More Freedom Loving Lefties On The March

NoDrama · Apr 13, 2011

Serapis said:
You're a trip dude..... The bill of rights guarantees us personal liberties and limits what our government can do.... it certainly does give us rights, you just once again, want to play with semantics.... Another attempt at trying to win a discussion that you are once again wrong in.... You can define rights the way you want, you can't get around the fact that the Bill of Rights is so named and it part of the US Constitution.....

Show me where in the Constitution it says that it is the authority granting said rights. You can't, just like you can't show me where it says you can eat all the cake you want. the Constitution doesn't grant rights or tell you what you can do, it places limits on what the government CAN DO. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-1 and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state

NO WHERE does it give you rights. Read it over and over and over until you realize that what i am saying is 100% truth. The second amendment doesn't give you the right to bear arms, it merely states that that right ( Which you already had) may not be infringed upon. Read all of the Amendments, find a single one that isn't a limitation to government power.

First one.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-1Congress shall make no law

Second one......shall not be infringed

Third......... without the consent of the Owner

Fourth........shall not be violated

Fifth.....No person shall be held to answer

Sixth..... a speedy and public trial

Seventh.....no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court

Eighth......Excessive bail shall not be required

Ninth..... shall not be construed

Tenth...... powers not delegated to the United States

Limitations on Government...any questions?

canndo · Apr 13, 2011

NoDrama said:
Personal responsibility, thats what this is about. the liberal retards don't believe in responsibility, they believe in Government force.

So long as you still see this country as some agrarian 1901 unsullied America then we can agree with "personal responsibility" and all that comes with it. The reality of the 21st century is that personal responsibility is diluted and weakened under the force of corporate zeal to sell what ever product they make regardless of how their consumers feel about it. If you think that people in general actually act in their very own best interest and in so doing take responsibility for their own actions then indeed you have been consumed by corporate ideology. "YOU are responsible for your choices - now what will it be? a Big Mac or a Whopper"?

Coals · Apr 13, 2011

Mr Neutron said:
I don't believe there is an age provision in the Constitution. The reason children cannot buy tobacco or alcohol is because the states have outlawed it.

So we should try to repeal those laws in order to free our children? I beleive you are right about the age provision, which means the constitution (like everything else on earth) is not perfect and needs a little help once in a while.

The Cryptkeeper · Apr 13, 2011

jeff f said:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/75176/bostons-soda-ban-gives-hope-to-civilization/

i have an idea, how about you libs drink your silly little sugar free drinks and leave the rest of us alone.

these stupid, small minded do-gooders should be banned. i am pretty sure i can figure out when my kid needs some soda. i dont need mayors and school superintendants telling me.

meanwhile their cities are going broke but thank god they banned sweets....dicks.

Love your body hate your attitude.

Coals · Apr 13, 2011

NoDrama said:
99% of fat kids are Sugar Addicts eh? I think you are 100% wrong, got any data to back up that claim?

*sigh* I thought about posting the 200 some odd links that come up when "sugar addiction and obesity" is entered into google but I really dont have the time. Do it yourself, educate yourself.

The Cryptkeeper · Apr 13, 2011

Coals said:
*sigh* I thought about posting the 200 some odd links that come up when "sugar addiction and childhood obesity" is entered into google but I really dont have the time. Do it yourself, educate yourself.

Let me just edit that for ya.... alright, done.

canndo · Apr 13, 2011

NoDrama said:
trying to change what was being argued so you don't look like a fool? The argument was not over whether or not the Constitution PROTECTS your rights, but whether or not it granted them. You plainly stated that the Constitution gives us rights. It does not.

A minor quible here and nothing more. If there is no intersection between government and the individual then there are no intrinisc rights or natural rights because there don't have to be. Try to explain your "natural rights" to a bear who is intent on taking your property (sandwich) deciding that you will be a component in His sandwich. There is only one absolute right protected by the Constitution and there is no need for that absolute right if there is no government, so in that sense, the Constitution could well be thought to be affording an individual a right.

NoDrama · Apr 13, 2011

canndo said:
So long as you still see this country as some agrarian 1901 unsullied America then we can agree with "personal responsibility" and all that comes with it. The reality of the 21st century is that personal responsibility is diluted and weakened under the force of corporate zeal to sell what ever product they make regardless of how their consumers feel about it. If you think that people in general actually act in their very own best interest and in so doing take responsibility for their own actions then indeed you have been consumed by corporate ideology. "YOU are responsible for your choices - now what will it be? a Big Mac or a Whopper"?

Wow, that has to be about the weakest argument I have ever heard. Know why the dead mouse burger isn't the world's #1 burger?

NoDrama · Apr 13, 2011

Coals said:
*sigh* I thought about posting the 200 some odd links that come up when "sugar addiction and obesity" is entered into google but I really dont have the time. Do it yourself, educate yourself.

Really? You have links that show 99% of fat kids are addicted to sugar? Please do share so that we may laugh at them. No scientist would ever put their career on the line with a number like 99%.

If you really didn't have the time, then you would not have posted, I can copy paste 10 times faster than I can type.

canndo · Apr 13, 2011

Serapis said:
You're a trip dude..... The bill of rights guarantees us personal liberties and limits what our government can do.... it certainly does give us rights, you just once again, want to play with semantics.... Another attempt at trying to win a discussion that you are once again wrong in.... You can define rights the way you want, you can't get around the fact that the Bill of Rights is so named and it part of the US Constitution.....

Serapis, in ideological form, no, the Constitution gives us nothing but a framework for a government. The rights are inherent in each person and so can neither be given nor taken. But as I said in another post, this is all fundamentally theoretical because truly, if a right can be taken away (and a close look demonstrates that even the "right" to life can be removed) then it can indeed be "afforded". The right is always ready to pounce (as we see) on this lack of distinction - but as usual they rarely think about the particulars. There is only a single unalienable right actually present in the BOR and that right doesn't make any sense without government.

canndo · Apr 13, 2011

The Cryptkeeper said:
Let me just edit that for ya.... alright, done.

Oh dear - what happened to my quote in your sig? Am I no longer worthy? What have I done? where have I gone wrong? Frankly I fear the worst.

NoDrama · Apr 13, 2011

canndo said:
If you think that people in general actually act in their very own best interest and in so doing take responsibility for their own actions then indeed you have been consumed by corporate ideology. "YOU are responsible for your choices - now what will it be? a Big Mac or a Whopper"?

Most people do not act in their own best interest, but that is their problem, not mine and not yours.
I wouldn't eat the big mac, or the whopper. I can go home and cook my own meals.

The Cryptkeeper · Apr 13, 2011

canndo said:
Oh dear - what happened to my quote in your sig? Am I no longer worthy? What have I done? where have I gone wrong? Frankly I fear the worst.

You can only have two lines of text.

Serapis · Apr 13, 2011

Again semantics.... I have the right to refuse to a search... I have the right to remain silent, I have the right to a fair bail, I have the right to a speedy trial....

keep playing with words dude, but they're called "The Bill of RIGHTS" for a reason, no matter how you play it...

NoDrama said:
Show me where in the Constitution it says that it is the authority granting said rights. You can't, just like you can't show me where it says you can eat all the cake you want. the Constitution doesn't grant rights or tell you what you can do, it places limits on what the government CAN DO. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-1 and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state

NO WHERE does it give you rights. Read it over and over and over until you realize that what i am saying is 100% truth. The second amendment doesn't give you the right to bear arms, it merely states that that right ( Which you already had) may not be infringed upon. Read all of the Amendments, find a single one that isn't a limitation to government power.

First one.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-1Congress shall make no law

Second one......shall not be infringed

Third......... without the consent of the Owner

Fourth........shall not be violated

Fifth.....No person shall be held to answer

Sixth..... a speedy and public trial

Seventh.....no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court

Eighth......Excessive bail shall not be required

Ninth..... shall not be construed

Tenth...... powers not delegated to the United States

Limitations on Government...any questions?

canndo · Apr 13, 2011

NoDrama said:
Most people do not act in their own best interest, but that is their problem, not mine and not yours.
I wouldn't eat the big mac, or the whopper. I can go home and cook my own meals.

Correct. You and I are probably immune to most advertising. I have found for some reason that the enlightened, those who have used conciousness expanding substances are less likely to blindly follow the hyper-suggestions of coroprate interests. However, as has been said, companies don't spend multi-millions of dollars if they can't measure and predict the results of those advertising and marketing dollars. Now who do you propose should protect those who for one reason or another are prone to those proven to be effective ads? Their church? "common sense"?

canndo · Apr 13, 2011

The Cryptkeeper said:
You can only have two lines of text.

Well hell.

Serapis · Apr 13, 2011

The Constitution not only has a Bill of Rights, it also references God given inalienable rights... The right to Freedom of worship, to bear arms, these are recognized rights. How many times does the word "right" need to be in the document before people accept them for what they are?

canndo said:
Serapis, in ideological form, no, the Constitution gives us nothing but a framework for a government. The rights are inherent in each person and so can neither be given nor taken. But as I said in another post, this is all fundamentally theoretical because truly, if a right can be taken away (and a close look demonstrates that even the "right" to life can be removed) then it can indeed be "afforded". The right is always ready to pounce (as we see) on this lack of distinction - but as usual they rarely think about the particulars. There is only a single unalienable right actually present in the BOR and that right doesn't make any sense without government.

NoDrama · Apr 13, 2011

Serapis said:
Again semantics.... I have the right to refuse to a search... I have the right to remain silent, I have the right to a fair bail, I have the right to a speedy trial....

keep playing with words dude, but they're called "The Bill of RIGHTS" for a reason, no matter how you play it...

You don't know the difference between your miranda rights and the constitution do you? Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to remain silent? Refuse a search?

Its not Semantics, its a fundamental reason they founded this country, your rights are Inalienable they cannot be taken away, but can be freely given up. The reason they cannot be taken away is because there is no authority higher than the one who gave you your rights to begin with.

NoDrama · Apr 13, 2011

Serapis said:
The Constitution not only has a Bill of Rights, it also references God given inalienable rights... The right to Freedom of worship, to bear arms, these are recognized rights. How many times does the word "right" need to be in the document before people accept them for what they are?

It doesn't say you have the right to bear arms, it says that right may not be infringed.

I know whats going on, you got the Chinese made version of the Constitution, where the words are all pigeon english. In my American Version it says " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Get out your federalist papers and start reading.

Serapis · Apr 13, 2011

What the hell do you think the Miranda rights come from? The 5th amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees your right to not self incriminate, to keep silent. The 4th amendment states that you are guaranteed the right of Privacy from searches without a warrant.....

How else may I assist you in learning the contents of the Constitution? :roll:

NoDrama said:
You don't know the difference between your miranda rights and the constitution do you? Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to remain silent? Refuse a search?

Its not Semantics, its a fundamental reason they founded this country, your rights are Inalienable they cannot be taken away, but can be freely given up. The reason they cannot be taken away is because there is no authority higher than the one who gave you your rights to begin with.

More Freedom Loving Lefties On The March

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads