What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

Were they endowed by their creator or the state?


.

I think the Correct Answer is that They Were Endowed by The US Department of State with the Right to Medical Care.

My question, knowing who signs the Paychecks for The State Department, yet wondering in the Extreme, Who do they actually work for, because it is surely not Us.Who do They Serve? What False God do They Worship? Why do We continue to Pay Them?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

ROFLMNAO...

Now understand what this imbecile is saying...

That Iraqis are endowed by their Creator with the right to force the state to infringe upon the rights of another so as to provide for their healthcare.

The simple fact is that Iraq's government has no means to provide anything to anyone, until Iraq's government infringes upon the right to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Such is typical of the idiot... to demand a right for which SOMEONE else is responsible for providing; a circumstance in which the existance of a right is not possible.

 

[Intense]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

ROFLMNAO...

Now understand what this imbecile is saying...

That Iraqis are endowed by their Creator with the right to force the state to infringe upon the rights of another so as to provide for their healthcare.

The simple fact is that Iraq's government has no means to provide anything to anyone, until Iraq's government infringes upon the right to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Such is typical of the idiot... to demand a right for which SOMEONE else is responsible for providing; a circumstance in which the existance of a right is not possible.

Agreed! Total Left Wing Kool-Aid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

Were they endowed by their creator or the state?


.

I think the Correct Answer is that They Were Endowed by The US Department of State with the Right to Medical Care.

My question, knowing who signs the Paychecks for The State Department, yet wondering in the Extreme, Who do they actually work for, because it is surely not Us.Who do They Serve? What False God do They Worship? Why do We continue to Pay Them?

The supporters of the Iraq war/ nationbuilding decided to use American tax dollars to fund Iraqi healthcare. Or more precisely, agreed to borrow the money to do so. They ironically comprise a significant portion of the crowd who are now hysterical that AMERICAN healthcare reform might add a few dollars to the deficit.

Strange priorities when it comes to spending other people's money, wouldn't you say?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

ROFLMNAO...

Now understand what this imbecile is saying...

That Iraqis are endowed by their Creator with the right to force the state to infringe upon the rights of another so as to provide for their healthcare.

The simple fact is that Iraq's government has no means to provide anything to anyone, until Iraq's government infringes upon the right to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Such is typical of the idiot... to demand a right for which SOMEONE else is responsible for providing; a circumstance in which the existance of a right is not possible.

Did you support the Iraq war?

btw, ALL your rights and liberties are protected by SOMEONE else. Aren't the troops overseas there to protect your rights and liberties?

 

[Intense]

Were they endowed by their creator or the state?


.

I think the Correct Answer is that They Were Endowed by The US Department of State with the Right to Medical Care.

My question, knowing who signs the Paychecks for The State Department, yet wondering in the Extreme, Who do they actually work for, because it is surely not Us.Who do They Serve? What False God do They Worship? Why do We continue to Pay Them?

The supporters of the Iraq war/ nationbuilding decided to use American tax dollars to fund Iraqi healthcare. Or more precisely, agreed to borrow the money to do so. They ironically comprise a significant portion of the crowd who are now hysterical that AMERICAN healthcare reform might add a few dollars to the deficit.

Strange priorities when it comes to spending other people's money, wouldn't you say?

Those are not Conservative Principles. Try Again. Who does the Dept. of State Serve? Not Us. These are Statist Principles plain as day. These are those at war with Natural Rights, the Statists, mostly from the Left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

Were they endowed by their creator or the state?


.

Article 1

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the Correct Answer is that They Were Endowed by The US Department of State with the Right to Medical Care.

My question, knowing who signs the Paychecks for The State Department, yet wondering in the Extreme, Who do they actually work for, because it is surely not Us.Who do They Serve? What False God do They Worship? Why do We continue to Pay Them?

The supporters of the Iraq war/ nationbuilding decided to use American tax dollars to fund Iraqi healthcare. Or more precisely, agreed to borrow the money to do so. They ironically comprise a significant portion of the crowd who are now hysterical that AMERICAN healthcare reform might add a few dollars to the deficit.

Strange priorities when it comes to spending other people's money, wouldn't you say?

Those are not Conservative Principles. Try Again. Who does the Dept. of State Serve? Not Us. These are Statist Principles plain as day. These are those at war with Natural Rights, the Statists, mostly from the Left.

Says who? Now you're the arbiter of what is and isn't Conservative, as well as the arbiter of what is and isn't a natural right?

funny

I can't believe I was hallucinating the last 6 plus years when I heard and saw all those folks who proudly identify themselves as Conservatives supporting the invasion of Iraq, and the rebuilding of Iraq (all on borrowed money).

 

[Contumacious]

Were they endowed by their creator or the state?


.

I think the Correct Answer is that They Were Endowed by The US Department of State with the Right to Medical Care.

My question, knowing who signs the Paychecks for The State Department, yet wondering in the Extreme, Who do they actually work for, because it is surely not Us.Who do They Serve? What False God do They Worship? Why do We continue to Pay Them?

The supporters of the Iraq war/ nationbuilding decided to use American tax dollars to fund Iraqi healthcare. Or more precisely, agreed to borrow the money to do so. They ironically comprise a significant portion of the crowd who are now hysterical that AMERICAN healthcare reform might add a few dollars to the deficit.

Strange priorities when it comes to spending other people's money, wouldn't you say?

Tell the warmongers, jingoists and neocrazies to write you a check.


,

 

[rubberhead]

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

The concept that we create has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

Wrong. We did discover the aspects of nature that lead to the names that we give things. One of those things being logic. There are still new aspect of those discoveries being uncovered and subsequently named whereupon those names are organized into the category of human invention. We catalogue the properties of the universe and our own minds (which is the only place where logic exists), but we do not discover the knowledge, we invent it. Only an acolyte of the Church of Reason would confuse the two. Knowledge is not God. In my opinion the infinite universe, only a small corner of which are we and will we ever be aware much less understand and catalogue, is God.

 

[Intense]

The supporters of the Iraq war/ nationbuilding decided to use American tax dollars to fund Iraqi healthcare. Or more precisely, agreed to borrow the money to do so. They ironically comprise a significant portion of the crowd who are now hysterical that AMERICAN healthcare reform might add a few dollars to the deficit.

Strange priorities when it comes to spending other people's money, wouldn't you say?

Those are not Conservative Principles. Try Again. Who does the Dept. of State Serve? Not Us. These are Statist Principles plain as day. These are those at war with Natural Rights, the Statists, mostly from the Left.

Says who? Now you're the arbiter of what is and isn't Conservative, as well as the arbiter of what is and isn't a natural right?

funny

I can't believe I was hallucinating the last 6 plus years when I heard and saw all those folks who proudly identify themselves as Conservatives supporting the invasion of Iraq, and the rebuilding of Iraq (all on borrowed money).

You are entitled to your opinion, so am I. Those are statist Principles born of the Left. Crush the Individual, All Power to the Controlling Authority. The State is Our God crowd. They, like you, are trained well, like barking seals.

The Confrontation with Jihad is Supported over Surrender, that includes Iraq. I blame Jimmy Carter, not Supporting The Shah. What a Shit Storm it caused. You blame Bush for over reacting. Rebuilding is Humanitarian, yet even that gets tainted by the New World Order.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Were they endowed by their creator or the state?


.

I think the Correct Answer is that They Were Endowed by The US Department of State with the Right to Medical Care.

My question, knowing who signs the Paychecks for The State Department, yet wondering in the Extreme, Who do they actually work for, because it is surely not Us.Who do They Serve? What False God do They Worship? Why do We continue to Pay Them?

The supporters of the Iraq war/ nationbuilding decided to use American tax dollars to fund Iraqi healthcare. Or more precisely, agreed to borrow the money to do so. They ironically comprise a significant portion of the crowd who are now hysterical that AMERICAN healthcare reform might add a few dollars to the deficit.

Strange priorities when it comes to spending other people's money, wouldn't you say?

What an absolutely load of Bullshit... The US Government did not guarantee healthcare for a single Iraqi... Not one... That we may have charitably provided healthcare to some Iraqis who needed it... is just part and parcel of being decent human beings and having enjoyed charitable giving... does not an entitlement make.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

ROFLMNAO...

Now understand what this imbecile is saying...

That Iraqis are endowed by their Creator with the right to force the state to infringe upon the rights of another so as to provide for their healthcare.

The simple fact is that Iraq's government has no means to provide anything to anyone, until Iraq's government infringes upon the right to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Such is typical of the idiot... to demand a right for which SOMEONE else is responsible for providing; a circumstance in which the existance of a right is not possible.

Did you support the Iraq war?

you bet your socialist ass...

btw, ALL your rights and liberties are protected by SOMEONE else.

It is the duty of every free sovereign to defend the rights of their neighbor; as that is the means by which their own rights are sustained... those troops are their defending our means to govern ourselves... they're defending their means to exercise their rights, your means to exercise your rights from those who would otherwise usurp that means; our rights are unalienable from our respective lives... and exist without the necessary recognition of anyone else. And where someone is of the mind to usurp that means... it is our respective duty to destroy them and those who adhere to their perspective.

As such will be the case when you idiots finally pull the trigger on the first actual US Civil War and we the Americans are compelled to defend our means to exercise our rights from your socialist 'opinions.'

Aren't the troops overseas there to protect your rights and liberties?

No... those troops are there to kill those whose opinion is that they're entitled to infringe upon or usurp my means to freely exercise my rights.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The concept that we create has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

Wrong. We did discover the aspects of nature that lead to the names that we give things. One of those things being logic.

Great point... Sadly, for you... all that does is confirm my position...

There are still new aspect of those discoveries being uncovered and subsequently named whereupon those names are organized into the category of human invention.

Again... and just as sadly... "NAMING" something does not correlate to creating it...

DUMBASS!

We catalogue the properties of the universe and our own minds (which is the only place where logic exists), but we do not discover the knowledge, we invent it. Only an acolyte of the Church of Reason would confuse the two.

ROFL...

Cataloging something does not correlate to CREATING it... and logic exists... with or without the human mind. That you feel, that the human mind represents the scope of universal truth, does not make it so...

We didn't 'INVENT LOGIC'... we didn't INVENT HUMAN REASONING... We discovered the former and enjoy the gift of our creator for the realization of the latter.

Knowledge is not God.

A bold assertion... the point of which is known only to you.

In my opinion the infinite universe, only a small corner of which are we and will we ever be aware of much less understand and catalogue, is God.

In your baseless opinion...

 

[rubberhead]

...and [rights] exist without the necessary recognition of anyone else. And where someone is of the mind to usurp that means... it is our respective duty to destroy them and those who adhere to their perspective.

I had no idea that you completely agreed with me Publius! That's what I've been trying to say since I joined this thread!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...and [rights] exist without the necessary recognition of anyone else. And where someone is of the mind to usurp that means... it is our respective duty to destroy them and those who adhere to their perspective.

I had no idea that you completely agreed with me Publius! That's what I've been trying to say since I joined this thread!

Good for you...

 

[rubberhead]

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

Wrong. We did discover the aspects of nature that lead to the names that we give things. One of those things being logic.

Great point... Sadly, for you... all that does is confirm my position...



Again... and just as sadly... "NAMING" something does not correlate to creating it...

DUMBASS!



ROFL...

Cataloging something does not correlate to CREATING it... and logic exists... with or without the human mind. That you feel, that the human mind represents the scope of universal truth, does not make it so...

We didn't 'INVENT LOGIC'... we didn't INVENT HUMAN REASONING... We discovered the former and enjoy the gift of our creator for the realization of the latter.

Knowledge is not God.

A bold assertion... the point of which is known only to you.

In my opinion the infinite universe, only a small corner of which are we and will we ever be aware of much less understand and catalogue, is God.

In your baseless opinion...

I stand rebuked by the honorable Reverend PubliusInfinitum of the Church of Reason! Amen say a chorus of overzealous followers. Slow down a sec. I didn't say we invented the observation, I said we invented the language to talk about it. Logic, mathematics and any other hard (or soft) science consists of a language to talk about some set of phenomena which is invented by humans. Languages are naturally imperfect in a myriad of ways, not least of which in their Incompleteness:

Click here to find out what Incompleteness is

One of the things that Incompleteness implies is that any reasonably powerful system of axioms (the statements which are assumed true and from which logical deductions are drawn) cannot prove its own consistency. In other words we will never truly be able to prove that our axiomatic systems (these are the bases of knowledge) are consistent from within those systems. In other words, we are forced to have faith that those systems are consistent based on their continued agreement with observed reality. We have seen instances in very recent times where our axiomatic systems bumped up against reality (Incompleteness was discovered in the 1940s, just around the time that Newtonian mechanics were displaced by general relativity as the precise description of the universe).

When is the last time you studied any of the things that you pretend you know so much about? I've spent about 12 years studying mathematics intensely. Can you at least grace this thread with some evidence that you are at all qualified to make wild claims like those? It's going to take a little more than someone who has demonstrated no knowledge of the subject for me to change my mind. Maybe you don't care about that, but then why respond at all? Is it fun to sound like a fool?

 

[rubberhead]

See if you can prove the truth or untruth of this statement:

This statement is false.

Is it true? If it is, then it's false. But then, it's true again. Where's your absolute logic now?

Here's another one:

Consider a universe where there are a unisex body of people who are the only people in existence. There is a barber in this body of people who provides his services only to all those who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair?

If he does, then he can't, but then he must.

Logic is imperfect. There are things it simply cannot describe or resolve. We know this limitation and we also know that such things exist.

Consider quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. There are wave/particles so small that the act of observing them changes them. We will never know what they are doing, no matter how much discovering we do. This does not mean that they do not exist or that they are not doing anything. They are just beyond our reach. Just as is most of the universe.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wrong. We did discover the aspects of nature that lead to the names that we give things. One of those things being logic.

Great point... Sadly, for you... all that does is confirm my position...



Again... and just as sadly... "NAMING" something does not correlate to creating it...

DUMBASS!



ROFL...

Cataloging something does not correlate to CREATING it... and logic exists... with or without the human mind. That you feel, that the human mind represents the scope of universal truth, does not make it so...

We didn't 'INVENT LOGIC'... we didn't INVENT HUMAN REASONING... We discovered the former and enjoy the gift of our creator for the realization of the latter.

A bold assertion... the point of which is known only to you.

In my opinion the infinite universe, only a small corner of which are we and will we ever be aware of much less understand and catalogue, is God.

In your baseless opinion...

I stand rebuked by the honorable Reverend PubliusInfinitum of the Church of Reason!

You stand refuted...

Amen say a chorus of overzealous followers. Slow down a sec. I didn't say we invented the observation, I said we invented the language to talk about it. Logic, mathematics and any other hard (or soft) science consists of a language to talk about some set of phenomena which is invented by humans. Languages are naturally imperfect in a myriad of ways, not least of which in their Incompleteness:

Language is a function of reason; and reason is a function of the divine endowment of our lives. We owe our means to reason to God... even those of you who so seldom exercise it that it's nearly impossible to discern in you.

Click here to find out what Incompleteness is


One of the things that Incompleteness implies is that any reasonably powerful system of axioms (the statements which are assumed true and from which logical deductions are drawn) cannot prove its own consistency. In other words we will never truly be able to prove that our axiomatic systems (these are the bases of knowledge) are consistent from within those systems. In other words, we are forced to have faith that those systems are consistent based on their continued agreement with observed reality. We have seen instances in very recent times where our axiomatic systems bumped up against reality (Incompleteness was discovered in the 1940s, just around the time that Newtonian mechanics were displaced by general relativity as the precise description of the universe).

When is the last time you studied any of the things that you pretend you know so much about? I've spent about 12 years studying mathematics intensely. Can you at least grace this thread with some evidence that you are at all qualified to make wild claims like those? It's going to take a little more than someone who has demonstrated no knowledge of the subject for me to change my mind. Maybe you don't care about that, but then why respond at all? Is it fun to sound like a fool?

ROFLMNAO... That is HYSTERICAL!

I exist, therefore I am as qualified to speak as anyone else that exist... that you're unable to contest my positions... is fair evidence that my means are superior to yours, thus where means is a function of qualification; I've more than sufficiently demonstrated my that...

You claim to be a student of mathematics... I am a student of reason and have invested nearly two decades in the pursuit to understand such; specifically within the discipline of western ideologies; and as a result have mastered the understanding of that ideological farce known as Left-think.

Thus where the status of student represents qualification, I stand so qualified.

Is there anything else you'd like to add to your concession or will this suffice?

 

[rubberhead]

Language is a function of reason; and reason is a function of the divine endowment of our lives. We owe our means to reason to God... even those of you who so seldom exercise it that it's nearly impossible to discern in you.

Does this even mean anything? Ok, so we were endowed with the means to reason therefore those axiomatic systems that we invent are discoveries and not inventions? Is this what your argument consists of? Pretty lack luster.

ROFLMNAO... That is HYSTERICAL!

I exist, therefore I am as qualified to speak as anyone else that exist... that you're unable to contest my positions... is fair evidence that my means are superior to yours, thus where means is a function of qualification; I've more than sufficiently demonstrated my that...

You claim to be a student of mathematics... I am a student of reason and have invested nearly two decades in the pursuit to understand such; specifically within the discipline of western ideologies; and as a result have mastered the understanding of that ideological farce known as Left-think.

Thus where the status of student represents qualification, I stand so qualified.

Is there anything else you'd like to add to your concession or will this suffice?

I'm glad you were entertained, but you haven't really addressed any of what I've said. I have contested your positions and you haven't responded to any of my arguments. The only thing that you've "more than sufficiently demonstrated" is that you're fraudulent claims are as unsupportable as the assertion that you're anything more than a complete moron. You have been a "student of reason" for nearly two decades? Is this your cute way of telling me that you're almost twenty years old? When I say I am a student of mathematics, I mean that I have actually studied things that I can later demonstrate. Do you care to demonstrate the fruits of your study? Or does the study of "reason" all about insulting your opponents into submission without even addressing their argument?

Would you care to respond to my original argument or would you care to stall some more while continue your "education" as a "student of reason"? Hurl some more insults, maybe that will make you sound credible.