What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

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?

How about You decide for yourself and defend the decision.

 

[rubberhead]

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.

You, Carter and Obama are racists. Obama was, when he was pandering, Carter was when he was grabbing for the limelight and you did when you were when you used racism to try to invalidate my statements about Obama favoring minorities. Do you know who Van Jones is? He used to work for Obama, before the public saw some of the videos of him saying utterly ridiculous things like "white people are deliberately poisoning blacks" and "whites should give their money to minorities." Look it up. Oh yeah, remember Jeremiah Wright? The church that Obama attended where he never paid attention to what was being said for 20 years and had no idea that Jeremiah Wright was a Black Nationalist? Jeremiah Wright is a racist by the way. Yeah, minorities can be racists too. Class dismissed. Go do your homework. Maybe you and Jimmy Carter can be study buddies.

 

[Liability]

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...

Your "Point of Order" is noted and the correction offered is itself correct. I was speaking imprecisely. Mea culpa. President Nixon quit before any House vote (other than preliminary stuff) on the question of impeachment.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wouldn't do any good. His one brain cell died of loneliness.

To answer the question: just like rights, adherence to the constitution is largely a matter of public perception. And presently the American people still believe the US is largely faithful to the constitution.

 

[Intense]

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.

Wouldn't do any good. His one brain cell died of loneliness.

To answer the question: just like rights, adherence to the constitution is largely a matter of public perception. And presently the American people still believe the US is largely faithful to the constitution.

We try to be. Things do come up though, and to address them is the first step.

 

[The Rabbi]

On individual items you've got a court system to address it. So I expect that a large part, if not all, of McCain-Feingold will get tossed out this Supreme Court session. I sure hope so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You, Carter and Obama are racists. Obama was, when he was pandering, Carter was when he was grabbing for the limelight and you did when you were when you used racism to try to invalidate my statements about Obama favoring minorities. Do you know who Van Jones is? He used to work for Obama, before the public saw some of the videos of him saying utterly ridiculous things like "white people are deliberately poisoning blacks" and "whites should give their money to minorities." Look it up. Oh yeah, remember Jeremiah Wright? The church that Obama attended where he never paid attention to what was being said for 20 years and had no idea that Jeremiah Wright was a Black Nationalist? Jeremiah Wright is a racist by the way. Yeah, minorities can be racists too. Class dismissed. Go do your homework. Maybe you and Jimmy Carter can be study buddies.

I'm the racist for calling you out on this?

why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out

Anyone agree with this loon?

 

[Diuretic]

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!

I think ed has a better chance of proving that rights are a social invention than anyone who claims natural rights exist have of proving their case. Or at least providing a faintly persuasive argument for their case.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think that's been demonstrated amply already.

 

[rubberhead]

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

You, Carter and Obama are racists. Obama was, when he was pandering, Carter was when he was grabbing for the limelight and you did when you were when you used racism to try to invalidate my statements about Obama favoring minorities. Do you know who Van Jones is? He used to work for Obama, before the public saw some of the videos of him saying utterly ridiculous things like "white people are deliberately poisoning blacks" and "whites should give their money to minorities." Look it up. Oh yeah, remember Jeremiah Wright? The church that Obama attended where he never paid attention to what was being said for 20 years and had no idea that Jeremiah Wright was a Black Nationalist? Jeremiah Wright is a racist by the way. Yeah, minorities can be racists too. Class dismissed. Go do your homework. Maybe you and Jimmy Carter can be study buddies.

I'm the racist for calling you out on this?

why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out

Anyone agree with this loon?

Yah, Obama favors minorities because of his personal feelings and his policies reflect this. Do you know who Mark Lloyd is? He is the "Diversity" Czar. He works for Obama and will be setting FCC policy. He believes that "white executives should step down in favor of minorities". This is racism. Does anyone agree with Carter? I mean, except the "president" of Iran?

I guess class is back in. If someone doesn't earn something, then they shouldn't get it. White, black, yellow, red. Doesn't matter what color they are. To advocate giving something away based on the race of the recipient (e.g. affirmative action) is racism in my opinion. Nice job trying to discredit me, but I'm not a racist. I don't advocate taking things away from any group based on the identity of that group. Obama and the policy makers that he employs, unfortunately do favor racist policies. If you were actually aware of his policies and those of his subordinates, (and you were a rational human being), then you'd agree with me.

 

[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!

I think ed has a better chance of proving that rights are a social invention than anyone who claims natural rights exist have of proving their case. Or at least providing a faintly persuasive argument for their case.

If by "persuasive" you mean non-existent. He wrote one line and that one line contained not even a reference as to why someone who disagrees with that position.

Here's my "persuasive" argument:

People are born with rights.

 

[rubberhead]

I guess Obamites are convinced by blanket statements and arbitrary decrees based only on fabrications. I mean, that's all that their dear leader can produce.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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!

I think ed has a better chance of proving that rights are a social invention than anyone who claims natural rights exist have of proving their case. Or at least providing a faintly persuasive argument for their case.

Do ya?

This is clearly a result of your own personal delusion; as I've proven half a dozen times, in incontrovertible terms... directly in response to the idiocy you've advanced.

That you failed to comprehend such, hardly effects the facts which are... YOU exist... you didn't create yourself... thus your life is a result of the endowment from that creator; and it follows that the endowment of that life serves a purpose; which it further follows is that you are rightfully entitled to pursue the fulfillment of that life; as long as you do not exercise that rightful entitlement to the detriment of the means of another who is equally entitled to pursue their life, to exercise that to which THEY are entitled.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You, Carter and Obama are racists. Obama was, when he was pandering, Carter was when he was grabbing for the limelight and you did when you were when you used racism to try to invalidate my statements about Obama favoring minorities. Do you know who Van Jones is? He used to work for Obama, before the public saw some of the videos of him saying utterly ridiculous things like "white people are deliberately poisoning blacks" and "whites should give their money to minorities." Look it up. Oh yeah, remember Jeremiah Wright? The church that Obama attended where he never paid attention to what was being said for 20 years and had no idea that Jeremiah Wright was a Black Nationalist? Jeremiah Wright is a racist by the way. Yeah, minorities can be racists too. Class dismissed. Go do your homework. Maybe you and Jimmy Carter can be study buddies.

I'm the racist for calling you out on this?

why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out

Anyone agree with this loon?

Yah, Obama favors minorities because of his personal feelings and his policies reflect this. Do you know who Mark Lloyd is? He is the "Diversity" Czar. He works for Obama and will be setting FCC policy. He believes that "white executives should step down in favor of minorities". This is racism. Does anyone agree with Carter? I mean, except the "president" of Iran?

I guess class is back in. If someone doesn't earn something, then they shouldn't get it. White, black, yellow, red. Doesn't matter what color they are. To advocate giving something away based on the race of the recipient (e.g. affirmative action) is racism in my opinion. Nice job trying to discredit me, but I'm not a racist. I don't advocate taking things away from any group based on the identity of that group. Obama and the policy makers that he employs, unfortunately do favor racist policies. If you were actually aware of his policies and those of his subordinates, (and you were a rational human being), then you'd agree with me.

"I'm am not a racist!!!!! I meant 'LAZY MINORITIES' in the best sense of that term!"

lol whatever you say rubberhead...

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

There's no better way for a constitution to prove its legitimacy by encouraging armed rebellion against a government that violates the principles enshrined in the constitution. Does that make any sense? It does to me.

Totally, Most of the Founders were more concerned about the Threat of Encroachment, Usurpation, and Tyranny, over all other threats.

Hardly. If they were that concerned then they wouldn't have surrendered any state's sovereignty to a central government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's odd that the founders claim inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, that all men are created equal, etc., but then managed also to divine from God's message that specifically he meant all white males of property and position are created equal.

When did we decide God was wrong?

Sorry if I missed any replies but I'm still curious,

why did God tell the founders that equal rights did not include women and people of color??

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, while the subject is equality, natural rights, and the legitimacy of armed rebellion against the government,

was Lincoln full of shit in his Gettysburg address??

 

[Intense]

It's odd that the founders claim inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, that all men are created equal, etc., but then managed also to divine from God's message that specifically he meant all white males of property and position are created equal.

When did we decide God was wrong?

Sorry if I missed any replies but I'm still curious,

why did God tell the founders that equal rights did not include women and people of color??

Why do You assume God told anybody that at all.

 

[Intense]

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!

I think ed has a better chance of proving that rights are a social invention than anyone who claims natural rights exist have of proving their case. Or at least providing a faintly persuasive argument for their case.

Is Sin a Social Invention? Is Righteousness a Social Invention? Is Justice a Social Invention? Can You Prove it?

We have you beat. It was rigged from the start. You just didn't know it.

 

[Intense]

So, while the subject is equality, natural rights, and the legitimacy of armed rebellion against the government,

was Lincoln full of shit in his Gettysburg address??

There are things I both Love and Hate about Lincoln. It was a Bad Time.