Martin Luther King believed in God given Rights; Why don't Libbies?

False "The govt that you, and others, seem to want is very close to a marxist collectivist dictatorship."

False "you want everyone to have equal income, equal stuff, and you want the govt to distribute money and material things as the govt sees fit" I am very happily enjoying the retirement I earned, and I have no trouble with the creation and maintenance of a safety net for those who need it

False "you are very close to Marx "to each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities" see above

False "that sounds great, but it is in total contradiction to basic human nature that makes each of us desire to better ourselves and to provide food and safety for those that we care about" see first para above

False "you are happy with being a government slave, and are willing to do whatever the govt master elites tell you as long as everyone else also has to do what the govt elites dictate" see first para above

You far right reactionaries want to change things: win elections.

You say FALSE, but these are the things you are begging for every day.

Individual freedom, smaller less intrusive federal govt, sane fiscal policy are not far right ideas.

sorry snake, its you who is on the fringe. I am solidly in the middle and in agreement with the vast majority of americans of both parties.

Only in your deluded mind, my friend. I agree that those are good goals, but they are not the goals of the far right reactionaries, like you, who say one thing but try to take away others' freedoms.

I am mainstream GOP. You are on the way fringe of social and political sanity.

Lunatics like you cost MR the election.

That won't happen again, because your few numbers will not effect either the nominating or election process
 
False "The govt that you, and others, seem to want is very close to a marxist collectivist dictatorship."

False "you want everyone to have equal income, equal stuff, and you want the govt to distribute money and material things as the govt sees fit" I am very happily enjoying the retirement I earned, and I have no trouble with the creation and maintenance of a safety net for those who need it

False "you are very close to Marx "to each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities" see above

False "that sounds great, but it is in total contradiction to basic human nature that makes each of us desire to better ourselves and to provide food and safety for those that we care about" see first para above

False "you are happy with being a government slave, and are willing to do whatever the govt master elites tell you as long as everyone else also has to do what the govt elites dictate" see first para above

You far right reactionaries want to change things: win elections.

You say FALSE, but these are the things you are begging for every day.

Individual freedom, smaller less intrusive federal govt, sane fiscal policy are not far right ideas.

sorry snake, its you who is on the fringe. I am solidly in the middle and in agreement with the vast majority of americans of both parties.

Only in your deluded mind, my friend. I agree that those are good goals, but they are not the goals of the far right reactionaries, like you, who say one thing but try to take away others' freedoms.

I am mainstream GOP. You are on the way fringe of social and political sanity.

Lunatics like you cost MR the election.

That won't happen again, because your few numbers will not effect either the nominating or election process

Whose rights do I want to take away? I want everyone to have their God given rights and the rights guaranteed them by the constitution.

What I object to is one class of people having special rights

Romney lost because too many conservatives stayed home. They, in their stupidity, elected obama.

You are not mainstream GOP, that is a total fabrication. You are as far left as they come, but you put on this "I'm a republican" ruse in a failed attempt to make republicans look bad.

everyone on this board knows who and what you are. Isn't it time to come clean?
 
Its what I believe, as do billions of Christians world wide.

You are free to believe whatever you choose. I do not have to defend my beliefs to you or anyone else.

Some day we will know whose beliefs are correct

So your assertion that abortion is not a God given right is based not on any tangible evidence, but rather just on your personal opinion.

Thus, in the real world, the rules established for the governance of groups of humans are based only on those opinions that for one reason or another are able to be implemented.

No, you just don't get it.

Civilizations decide what laws and rules the members of the civilization will follow, what is considered right and wrong by a concensus of the members of the civilization. Each individual can decide whether he or she wants to live in that civilization under the rules set by a majority of that civilization.

Your right to live and do as you wish with your life was given to you by God, not other men.

"endowed by their creator" are the words of the founders. If you disagree, you are free to move to another country that lives by a different set of laws and beliefs.

lol you said I don't get it and then you said exactly what I said, only worded differently.

Rights are not God given. If rights were God given then those who claimed the divine right of kings would prevail.
 
Its what I believe, as do billions of Christians world wide.

You are free to believe whatever you choose. I do not have to defend my beliefs to you or anyone else.

Some day we will know whose beliefs are correct

So your assertion that abortion is not a God given right is based not on any tangible evidence, but rather just on your personal opinion.

Thus, in the real world, the rules established for the governance of groups of humans are based only on those opinions that for one reason or another are able to be implemented.

What are you talking about? what does this have to do with abortion? If you believe that an unborn human being is a human being then abortion is murder.

Unless you lived in the time of Jesus, there is no tangible evidence of the existence of God or in the validity of his commandments. Religion is based on beliefs, if you choose not to believe, I feel sorry for you, but thats your right.

If you are not capable of self-government, but need to look to ancient books to figure out what's right or wrong, then I feel sorry for you.
 
I see the biggest problem we have is citizens want something for nothing and they are filing for disability at alarming rates.
I come from a military family and they are shocked and offended by the number of retiring and returning veterans filing for disability for a sprained ankle 3 years prior and claiming that limits their ability to work for the rest of their lives. And they are getting the ratings. Many deserve it but 45% and rising of ALL veterans now receiving some form of disability pay after discharge or retirement? And then they turn around and work full time back over seas as a contractor.
Worse than that are the moochers receiving social security disability for a headache.
Tinnitus claims were close to 800,000 last year and are expected to be over 1.5 million for this year due to liberalized testing results at VA. One was awarded to a vet this year that said the air conditioners in his computer bunker in the 80s caused the tinnitus and with no medical documentation he was awarded disability from the VA.
 
that is true....but today we are facing a new type of threat...and there is no God in it...

Communism is a belief system.......same as Christianity is a belief system.....however Communism is considered to be "secular" vs Christianity which is considered to be "religious"....

this is how they are getting away with destroying our basic rights.....by shoehorning their brand of "secularism" into our laws....like demanding a religious group or company not follow their conscience just because they are operating in the public market which they deem must be 'secular'....

In the 30s we had far more support for communism in this country than ever before, far more than now. We were in a deep recession and Russia was growing, most all false propaganda but many here bought into it, their "economy" with workers "rights".
Communism is dead now.
Socialism is growing rapidly but I doubt it ever will morph into communism here.
Anyone can follow their conscience if they do not pick and choose which citizens they do not like and who they do when they are in the public sector.
I find that sort of odd as I can pick and choose who to sell my car to but not my house.
But that is more to do with attempts at equal rights instead of religion.
Isn't it about time we start telling everyone that their religious beliefs should not be used to discriminate against others? No one stops parents from teaching their kids whatever they want to but when you bring that out into the public then you have stepped on the shoes of others. Isn't it a little silly to keep labeling gays and lesbians as 2nd class citizens because they choose to be who they are?

whatever.....there are so many terms that the Left uses....it runs the gamut.....but they all have one thing in common....FORCE is at the heart of their belief systems....socialism is just on the way to communism or a step away from fascism...or whatever form of dictatorship or totalitarian variation the Left may want to use....anything but our Constitution unless they are able to twist it to their advantage...

i suppose you are gay because you immediately bring up that stupid argument....can you tell me why being an active-in-public gay person is acceptable but being an active-in-public Christian person is not acceptable...?

seems to me the Left is doing the "picking and choosing"....don't you think...?

No, I am not gay. Married 37 years, played 15 seasons of football, own a detective agency for 35 years and have 3 grown kids.
Your definition of an "active-in-public Christian person" is someone that has to treat gays and lesbians as 2nd class citizens is bogus.
You can teach that to your kids and I support that but when your or they bring that to the table in public be prepared for the backlash against bigotry.
How many times does the Bible say Love Thy Neighbor?
And it doesn't make exceptions for gay folk.
If we are speaking about being an "active" Christian as you say.
 
Rights in the USA are determined by the constitution and the bill of rights.

They are very clearly spelled out for us.

Its you on the far left who are trying to ignore some of them and misinterpret others.

Correct, government determines what rights exist and thus will be protected by government.

God does not give us the rights; we the People do.

that is not true, the constitution was set up to protect rights, not grant them

Specifically to protect the rights of the minority against the power of mob, majority rule which at that time were the religious people.
 
which people on the right think its OK to shoot black kids? give us some names. Are you still hung up on the Zimmerman case? He shot the thug in self defense, the jury acquitted him, its over.

capital punishment only occurs when the person has KILLED another person.

War is hell , no one wants war, whats wrong with you?

Seems you just pegged yourself with the "far right".

Case closed. :eusa_whistle:

By believing in the validity of our jury system? That makes me far right? explain.


To have faith in the Jury, is to have faith in the People. The Jury is the ultimate form of peaceful and popular recourse against a Tyranny. This is why Progressives hate juries, because it empowers that commoner, who reads and understands and speaks in PLAIN ENGLISH, to nullify the elite.
 
Seems you just pegged yourself with the "far right".

Case closed. :eusa_whistle:

By believing in the validity of our jury system? That makes me far right? explain.


To have faith in the Jury, is to have faith in the People. The Jury is the ultimate form of peaceful and popular recourse against a Tyranny. This is why Progressives hate juries, because it empowers that commoner, who reads and understands and speaks in PLAIN ENGLISH, to nullify the elite.

"Progressives" hate juries?

Where do you pull this shit from?
 
False "The govt that you, and others, seem to want is very close to a marxist collectivist dictatorship."

False "you want everyone to have equal income, equal stuff, and you want the govt to distribute money and material things as the govt sees fit" I am very happily enjoying the retirement I earned, and I have no trouble with the creation and maintenance of a safety net for those who need it

False "you are very close to Marx "to each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities" see above

False "that sounds great, but it is in total contradiction to basic human nature that makes each of us desire to better ourselves and to provide food and safety for those that we care about" see first para above

False "you are happy with being a government slave, and are willing to do whatever the govt master elites tell you as long as everyone else also has to do what the govt elites dictate" see first para above

You far right reactionaries want to change things: win elections.

You say FALSE, but these are the things you are begging for every day.

Individual freedom, smaller less intrusive federal govt, sane fiscal policy are not far right ideas.

sorry snake, its you who is on the fringe. I am solidly in the middle and in agreement with the vast majority of americans of both parties.

Yet these are ideals few on the right support, given the fact that most conservatives seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, women their privacy rights, transgender persons their right to individual liberty, and minorities their voting rights.

Proposition 8, Utah’s Amendment 3, and the North Carolina measure recently struck down violating citizens’ privacy rights are proof of this.

The North Carolina measure, for example, enacted and endorsed by conservatives, authorized the state to compel a woman’s doctor to physically violate her bodily privacy, even if she requested the medial staff not to do so.

Given this and many other examples of conservative contempt for the Constitution and its case law, it’s no wonder few believe you and others on the right when they claim they are advocates of individual freedom and smaller, less intrusive government.
 
By believing in the validity of our jury system? That makes me far right? explain.


To have faith in the Jury, is to have faith in the People. The Jury is the ultimate form of peaceful and popular recourse against a Tyranny. This is why Progressives hate juries, because it empowers that commoner, who reads and understands and speaks in PLAIN ENGLISH, to nullify the elite.

"Progressives" hate juries?

Where do you pull this shit from?
Can you name the progressive who believes in fully informed juries and nullification?
 
To have faith in the Jury, is to have faith in the People. The Jury is the ultimate form of peaceful and popular recourse against a Tyranny. This is why Progressives hate juries, because it empowers that commoner, who reads and understands and speaks in PLAIN ENGLISH, to nullify the elite.

"Progressives" hate juries?

Where do you pull this shit from?
Can you name the progressive who believes in fully informed juries and nullification?

:lol:

Every "progressive" I've ever come into contact with.
 
To have faith in the Jury, is to have faith in the People. The Jury is the ultimate form of peaceful and popular recourse against a Tyranny. This is why Progressives hate juries, because it empowers that commoner, who reads and understands and speaks in PLAIN ENGLISH, to nullify the elite.

"Progressives" hate juries?

Where do you pull this shit from?

Hmm, let's test DoctorIsIn:

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson

“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” - John Adams

Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote “not guilty” if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury “nullified” the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the “conscience of the community” and relied on juries’ “nullifying” to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. - CATO Institute

"“The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, [the wrongful seizure of authority] without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him." - Bancroft’s History of the Constitution, p.267. Quoted in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895),

“The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.” -Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).


“It is manifest from all the accounts we have of the courts in which juries sat, prior to the Magna Charta, such as the court baron, the hundred court, the court leet, and the county court, that they were mere courts of conscience, and that the juries were the judges, deciding causes according to their own notions of equity, and not according to any laws of the king, unless they thought them just.” - Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 64 (John P. Jewett & Co., 1852).



You see [MENTION=28727]Doc[/MENTION]torIsIn , these Libertarian Principles behind Jury Nullification are among the greatest threats to the Progressive Collectivist Agenda.

Notice that "without being driven to an appeal to arms" is highlighted in the quotes. This is because the People have no one to blame but THEMSELVES if they, the Jury, convict each other under UNJUST laws.

However, once those the right to Trial by Jury is removed (NDAA is a precursor), Patriots have a DUTY to overthrow that Tyranny.

The shooting starts once Big Gov says "people aren't smart enough to decide on Juries for each other, we know best." That is when 1776 starts all over again.
 
"Progressives" hate juries?

Where do you pull this shit from?
Can you name the progressive who believes in fully informed juries and nullification?

:lol:

Every "progressive" I've ever come into contact with.

So what happens if I refuse to pay my Obamacare penalty and Jury acquits me (or hangs)?


Also, if the Obamacare penalty is immune to Jury Trial, then it as an act of Progressive Tyranny, since a Jury of my Peers cannot judge the law.


Actually, I'm positively certain that the Obamacare penalty cannot be subject to Jury Trial.

So there's your proof that Progressives hate juries.
 
Last edited:
To have faith in the Jury, is to have faith in the People. The Jury is the ultimate form of peaceful and popular recourse against a Tyranny. This is why Progressives hate juries, because it empowers that commoner, who reads and understands and speaks in PLAIN ENGLISH, to nullify the elite.

"Progressives" hate juries?

Where do you pull this shit from?

Hmm, let's test DoctorIsIn:

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson

“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” - John Adams

Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote “not guilty” if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury “nullified” the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the “conscience of the community” and relied on juries’ “nullifying” to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. - CATO Institute

"“The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, [the wrongful seizure of authority] without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him." - Bancroft’s History of the Constitution, p.267. Quoted in Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895),

“The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.” -Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).


“It is manifest from all the accounts we have of the courts in which juries sat, prior to the Magna Charta, such as the court baron, the hundred court, the court leet, and the county court, that they were mere courts of conscience, and that the juries were the judges, deciding causes according to their own notions of equity, and not according to any laws of the king, unless they thought them just.” - Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 64 (John P. Jewett & Co., 1852).



You see [MENTION=28727]Doc[/MENTION]torIsIn , these Libertarian Principles behind Jury Nullification are among the greatest threats to the Progressive Collectivist Agenda.

Notice that "without being driven to an appeal to arms" is highlighted in the quotes. This is because the People have no one to blame but THEMSELVES if they, the Jury, convict each other under UNJUST laws.

However, once those the right to Trial by Jury is removed (NDAA is a precursor), Patriots have a DUTY to overthrow that Tyranny.

The shooting starts once Big Gov says "people aren't smart enough to decide on Juries for each other, we know best." That is when 1776 starts all over again.

Whatever you're talking about here, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything I posted.

Who are these "progressives" that hate juries?
 
Can you name the progressive who believes in fully informed juries and nullification?

:lol:

Every "progressive" I've ever come into contact with.

So what happens if I refuse to pay my Obamacare penalty and Jury acquits me (or hangs)?


Also, if the Obamacare penalty is immune to Jury Trial, then it as an act of Progressive Tyranny, since a Jury of my Peers cannot judge the law.


Actually, I'm positively certain that the Obamacare penalty cannot be subject to Jury Trial.

So there's your proof that Progressives hate juries.

:lol:

Are you really as ridiculous as you appear to be on the internet?

Not paying your Obamacare penalty isn't a crime. It's the same as not paying your income taxes - you don't get a jury trial for that either, just collection calls and wage garnishments.
 
Whatever you're talking about here, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything I posted.

Who are these "progressives" that hate juries?

Check the post above.

Why are most Progressive fundamentals immune to Jury trials?

Obamacare Penalty - not subject to Jury Trial.

Income tax (federal) - not subject to Jury Trial.

Income tax (California) - not subject to Jury Trial.

This list gets very long.

It seems that Progressives FEAR having the People themselves adjudicate the elite formula.
 
:lol:

Every "progressive" I've ever come into contact with.

So what happens if I refuse to pay my Obamacare penalty and Jury acquits me (or hangs)?


Also, if the Obamacare penalty is immune to Jury Trial, then it as an act of Progressive Tyranny, since a Jury of my Peers cannot judge the law.


Actually, I'm positively certain that the Obamacare penalty cannot be subject to Jury Trial.

So there's your proof that Progressives hate juries.

:lol:

Are you really as ridiculous as you appear to be on the internet?

Not paying your Obamacare penalty isn't a crime. It's the same as not paying your income taxes - you don't get a jury trial for that either, just collection calls and wage garnishments.

There's your Proof, you proved it yourself, you just admitted that you believe it is RIGHT for the Government to penalize one's trade/labor/salary without review from his peers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32UGD0fV45g]Eduard Khil - Official Trolololo - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top