What Constitutes a "Right?"

[PubliusInfinitum]

... can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

Yes... if you come to me and shove a gun in my ribs and demand that I not speak my ind on whatever issue it is that has lead you to usurp me means to speak freely... you've not violated my right to speak freely; you've usurped my means to do so.

My right to do so remains that to which I am JUSTIFIABLY ENTITLED... and stands part and parcel of my moral justification to end your life in defense of my means to freely exercise my right; along with your having presented a clear and present danger to my very life; to which I am also justifiably entitled to enjoy; and rightfully entitled to pursue the fulfillment thereof.

If you take my life, you have not taken my just and rightful entitlment to that life... you have merely prevented the free exercise of living that life... and where I pass doing my best to kill your sorry ass I passed from this earth, exercising, through the defense thereof that just and rightful entitlement; thus dying a free man.

You may argue that I forfeited my rights by struggling aginst the power your projected in restraining my right to exercise my right to speak freely... but you'd be wrong.

In fact, such a scenario demonstrates one embracing their inherent, right sustaining responsibility to defend their means to exercise their rights... from the power that would otherwise usurp that means.

It's not a complex issue... it's just quite often beyond the addled means of Leftists to comprehend.

 

[Liability]

As I already said, we may not be perfect at it or even all that good at it, but we are a damn sight better at it than any other government you can probably name.

Yes, sometimes governments overstep bounds. It's easier to overstep bounds where bounds have actually been set.

Our government has overstepped some bounds, too. Nobody is disputing it. But if we can justly criticize the government for those instances, we should probably also take a step back and recognize the instances where it has WORKED -- and worked much better in that regard than any other government. And we would do well to bear in mind that our government has BUILT INTO IT the method for correcting such "out of bounds" transgressions.

That doesn't work in a vacuum, however. A government is not a machine nor a person. It is a collection of people. In OUR case, the government is what we say it is -- or perhaps what we are willing to permit it to become. And I say that latter with more than just a little bit of pessimism.

Careful there. You're becoming a bit of a Liability

Just kidding, but I do think it's dangerous to let violations of the constitution go, just because it works sometimes. It is just as serious if not more when our sovereignty is threatened from within than from without in my opinion.

I didn't say anything about letting violations of the Constitution "go."

I was contesting a specific claim about how we are not a model of upholding the Constitution, and I think that's a silly contention. Clearly we ARE not only "a" model, but "the" model. We uphold it in ways that other nations wouldn't even contemplate, and we do that on a fairly regular basis.

Could we do better? No doubt.

But noting that we can and should do better shouldn't prevent us from recognizing that we also do some things very very right in that department.

It's kind of like how the left is forever claiming that we are a racist people, society, etc. It would be silly to deny that some racism still exists. Clearly, it does. But it is also pretty blind to "note" the fact that some racism still exists without also noting that we have made enormous strides against racism. Clearly, we have. Do we perhaps need to dig in and work harder still? I'd say so. But let's not turn that into another "America sucks" tour.

 

[Intense]

But the government is still in power. And shows no signs of leaving.
So you have, yet again for the umpteenth time, contradicted yourself.
Of course being rather thick, you no doubt won't understand that.

"In power" does not mean "legitimate"

So you think the government of the US is not legitimate? You would be pretty much alone in that opinion. Not that it would bother you much.

There are plainly areas and Instances where Our Government is Unjustified. I believe the solution to the problem lies in Constitutional Amendment and reform. We need Oversight, Transparency, Accountability, and boundaries. Government, forgets It's limits too easily.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

On one level the answer is "OF COURSE." What OTHER country would uphold our constitution? None. Thus, by definition, we HAVE to be "the model" for upholding our Constitution.

You will, no doubt, object and declare that that is not what you meant. Fair enough.

But that's not much help to you. For the truth is that while we may not be perfect at it (or even all that good at it) our government unquestionably DOES regularly make stern efforts to uphold our Constitution. I mean contemplate some examples:

President Richard Nixon got IMPEACHED for trying to cover up a crime in violation of his Constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Many here take it for granted. But I think that what America (via the Legislative Branch) did in that case is a remarkable example of our government doing something few other countries would EVER dream of.

Or, let's contemplate the Judicial System. We SAY that people have a right to remain silent. But in the days of yore, that was just lip service. And even though I happen to believe that the Miranda decision actually goes too far, it still serves as a fair example of our GOVERNMENT correcting a practice and forbidding itself from behaving in a particular way -- giving additional muscle to a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Or, how about the Pentagon Papers case? Again, I think the actual judicial decision was misguided. But nevertheless, it cannot be seriously disputed that it is the GOVERNMENT giving TEETH to the First Amendment in a way that was quite contrary to the expressed desire OF a coordinate branch of that same government. And the Executive Branch -- in compliance with that Judicial Branch determination -- acquiesced.

I bet if you thought about if for a while you could probably come up with dozens of such examples.

Point of order... Nixon wasn't actually impeached... he resigned before the House voted up such articles, which were a certainty at that point; but technically, he was not impeached.

The only elected US President to be impeached by a bi-partisan HoR, is William "The Bubba" Clinton.

Another example of the US upholding American principle is Reagan's disregard of the subversive Bolan amendment... where he fought the communist insurgency in Central America; which the ideologically (anti-American) Left Congressional majority had implemented law to sustain that insurgency.

A point which as we speak the Current subversive in the white house is plotting along with the Leftist in the UN, to overthrow the legitimately elected, constitutionally sound government of Honduras... and replace it with the Communist former President, which was outsted by the Honduras Supreme Court after he had overty sought to undermine and scrap the Honduras Constitution and replace it with his own power as a communist dictator.

And so on...

 

[editec]

A "right" is a political concept.

No such thing exists in nature or in the state of anachy.

 

[Intense]

A "right" is a political concept.

No such thing exists in nature or in the state of anachy.

That is the equivalent of denying right and wrong exist outside of the Social Contract. The Totalitarians dream. You are nothing of Yourself, unless empowered by your Society? Some of us are better than that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But the government is still in power. And shows no signs of leaving.
So you have, yet again for the umpteenth time, contradicted yourself.
Of course being rather thick, you no doubt won't understand that.

"In power" does not mean "legitimate"

So you think the government of the US is not legitimate? You would be pretty much alone in that opinion. Not that it would bother you much.

Not really...

It's becoming abundantly clear that the sitting US President is not legitimate..

First, he's yet to substantiate the simple constitutional mandate that he prove himself a natual born US citizen...

Second, he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and has since that moment worked to pass legislation which flies in the face of the constitution...

Third, his actions are born directly from his previously unknown; by the largest segemnt of the electorate; positions that the 'US Constitution is severely flawed...' positions which rest in diametric opposition TO THAT CONSTITUTION... specifically where HE believes that the US Government should be deemed with a RIGHT TO DO for its citizens... by a constitution which is designed to NO END except to LIMIT THE SCOPE OF POWER OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; AND IS DESIGNED TO ENUMERATE WHAT IT CANNOT DO.

Thus the US Federal Gov't is free to do what ever it can, except where the US Constitution EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS SUCH... what's more, is that the US Constitution provides within it's inherent design the means to CHANGE the constitution...

But you do not see the President working to amend the Constitution to provide for such rightful government entitlements... NO! He is simply USING THE POWERS WHICH ARE PRESENT IN THE GOVERNMENT TO DO WHATEVER HE FEELS IS NECESSARY, DESPITE THE EXPRESS PROHIBITIONS LIMITING THE US GOVERNMENT FROM DOING SO...

He is by his OWN ADMISSION: 'FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE SCOPE AND POWERS OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT," IN direct violation of the US CONSTITUION.

He has violated civil contracts; nationalized whole companies, attempting to nationalize entire INDUSTRIES...

He is a Communist... he is overtly conspiring to undermine the US Constitution, in direct and indisputable violation of his sacred oath to UPHOLD that Constitution.

Thus Hussien and his government are the very anti-thesis of LEGITIMATE! He came to power through unbridled DECEPTION...

His background and intentions were advertised as one thing; and as the clock ticks, we learn of the nefarious characters whith whom he associates... ANTI-AMERICANS WHO HAVE DECLARED THEIR INTENTION; AND WHO HAVE OVERTLY CONSPIRED TO DESTROY THE US ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND REPLACE IT WITH THE MOST THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED ECONOMIC FARCE EVER SADDLED ON THE HUMAN SPECIES.

It is flagrant subversion and treason of the highest order.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, grab your AR and go to it. We'll be cheering you on.

 

[Intense]

Well, grab your AR and go to it. We'll be cheering you on.

Rabbi, You are not really a Rabbi, are You? Don't encourage worse case scenarios. Look at Ezekiel Chapter 18, and focus on the strongest lesson there.Teach that.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you really think the government is illegitimate and Obama is really a communist agent then you are obligated to do right by taking up arms to defend this country. I'm just encouraging you to do the right thing.
On the other hand, if you're just talking out of your ass then you need to get off it.

 

[Intense]

The best way to Support Life, Liberty, Property, and The Pursuit of Happiness, is to advocate it. Voice is a first defense. That is part of why we are here. You do a great job PI.

 

[rubberhead]

A "right" is a political concept.

No such thing exists in nature or in the state of anachy.

Thanks for your unsupported statement of fact. OOh! Ooh! I wanna try:

"editec" is a retard. His "intelligence" is zero. No such thing exists in nature or in the state of anarchy.


WE CONSENT TO DEFER SOME OF OUR PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY TO THE STATE! ARE YOU AN AMERICAN? GOD I HOPE NOT!

 

[rubberhead]

If you really think the government is illegitimate and Obama is really a communist agent then you are obligated to do right by taking up arms to defend this country. I'm just encouraging you to do the right thing.
On the other hand, if you're just talking out of your ass then you need to get off it.

Actually we're obligated to speak out against him, and if he tries to silence us, like he did to insurance companies, then we seek other means. Oh yeah, and AARP is exempt from the gag order. Go figure, the one provider that agrees with Obama is exempt... Hmm... maybe they just ran out of gags.

Rabbi Hitler, you're an idiot. Could you just move to Europe or something and raise our national average IQ please? You'd like Socialism. It's all about the collective. Maybe you'll even be able to rise to power again.

 

[rubberhead]

"in power" does not mean "legitimate"

so you think the government of the us is not legitimate? You would be pretty much alone in that opinion. Not that it would bother you much.

not really...

It's becoming abundantly clear that the sitting us president is not legitimate..

First, he's yet to substantiate the simple constitutional mandate that he prove himself a natual born us citizen...

Second, he swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and has since that moment worked to pass legislation which flies in the face of the constitution...

Third, his actions are born directly from his previously unknown; by the largest segemnt of the electorate; positions that the 'us constitution is severely flawed...' positions which rest in diametric opposition to that constitution... Specifically where he believes that the us government should be deemed with a right to do for its citizens... By a constitution which is designed to no end except to limit the scope of power of the us federal government; and is designed to enumerate what it cannot do.

Thus the us federal gov't is free to do what ever it can, except where the us constitution expressly prohibits such... What's more, is that the us constitution provides within it's inherent design the means to change the constitution...

But you do not see the president working to amend the constitution to provide for such rightful government entitlements... No! He is simply using the powers which are present in the government to do whatever he feels is necessary, despite the express prohibitions limiting the us government from doing so...

He is by his own admission: 'fundamentally changing the scope and powers of the us federal government," in direct violation of the us constituion.

He has violated civil contracts; nationalized whole companies, attempting to nationalize entire industries...

He is a communist... He is overtly conspiring to undermine the us constitution, in direct and indisputable violation of his sacred oath to uphold that constitution.

Thus hussien and his government are the very anti-thesis of legitimate! He came to power through unbridled deception...

His background and intentions were advertised as one thing; and as the clock ticks, we learn of the nefarious characters whith whom he associates... Anti-americans who have declared their intention; and who have overtly conspired to destroy the us economic system and replace it with the most thoroughly discredited economic farce ever saddled on the human species.

It is flagrant subversion and treason of the highest order.

amen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, and our constitution does no such thing.

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

Who gets to decide whether a government in power is 'upholding' the Constitution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Who said that tyranny has returned? Oh, I get it, you assume that we're anti-Obama because we believe in freedom and not violating the constitution. Congratulations on your election, dumbass. If you believe in social justice then why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out and let the rest of us hang on to the evil, selfish notion that we are entitled to hold discretion over our own time and wealth (which is representative of time - "time is money" <=> "money is time"). Hey maybe if you make enough poor people dependent on you, then you too can be elected president! Then you can use the will of the majority to warp the constitution to whatever ends you seek! It's not totalitarianism yet, but we're moving in that direction. And people like you are helping. You disgust me.

See, Carter wasn't COMPLETELY wrong.

Yeah, there are lazy minorities. There are also hard-working ones. Same goes for whites. The hard-working ones generally don't stand around with their hands out waiting for a hand-out. But why bother if the RACIST-in-chief Barack Obama is just going to take what you've earned and give it to the MINORITIES with their hands out? Carter and you, remain COMPLETELY wrong.

Case closed.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

Who gets to decide whether a government in power is 'upholding' the Constitution?

The answer obviously is Rubberdickhead. He has all kinds of wonderful ideas. Just ask him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Who said that tyranny has returned? Oh, I get it, you assume that we're anti-Obama because we believe in freedom and not violating the constitution. Congratulations on your election, dumbass. If you believe in social justice then why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out and let the rest of us hang on to the evil, selfish notion that we are entitled to hold discretion over our own time and wealth (which is representative of time - "time is money" <=> "money is time"). Hey maybe if you make enough poor people dependent on you, then you too can be elected president! Then you can use the will of the majority to warp the constitution to whatever ends you seek! It's not totalitarianism yet, but we're moving in that direction. And people like you are helping. You disgust me.

See, Carter wasn't COMPLETELY wrong.

Sweet Non sequitur...

It implies that one can't be lazy if one is a minority... a presumption that is as absurd, as it is racist.

You're dumber than I even thought if you're calling me the racist in that exchange.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

Who gets to decide whether a government in power is 'upholding' the Constitution?

The answer obviously is Rubberdickhead. He has all kinds of wonderful ideas. Just ask him.

He needs to find a rubber with a breathing hole in it. I think his brain needs more oxygen.

 

[Intense]

Who gets to decide whether a government in power is 'upholding' the Constitution?

The answer obviously is Rubberdickhead. He has all kinds of wonderful ideas. Just ask him.

He needs to find a rubber with a breathing hole in it. I think his brain needs more oxygen.

You can clean up a pig, dress it up, perfume it, in the end it's still a pig. A five year old can see the truth of it. Why can't you? The Emperor Has No Clothes. The only people fooled are those that don't know where to put their faith.