lawbuff]

I actually have to treat something that was not created by the amendment process itself as identical to the law itself?

I don't get it?

I was referring to case law. That doesn't count because it is not the law that was created by any legislative process.

Oh it does not count, so I as a police officer can enter your house at any time and just say you are under arrest for "suspicion" and hold you as long as I want?

What statutory law prevents that in your state?

 

[FireGod]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

OK so with the recent SCOTUS ruling a corporation is for all intents and purposes is an individual with the right to free speech, however is not allowed to vote. (Hmmm seems to be a disconnect there somewhere.) So by your logic corporations should be able to rape the land, rape the consumer and rape the worker with little to no consequence? Money talks in the end because nothing else is worth listening to.

OK. Lets follow you logic and assume that the government is now giving person status to inanimate objects such as corporation, homes, chairs, computers, cars, and any other non-human entity. Which one of those things can actually do the things a person can do? Answer, a corporation because they are composed of people unlike homes, chairs, computers, cars, and etc.

This ruling does not give the anyone, namely a corporation, the right to break any further existing laws. It does allow them to contribute to causes that benefit them which should be something everyone should fight for even if you don't like what is being said after all the old slogan is the answer to bad speech is good speech.

Would you not agree with that?

You miss the point I was trying to make.

Corporations are not allowed to vote thereby are NOT citizens.

The ruling does in fact give them the ability to make law by extension. It does in fact give them motivation and legal protection for corrupting the election process. It does realize the ultimate dream of every person in love with the free market; namely the fact that elections can now be bought and sold legally. Again money talks and now has the ultimate power.

 

[ihopehefails]

I don't get it?

I was referring to case law. That doesn't count because it is not the law that was created by any legislative process.

Oh it does not count, so I as a police officer can enter your house at any time and just say you are under arrest for "suspicion" and hold you as long as I want?

What statutory law prevents that in your state?

I believe the constitution states you can't enter someone's home without a search warrant.

 

[ihopehefails]

OK so with the recent SCOTUS ruling a corporation is for all intents and purposes is an individual with the right to free speech, however is not allowed to vote. (Hmmm seems to be a disconnect there somewhere.) So by your logic corporations should be able to rape the land, rape the consumer and rape the worker with little to no consequence? Money talks in the end because nothing else is worth listening to.

OK. Lets follow you logic and assume that the government is now giving person status to inanimate objects such as corporation, homes, chairs, computers, cars, and any other non-human entity. Which one of those things can actually do the things a person can do? Answer, a corporation because they are composed of people unlike homes, chairs, computers, cars, and etc.

This ruling does not give the anyone, namely a corporation, the right to break any further existing laws. It does allow them to contribute to causes that benefit them which should be something everyone should fight for even if you don't like what is being said after all the old slogan is the answer to bad speech is good speech.

Would you not agree with that?

You miss the point I was trying to make.

Corporations are not allowed to vote thereby are NOT citizens.

The ruling does in fact give them the ability to make law by extension. It does in fact give them motivation and legal protection for corrupting the election process. It does realize the ultimate dream of every person in love with the free market; namely the fact that elections can now be bought and sold legally. Again money talks and now has the ultimate power.

That fact that someone is not allowed to vote does not remove their citizenship status. A good example would be children and criminals.

And I suppose that they can influence the voting but why should they be denied that right when every other organization has the same right. Even the KKK is allowed to influence the electorate if they want to.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

OK so with the recent SCOTUS ruling a corporation is for all intents and purposes is an individual with the right to free speech, however is not allowed to vote. (Hmmm seems to be a disconnect there somewhere.) So by your logic corporations should be able to rape the land, rape the consumer and rape the worker with little to no consequence? Money talks in the end because nothing else is worth listening to.

Are not corporations comprised of people? Do those people not have the right of free speech?

If a group of people be they a corporation or not pool their money to run ads for or against a candidate do they not have the right?

If not, do unions have the right to use their members money to run ads for or against a candidate?

And part of being free is the ability to leave a job if you don't like the way you're being treated. So if your boss is raping you, it's because you like it.

 

[lawbuff]

I was referring to case law. That doesn't count because it is not the law that was created by any legislative process.

Oh it does not count, so I as a police officer can enter your house at any time and just say you are under arrest for "suspicion" and hold you as long as I want?

What statutory law prevents that in your state?

I believe the constitution states you can't enter someone's home without a search warrant.

Did not you just say case law was not created by judicial process so it does not count?? Now you say the Constitution says it. Make up your mind?? The 4th AM says no UNreasonable searches or seizures. Now tell me where the defintion of UNreasonable is, it sure is not in the statutory law, so I still can enter your home and just say it is reasonable, how will you defend yourself without case law?? Prove to me what I did was UNreasonable then.

 

[FireGod]

I've read this and nowhere does it say justice, equality, and the pursuit of other utopia.

The next time liberals get upset about supposed injustice, inequality, and just being upset that you are not going along with their version of utopia just remind them that our government was not created to do those things. They were created to preserve the freedom of the individual at all cost even if allowing that freedom creates injustice, inequality, or interferes with the creation of utopia.

OK so with the recent SCOTUS ruling a corporation is for all intents and purposes is an individual with the right to free speech, however is not allowed to vote. (Hmmm seems to be a disconnect there somewhere.) So by your logic corporations should be able to rape the land, rape the consumer and rape the worker with little to no consequence? Money talks in the end because nothing else is worth listening to.

Are not corporations comprised of people? Do those people not have the right of free speech?

If a group of people be they a corporation or not pool their money to run ads for or against a candidate do they not have the right?

If not, do unions have the right to use their members money to run ads for or against a candidate?

And part of being free is the ability to leave a job if you don't like the way you're being treated. So if your boss is raping you, it's because you like it.

For the record I do not agree with any union, corporation or PAC being able to contribute to any political campaign. ONLY individuals should be allowed to contribute.

 

[ihopehefails]

Oh it does not count, so I as a police officer can enter your house at any time and just say you are under arrest for "suspicion" and hold you as long as I want?

What statutory law prevents that in your state?

I believe the constitution states you can't enter someone's home without a search warrant.

Did not you just say case law was not created by judicial process so it does not count?? Now you say the Constitution says it. Make up your mind?? The 4th AM says no UNreasonable searches or seizures. Now tell me where the defintion of UNreasonable is, it sure is not in the statutory law, so I still can enter your home and just say it is reasonable, how will you defend yourself without case law?? Prove to me what I did was UNreasonable then.

I can always point to the constitution and say this was unreasonable for various reasons. They may or may not agree with me.