# Education a right ?



## Mr.Fitnah

Yes no?


----------



## slackjawed

Education is not a right. Access to an education is a privalage that one should take advantage of, and most don't.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

I saw that "education is a right" poster on Glenn Beck yesterday.  It looked like something they would have drawn up in the old Soviet Socialist Republic - right down to the red color and a "workers" hand pressed down on an open book.


----------



## DiamondDave

Education of our minors, our youth, is one of the great things we can do...

Education of any adult is on that adult... and fuck these greedy little entitlement junkies who continually call for free college for all (of course at the expense of everyone but themselves)

Education is a privilege that has become almost an absolute right in the minds of many... but it is a privilege that I support wholeheartedly for our youth


----------



## Article 15

DiamondDave said:


> Education of our minors, our youth, is one of the great things we can do...
> 
> Education of any adult is on that adult... and fuck these greedy little entitlement junkies who continually call for free college for all (of course at the expense of everyone but themselves)
> 
> Education is a privilege that has become almost an absolute right in the minds of many... but it is a privilege that I support wholeheartedly for our youth



Did you use the GI bill?


----------



## Paulie

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yes no?



I don't see it listed in the constitution, so no.

But you certainly have a right to PURSUE it if it leads to happiness.


----------



## goldcatt

What level or type of education?

An ignorant, illiterate population certainly isn't in the national interest for a whole bunch of obvious reasons. I never thought about whether it's a "right" and I'd have to think on that some, but it would be really, really stupid not to provide K-12 to every child.


----------



## boedicca

Rather than education being a Right - education is a parental responsibility.

It is in society's interest for children to be educated, but the effect of politicizing education has resulted in indoctrination, not real education.


----------



## DiamondDave

Article 15 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education of our minors, our youth, is one of the great things we can do...
> 
> Education of any adult is on that adult... and fuck these greedy little entitlement junkies who continually call for free college for all (of course at the expense of everyone but themselves)
> 
> Education is a privilege that has become almost an absolute right in the minds of many... but it is a privilege that I support wholeheartedly for our youth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use the GI bill?
Click to expand...


Yep.. used some of that employment benefit I agreed to

Does not make education a right... just as any other employer's tuition reimbursement does not make it a right


----------



## Paulie

boedicca said:


> Rather than education being a Right - education is a parental responsibility.
> 
> It is in society's interest for children to be educated, but the effect of politicizing education has resulted in indoctrination, not real education.



I'm going to have to go ahead and offer you my approval of this post, even in light of our earlier argument.


----------



## Dr Grump

Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...


----------



## antagon

a benefit that should be offered without prejudice if at all... short of a right.


----------



## DiamondDave

Dr Grump said:


> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...



Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right

The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you


----------



## Article 15

DiamondDave said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education of our minors, our youth, is one of the great things we can do...
> 
> Education of any adult is on that adult... and fuck these greedy little entitlement junkies who continually call for free college for all (of course at the expense of everyone but themselves)
> 
> Education is a privilege that has become almost an absolute right in the minds of many... but it is a privilege that I support wholeheartedly for our youth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use the GI bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.. used some of that employment benefit I agreed to
> 
> Does not make education a right... just as any other employer's tuition reimbursement does not make it a right
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't make it a right, but because of your rhetoric it makes you look like an ass.

A $1200 investment for a guaranteed 36k return.  Pretty effing sweet deal.  I should know.

Plus the enormous amount of other benefits you receive from being in the service.  Again, I should know.

All on the taxpayers dime.

The military, in many ways, is the pinnacle of entitlements.


----------



## boedicca

Paulie said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than education being a Right - education is a parental responsibility.
> 
> It is in society's interest for children to be educated, but the effect of politicizing education has resulted in indoctrination, not real education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to go ahead and offer you my approval of this post, even in light of our earlier argument.
Click to expand...


It's nice to find some common ground.  Thank you.


----------



## DiamondDave

Article 15 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use the GI bill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.. used some of that employment benefit I agreed to
> 
> Does not make education a right... just as any other employer's tuition reimbursement does not make it a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make it a right, but because of your rhetoric it makes you look like an ass.
> 
> A $1200 investment for a guaranteed 36k return.  Pretty effing sweet deal.  I should know.
> 
> Plus the enormous amount of other benefits you receive from being in the service.  Again, I should know.
> 
> All on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> The military, in many ways, is the pinnacle of entitlements.
Click to expand...


As a return for EMPLOYMENT and complete and total service... with very little pay

You are confusing entitlements with job benefits again

Support job benefits as compensation for labors given does not nullify the stance against redistribution and entitlements


----------



## Dr Grump

DiamondDave said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right
> 
> The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you
Click to expand...


I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that defense is a right. 

I find it strange you need to put it in a document, and if you are going to do that, then why not education, too.


----------



## DiamondDave

Dr Grump said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right
> 
> The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that defense is a right.
> 
> I find it strange you need to put it in a document, and if you are going to do that, then why not education, too.
Click to expand...


You have the right to pursue your happiness.. and if part of that happiness is your education... knock yourself out


----------



## Dr Grump

DiamondDave said:


> [
> 
> You have the right to pursue your happiness.. and if part of that happiness is your education... knock yourself out



Ditto re firearms, however they are more important than education it seems...so much so you had to put it in your constitution. As I said, glad to see the US has its priorities...


----------



## goldcatt

Dr Grump said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right
> 
> The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that defense is a right.
> 
> I find it strange you need to put it in a document, and if you are going to do that, then why not education, too.
Click to expand...


A document written in the late 18th century (when the majority of the population was illiterate) that hasn't always been updated with the times. Or the availability of schools and educational resources. But while a lot of people simply didn't have schools in late 18th century America, they did have guns. So guns made it in. There's also the whole argument over whether the people who wrote it were simply self-serving elitists who didn't want an educated populace threatening their positions, but I'm not touching that live wire.


----------



## DiamondDave

Dr Grump said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You have the right to pursue your happiness.. and if part of that happiness is your education... knock yourself out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto re firearms, however they are more important than education it seems...so much so you had to put it in your constitution. As I said, glad to see the US has its priorities...
Click to expand...


Self defense is more important than education.. you can do for yourself without an education (many have in this country and with great success).. you cannot survive without defending yourself


----------



## Article 15

DiamondDave said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.. used some of that employment benefit I agreed to
> 
> Does not make education a right... just as any other employer's tuition reimbursement does not make it a right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make it a right, but because of your rhetoric it makes you look like an ass.
> 
> A $1200 investment for a guaranteed 36k return.  Pretty effing sweet deal.  I should know.
> 
> Plus the enormous amount of other benefits you receive from being in the service.  Again, I should know.
> 
> All on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> The military, in many ways, is the pinnacle of entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a return for EMPLOYMENT and complete and total service... with very little pay
> 
> You are confusing entitlements with job benefits again
> 
> Support job benefits as compensation for labors given does not nullify the stance against redistribution and entitlements
Click to expand...


Very little pay is a bit relative.

A single 23 year old E-5 with 5 years of service stationed at Fort Bragg will make $28,968.00 in taxable base pay this year. 

In addition to that the troop will receive _tax free_ $15,262 in BAS and BAH.

What's that the equivilent of?  About 50k a year?  Not too bad ... and it only gets higher with a wife and kids.

Plus full health care benefits and the sweet education deal ... which BTW doesn't have to be used until after your service is completed because while active duty you receive 100% tuition assistance and don't have to cut into your GI bill.

I understand your point but the military done have one serious stranglehold on a gigantic government breast.


----------



## boedicca

More like a shield protecting that breast.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Article 15

boedicca said:


> More like a shield protecting that breast.
> 
> Just sayin'.



It's bloated.


----------



## boedicca

All of government is bloated.  Blaming the soldiers on the front line is misguided, imo.


----------



## DiamondDave

Article 15 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make it a right, but because of your rhetoric it makes you look like an ass.
> 
> A $1200 investment for a guaranteed 36k return.  Pretty effing sweet deal.  I should know.
> 
> Plus the enormous amount of other benefits you receive from being in the service.  Again, I should know.
> 
> All on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> The military, in many ways, is the pinnacle of entitlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a return for EMPLOYMENT and complete and total service... with very little pay
> 
> You are confusing entitlements with job benefits again
> 
> Support job benefits as compensation for labors given does not nullify the stance against redistribution and entitlements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very little pay is a bit relative.
> 
> A single 23 year old E-5 with 5 years of service stationed at Fort Bragg will make $28,968.00 in taxable base pay this year.
> 
> In addition to that the troop will receive _tax free_ $15,262 in BAS and BAH.
> 
> What's that the equivilent of?  About 50k a year?  Not too bad ... and it only gets higher with a wife and kids.
> 
> Plus full health care benefits and the sweet education deal ... which BTW doesn't have to be used until after your service is completed because while active duty you receive 100% tuition assistance and don't have to cut into your GI bill.
> 
> I understand your point but the military done have one serious stranglehold on a gigantic government breast.
Click to expand...


When you pay for your GI bill as an e-1, you are indeed earning very little pay... that being my point
Plus the risks you take when you sign on that line... there needs to be some good benefits or this volunteer military would not have many volunteers

Please remember that not all soldiers receive BAQ and separate rats

The military is employment, service, etc... not some louse of a entitlement junkie draining the blood off of those who do produce, while producing nothing in return


----------



## random3434

Education is the the best way to get out of poverty. The parents who realize  this in my 'economically challenged' neighborhood I teach in realize this.   They are the ones who make sure their children are in school, and that they (the parents) show up for every parent meeting, and make sure that their kids and themselves are held accountable for their actions, instead of laying the blame on the schools or the teachers. 


If we didn't have public education for these children, what would happen to them?


----------



## Hellokitty

There are many ways to get an education beyond the classroom.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Echeaux Zulu said:


> Education is the the best way to get out of poverty. The parents who realize  this in my 'economically challenged' neighborhood I teach in realize this.   They are the ones who make sure their children are in school, and that they (the parents) show up for every parent meeting, and make sure that their kids and themselves are held accountable for their actions, instead of laying the blame on the schools or the teachers.
> 
> 
> If we didn't have public education for these children, what would happen to them?


Do they get an education by sitting  there  or do they have to work to acquire it?


----------



## Dr Grump

DiamondDave said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You have the right to pursue your happiness.. and if part of that happiness is your education... knock yourself out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto re firearms, however they are more important than education it seems...so much so you had to put it in your constitution. As I said, glad to see the US has its priorities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is more important than education.. you can do for yourself without an education (many have in this country and with great success).. you cannot survive without defending yourself
Click to expand...


And yet the US is the only western country that feels the need to write down the right to bear arms in its constitution (shrug)...the rest of us seem to survive quite well without it....


----------



## random3434

Hellokitty said:


> There are many ways to get an education beyond the classroom.



OK Ms.Kitty. Please enlighten us on your ideas of how the millions of children in the USA can be educated without public schools.

We all know parents should also enrich their child's lives by taking them places, exposing them to books, art and music, etc....but not every parent can/does. Should the entire USA home school their child? Should all education be privatized and run like a business? 

_Pepsi High School-where you're carbonated every day!_

_Ex Lax Middle School-where the slow students excel! _


----------



## Paulie

Dr Grump said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You have the right to pursue your happiness.. and if part of that happiness is your education... knock yourself out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto re firearms, however they are more important than education it seems...so much so you had to put it in your constitution. As I said, glad to see the US has its priorities...
Click to expand...


The firearms amendment is for SECURITY though, it was part of defense.

I'd be all for education being considered a right if an amendment were created and passed.  I can get behind the idea that education is important enough to the citizenry that it be considered a "right", but not until the constitution clearly authorizes it.


----------



## random3434

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Echeaux Zulu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education is the the best way to get out of poverty. The parents who realize  this in my 'economically challenged' neighborhood I teach in realize this.   They are the ones who make sure their children are in school, and that they (the parents) show up for every parent meeting, and make sure that their kids and themselves are held accountable for their actions, instead of laying the blame on the schools or the teachers.
> 
> 
> If we didn't have public education for these children, what would happen to them?
> 
> 
> 
> Do they get an education by sitting  there  or do they have to work to acquire it?
Click to expand...


Oh, we make sure we indoctrine them in Gay Sex and Muslim Rituals, isn't that what they do in the public schools according to some anti-education peeps on here?

What are your thoughts to fix the schools Mr. F?


----------



## Article 15

DiamondDave said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a return for EMPLOYMENT and complete and total service... with very little pay
> 
> You are confusing entitlements with job benefits again
> 
> Support job benefits as compensation for labors given does not nullify the stance against redistribution and entitlements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little pay is a bit relative.
> 
> A single 23 year old E-5 with 5 years of service stationed at Fort Bragg will make $28,968.00 in taxable base pay this year.
> 
> In addition to that the troop will receive _tax free_ $15,262 in BAS and BAH.
> 
> What's that the equivilent of?  About 50k a year?  Not too bad ... and it only gets higher with a wife and kids.
> 
> Plus full health care benefits and the sweet education deal ... which BTW doesn't have to be used until after your service is completed because while active duty you receive 100% tuition assistance and don't have to cut into your GI bill.
> 
> I understand your point but the military done have one serious stranglehold on a gigantic government breast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you pay for your GI bill as an e-1, you are indeed earning very little pay... that being my point
> Plus the risks you take when you sign on that line... there needs to be some good benefits or this volunteer military would not have many volunteers
> 
> Please remember that not all soldiers receive BAQ and separate rats
> 
> The military is employment, service, etc... not some louse of a entitlement junkie draining the blood off of those who do produce, while producing nothing in return
Click to expand...


As and E-1 you are coddled ... pretty much your entire first year you are coddled.  Like you pointed out, not all soldier receive food and housing entitlements because they are living on post .. those things are automatically taken care of ... this include the E-1's.

But anyway ... yes, Dave I understand the diff.  

However, I also am of the opinion that the GI Bill is the single greatest piece of social legislation passed in the modern era.  IMO, it was part of the foundation that built the middle class.  

Your rhetoric ... stuff like ... "louse of a entitlement junkie draining the blood off of those who do produce, while producing nothing in return" ... I mean, what is that if not a bunch of hot air? Who's to say those people aren't productive taxpaying members of society?  Or that those who benefit from government funded education wouldn't give something back?


----------



## Paulie

When you enlist, you authorize the government to use your body to fight a potential war, with the distinct possibility of imminent death.

The least they can do is give you some school money should you live through your enlistment period.

I wish I didn't decline mine.


----------



## Article 15

Paulie said:


> When you enlist, you authorize the government to use your body to fight a potential war, with the distinct possibility of imminent death.
> 
> The least they can do is give you some school money should you live through your enlistment period.
> 
> I wish I didn't decline mine.



Dude ....

Did your TI at least try to slap some sense into you at the time?


----------



## Hellokitty

Echeaux Zulu said:


> Hellokitty said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ways to get an education beyond the classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Ms.Kitty. Please enlighten us on your ideas of how the millions of children in the USA can be educated without public schools.
> 
> We all know parents should also enrich their child's lives by taking them places, exposing them to books,art and music, etc....but not every parent can/does. Should the entire USA home school their child? Should all education be privatized and run like a business?
> 
> _Pepsi High School-where you're carbonated every day!_
> 
> _Ex Lax Middle School-where the slow students excel! _
Click to expand...



I was actually talking about higher education one can receive after HS.  I feel we have a responsibility to provide and mandate basic education for all youth.  It is in our countries best interest to have an educated population.  If some one wants to learn anything bad enough they will find a way.


----------



## Paulie

Article 15 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you enlist, you authorize the government to use your body to fight a potential war, with the distinct possibility of imminent death.
> 
> The least they can do is give you some school money should you live through your enlistment period.
> 
> I wish I didn't decline mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ....
> 
> Did your TI at least try to slap some sense into you at the time?
Click to expand...


I don't really remember.  I actually LITERALLY could not afford to lose the $200 a month at the time.  My entire $1171 a month at E-3 was already spoken for in various bills.  I was financially retarded at 19 years old.

But in hindsight, I wish I would have just let some of my bills go late for a while at the very worst, because the rewards of the GI Bill would have more than made up for that.


----------



## Article 15

boedicca said:


> All of government is bloated.  Blaming the soldiers on the front line is misguided, imo.



I'm not blaming the soldiers.  Don't be silly.


----------



## Article 15

Paulie said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you enlist, you authorize the government to use your body to fight a potential war, with the distinct possibility of imminent death.
> 
> The least they can do is give you some school money should you live through your enlistment period.
> 
> I wish I didn't decline mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ....
> 
> Did your TI at least try to slap some sense into you at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really remember.  I actually LITERALLY could not afford to lose the $200 a month at the time.  My entire $1171 a month at E-3 was already spoken for in various bills.  I was financially retarded at 19 years old.
> 
> But in hindsight, I wish I would have just let some of my bills go late for a while at the very worst, because the rewards of the GI Bill would have more than made up for that.
Click to expand...


I thought it was $100 a month but if you couldn't afford 2 then I doubt it would have made a difference.

I remember like 5 like different people giving my flight the, "don't be a fool, take this deal" speech.


----------



## Paulie

This boedicca character is confusing me with bodecea.  One is a lib and one is apparently a con.

Someone needs to change a name.


----------



## Bill O'Olberman

Paulie said:


> I'd be all for education being considered a right if an amendment were created and passed.  I can get behind the idea that education is important enough to the citizenry that it be considered a "right", but not until the constitution clearly authorizes it.



Well it is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution but is addressed in most every state constitution (obvious 10th Ammendment issue). The Virginia Consititution says thats the Commonwealth of Virginia must provide a quality and free primary and secondary education to all school aged kids. So here in Virginia an education is a protected right and requirement of the state government.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Echeaux Zulu said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Echeaux Zulu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education is the the best way to get out of poverty. The parents who realize  this in my 'economically challenged' neighborhood I teach in realize this.   They are the ones who make sure their children are in school, and that they (the parents) show up for every parent meeting, and make sure that their kids and themselves are held accountable for their actions, instead of laying the blame on the schools or the teachers.
> 
> 
> If we didn't have public education for these children, what would happen to them?
> 
> 
> 
> Do they get an education by sitting  there  or do they have to work to acquire it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we make sure we indoctrine them in Gay Sex and Muslim Rituals, isn't that what they do in the public schools according to some anti-education peeps on here?
> 
> What are your thoughts to fix the schools Mr. F?
Click to expand...

For one I would do away with the DOE and its insane text book policies.

Putting a bone in your nose is not the same  as putting a man on the moon.

Teach real  history  and  math  and science ,not culture and dogma.
Culture is based of poverty of  resources  and ideas, Not opertunity  .

Is this  what we should be teaching?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8]YouTube - Story of Stuff, Full Version; How Things Work, About Stuff[/ame]


----------



## Paulie

Article 15 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ....
> 
> Did your TI at least try to slap some sense into you at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really remember.  I actually LITERALLY could not afford to lose the $200 a month at the time.  My entire $1171 a month at E-3 was already spoken for in various bills.  I was financially retarded at 19 years old.
> 
> But in hindsight, I wish I would have just let some of my bills go late for a while at the very worst, because the rewards of the GI Bill would have more than made up for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was $100 a month but if you couldn't afford 2 then I doubt it would have made a difference.
> 
> I remember like 5 like different people giving my flight the, "don't be a fool, take this deal" speech.
Click to expand...

Yeah I do remember being told adamantly to take it.  In fact, we were given a chance to all call home and discuss it with family before we made our decision.

And yeah I think you're right, I think it _WAS_ $100.  Damn.  Like I said, I was financially retarded.

I could have just staggered my lateness on bills through each different one for a while until I got around to getting current again.

Oh well.  Win some, lose some


----------



## chanel

I don't like the question. According to the NJ Constitution a free education is a right. I agree that However, I also believe that "right" should be revoked for students who are clearly uneducable. NJ has determined that the right cannot be taken away - even for the most dangerous students Therefore maybe the word should be changed.

Anti-public school advocates create a community hostile to the institution itself. That in turn creates students who are hostile to education.The apple doesn't fall far..  This can be dangerous for everyone. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Paulie said:


> This boedicca character is confusing me with bodecea.  One is a lib and one is apparently a con.
> 
> Someone needs to change a name.



Just put bodecea. on ignore, you wont miss anything and  will  enjoy her post in the best manner  possible.


----------



## Paulie

Bill O'Olberman said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be all for education being considered a right if an amendment were created and passed.  I can get behind the idea that education is important enough to the citizenry that it be considered a "right", but not until the constitution clearly authorizes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution but is addressed in most every state constitution (obvious 10th Ammendment issue). The Virginia Consititution says thats the Commonwealth of Virginia must provide a quality and free primary and secondary education to all school aged kids. So here in Virginia an education is a protected right and requirement of the state government.
Click to expand...


Ok, so then where does the Federal government get its authority to legislate and regulate it?

Not to mention, hold it hostage via funding based on conformity to standards and all that bullshit.


----------



## Luissa

It is a right in Washington state! 
I guess it is all Washington State's duty to fund education.

Wash. judge rules state failing constitutional duty to fully fund basic education
A judge has ruled that the state of Washington is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to fully pay for basic public education.


Thursday&#8217;s decision by King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick comes after nearly two months of testimony last fall in the lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community leaders. They said the state was failing its constitutional duty. The state argued it was fully funding education.


----------



## DiamondDave

Article 15 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very little pay is a bit relative.
> 
> A single 23 year old E-5 with 5 years of service stationed at Fort Bragg will make $28,968.00 in taxable base pay this year.
> 
> In addition to that the troop will receive _tax free_ $15,262 in BAS and BAH.
> 
> What's that the equivilent of?  About 50k a year?  Not too bad ... and it only gets higher with a wife and kids.
> 
> Plus full health care benefits and the sweet education deal ... which BTW doesn't have to be used until after your service is completed because while active duty you receive 100% tuition assistance and don't have to cut into your GI bill.
> 
> I understand your point but the military done have one serious stranglehold on a gigantic government breast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you pay for your GI bill as an e-1, you are indeed earning very little pay... that being my point
> Plus the risks you take when you sign on that line... there needs to be some good benefits or this volunteer military would not have many volunteers
> 
> Please remember that not all soldiers receive BAQ and separate rats
> 
> The military is employment, service, etc... not some louse of a entitlement junkie draining the blood off of those who do produce, while producing nothing in return
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As and E-1 you are coddled ... pretty much your entire first year you are coddled.  Like you pointed out, not all soldier receive food and housing entitlements because they are living on post .. those things are automatically taken care of ... this include the E-1's.
> 
> But anyway ... yes, Dave I understand the diff.
> 
> However, I also am of the opinion that the GI Bill is the single greatest piece of social legislation passed in the modern era.  IMO, it was part of the foundation that built the middle class.
> 
> Your rhetoric ... stuff like ... "louse of a entitlement junkie draining the blood off of those who do produce, while producing nothing in return" ... I mean, what is that if not a bunch of hot air? Who's to say those people aren't productive taxpaying members of society?  Or that those who benefit from government funded education wouldn't give something back?
Click to expand...


Well.. start looking at maslow's hierarchy of needs then... you need to start having a right to all those things below where education would be??

As an adult you have to take care of yourself.. we don't need some nanny state to take over the personal needs of some by the confiscation from the producers in society

The 'rhetoric' you speak of is not hot air... it is what I support and how I live and how I teach my children to live

If there were some amendment putting in the 'right' to education of every minor... I would not oppose it, but neither would I say it is a necessity where it must be called for... as we have the right to pursue happiness and a system of educating minors now.... but I will never, ever, ever support education being a right for adults, and even more certainly I will not support the education of all adults at the expense of all others


----------



## Article 15

Paulie said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really remember.  I actually LITERALLY could not afford to lose the $200 a month at the time.  My entire $1171 a month at E-3 was already spoken for in various bills.  I was financially retarded at 19 years old.
> 
> But in hindsight, I wish I would have just let some of my bills go late for a while at the very worst, because the rewards of the GI Bill would have more than made up for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was $100 a month but if you couldn't afford 2 then I doubt it would have made a difference.
> 
> I remember like 5 like different people giving my flight the, "don't be a fool, take this deal" speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah I do remember being told adamantly to take it.  In fact, we were given a chance to all call home and discuss it with family before we made our decision.
> 
> And yeah I think you're right, I think it _WAS_ $100.  Damn.  Like I said, I was financially retarded.
> 
> I could have just staggered my lateness on bills through each different one for a while until I got around to getting current again.
> 
> Oh well.  Win some, lose some
Click to expand...


Yup we all make our bad decisions ... Lord knows I've made a shitload of 'em!


----------



## Paulie

Article 15 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ....
> 
> Did your TI at least try to slap some sense into you at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really remember.  I actually LITERALLY could not afford to lose the $200 a month at the time.  My entire $1171 a month at E-3 was already spoken for in various bills.  I was financially retarded at 19 years old.
> 
> But in hindsight, I wish I would have just let some of my bills go late for a while at the very worst, because the rewards of the GI Bill would have more than made up for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was $100 a month but if you couldn't afford 2 then I doubt it would have made a difference.
> 
> I remember like 5 like different people giving my flight the, "don't be a fool, take this deal" speech.
Click to expand...


The worst part about it was a large portion of my bills was my truck payment and my expensive ass insurance payment, and I didn't get to have my car all throughout tech school because I was in Cali and my truck was back here in NJ.

7 months of paying all that money for NOTHING.


----------



## Article 15

Paulie said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really remember.  I actually LITERALLY could not afford to lose the $200 a month at the time.  My entire $1171 a month at E-3 was already spoken for in various bills.  I was financially retarded at 19 years old.
> 
> But in hindsight, I wish I would have just let some of my bills go late for a while at the very worst, because the rewards of the GI Bill would have more than made up for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was $100 a month but if you couldn't afford 2 then I doubt it would have made a difference.
> 
> I remember like 5 like different people giving my flight the, "don't be a fool, take this deal" speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worst part about it was a large portion of my bills was my truck payment and my expensive ass insurance payment, and I didn't get to have my car all throughout tech school because I was in Cali and my truck was back here in NJ.
> 
> 7 months of paying all that money for NOTHING.
Click to expand...



Having a car at tech school was like insta-pussy ....


----------



## boedicca

Paulie said:


> This boedicca character is confusing me with bodecea.  One is a lib and one is apparently a con.
> 
> Someone needs to change a name.




I was here first.

The other one is an imposter.

Just sayin'.


----------



## DiamondDave

Luissa said:


> It is a right in Washington state!
> I guess it is all Washington State's duty to fund education.
> 
> Wash. judge rules state failing constitutional duty to fully fund basic education
> A judge has ruled that the state of Washington is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to fully pay for basic public education.
> 
> 
> Thursdays decision by King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick comes after nearly two months of testimony last fall in the lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community leaders. They said the state was failing its constitutional duty. The state argued it was fully funding education.



Not for adults though, who are to be responsible for themselves

I fully believe this is 3 separate arguments

Differing education for minors and adults
Whether right to education is covered under right to pursue happiness
And whether right to the education of minors should be in the nation's constitution or still left up to the individual states (and if it should be a right in your state)


----------



## boedicca

The right to Pursue Something doesn't mean the right to make others pay for it on your behalf.


----------



## Paulie

Article 15 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was $100 a month but if you couldn't afford 2 then I doubt it would have made a difference.
> 
> I remember like 5 like different people giving my flight the, "don't be a fool, take this deal" speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The worst part about it was a large portion of my bills was my truck payment and my expensive ass insurance payment, and I didn't get to have my car all throughout tech school because I was in Cali and my truck was back here in NJ.
> 
> 7 months of paying all that money for NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having a car at tech school was like insta-pussy ....
Click to expand...


I Know!!

Especially at Vandenberg, because there was nothing even REMOTELY fun to do off base that wasn't at least a 30 minute drive.

Lackland was alright because local transportation was cheap enough.


----------



## chanel

Ha ha. I was going to start a thread today asking you to apply for a name change. I really like you better. Just sayin..lol


----------



## Bill O'Olberman

Paulie said:


> Bill O'Olberman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be all for education being considered a right if an amendment were created and passed.  I can get behind the idea that education is important enough to the citizenry that it be considered a "right", but not until the constitution clearly authorizes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution but is addressed in most every state constitution (obvious 10th Ammendment issue). The Virginia Consititution says thats the Commonwealth of Virginia must provide a quality and free primary and secondary education to all school aged kids. So here in Virginia an education is a protected right and requirement of the state government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so then where does the Federal government get its authority to legislate and regulate it?
> 
> Not to mention, hold it hostage via funding based on conformity to standards and all that bullshit.
Click to expand...


Those questions arent really related to anything I said. 

I dont think states have to adopt federal government education standards but if they dont then they lose out on that money. Also a large majority of the money spent on education is done at the state and local level.


----------



## Mr Natural

If you're a resident of a town and a property tax payer in good standing to that town, then yes, your children have a right to an elementary and secondary education.


----------



## antagon

Dr Grump said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You have the right to pursue your happiness.. and if part of that happiness is your education... knock yourself out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto re firearms, however they are more important than education it seems...so much so you had to put it in your constitution. As I said, glad to see the US has its priorities...
Click to expand...


 ...dunno where this clown got its education, but theyre under the impression there was a concept of universal education in the 18th century.

alas, the founders werent looking to protect us from those hordes of legislators looking to ban education.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Luissa said:


> It is a right in Washington state!
> I guess it is all Washington State's duty to fund education.
> 
> Wash. judge rules state failing constitutional duty to fully fund basic education
> A judge has ruled that the state of Washington is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to fully pay for basic public education.
> 
> 
> Thursdays decision by King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick comes after nearly two months of testimony last fall in the lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community leaders. They said the state was failing its constitutional duty. The state argued it was fully funding education.


You cannot force someone to be educated.Education is a privilege and a personal responsibility, The teachers can  only do so much, it is the student and the parents job to take the fruit.


----------



## Bill O'Olberman

Mr.Fitnah said:


> it is the student and the parents job to take the fruit



And the oppurtunity to do such should be indiscriminately and equally provided for every child in this country.


----------



## Luissa

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a right in Washington state!
> I guess it is all Washington State's duty to fund education.
> 
> Wash. judge rules state failing constitutional duty to fully fund basic education
> A judge has ruled that the state of Washington is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to fully pay for basic public education.
> 
> 
> Thursdays decision by King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick comes after nearly two months of testimony last fall in the lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community leaders. They said the state was failing its constitutional duty. The state argued it was fully funding education.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot force someone to be educated.Education is a privilege and a personal responsibility, The teachers can  only do so much, it is the student and the parents job to take the fruit.
Click to expand...

If it is right, doesn't mean you are forcing anyone to be educated.
And I believe here you have to be enrolled in some sort of education program until you are 15, after that I am not sure what happens.


----------



## antagon

DiamondDave said:


> I fully believe this is 3 separate arguments
> 
> Differing education for minors and adults
> Whether right to education is covered under right to pursue happiness
> And whether right to the education of minors should be in the nation's constitution or still left up to the individual states (and if it should be a right in your state)



the issue could be seen in the same light for each argument: educating oneself is an unalienable right.  it is a benefit to living in a modern country like the US that the government goes out of its way at the local to federal level to see that schools and libraries, etc. are positioned to assist, often at no direct cost.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Luissa said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a right in Washington state!
> I guess it is all Washington State's duty to fund education.
> 
> Wash. judge rules state failing constitutional duty to fully fund basic education
> A judge has ruled that the state of Washington is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to fully pay for basic public education.
> 
> 
> Thursdays decision by King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick comes after nearly two months of testimony last fall in the lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community leaders. They said the state was failing its constitutional duty. The state argued it was fully funding education.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot force someone to be educated.Education is a privilege and a personal responsibility, The teachers can  only do so much, it is the student and the parents job to take the fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is right, doesn't mean you are forcing anyone to be educated.
> And I believe here you have to be enrolled in some sort of education program until you are 15, after that I am not sure what happens.
Click to expand...

Well ,if it is a right, you are educated.
Are you educated if you just  sit  there  for 15 years Luissa?


----------



## Jurginvoncelle

The idea of education being a right, can not be a fact.
It is a law, none the less, that you must ATTEND (if under a certain age).
No one can force you to become educated. Public schooling is paid for with public taxes, so one could argue that taxation without appropriation would be the only thing at play in this sandbox. (that common good stuff is Communism).

The path to our future depends upon our children. Whether we decide to give them proper education for the new needs of the global economy remains to be seen. If they dont finish high school then what about collage? No new Drs, chemists, engineers, architects, etc. These all have to be imported because we produce none.

No its not an inalienable right but the failure of our children, is the failure of our nation.


----------



## random3434

Still waiting to hear how you're going to "fix" education Mr. F! 

Or are you just going to 'sit there?'


----------



## Paulie

Jurginvoncelle said:


> The idea of education being a right, can not be a fact.
> It is a law, none the less, that you must ATTEND (if under a certain age).
> No one can force you to become educated. Public schooling is paid for with public taxes, so one could argue that taxation without appropriation would be the only thing at play in this sandbox. (that common good stuff is Communism).
> 
> The path to our future depends upon our children. Whether we decide to give them proper education for the new needs of the global economy remains to be seen. If they dont finish high school then what about collage? No new Drs, chemists, engineers, architects, etc. These all have to be imported because we produce none.
> 
> No its not an inalienable right but the failure of our children, is the failure of our nation.



The grammar and syntax errors in this post are quite ironic in the face of its intended purpose.


----------



## boedicca

Here's the problem with calling things like Education and Health Care "Rights":

The concept of rights embedded in our founding documents is one of "negative rights" - essentially the right to be left alone.  They are the natural rights of an individual that preexist and are independent of the form of government.   We are born with them.

Education and Health Care are things we acquire with some effort, i.e., services we earn.  Calling them rights confuses them with a natural condition.  Instead of a student having to study, he has a right to get a "diploma" certifying something that is often just social promotion.  The purpose of education, to acquire skills and knowledge has been replaced with something that is owed regardless of merit.   To call it a "right" to an education is a farce.

(The same thing can be said for Health Care - which has been warped into a right to be healthy, regardless of the lifestyle own has lived.   But that is a discussion for another thread.)


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Echeaux Zulu said:


> Still waiting to hear how you're going to "fix" education Mr. F!
> 
> Or are you just going to 'sit there?'


http://www.usmessageboard.com/2070056-post43.html
Sorry if that was not sufficient.
Go back to an early 1880 curriculum for the first 8 years
teach the basics .
Real agriculture  and ecology if you have to. On real farms .
Math ,science ,history ,music  ,military history .
Then you narrow it  down by aptitude .
Teach to the student based on personal  history .
Not how bad America sucks.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sometimes it seems like education is trying to keep up with culture and consumerism.
In that case  the lines  have been blurred.
It is the parents job to protect children  from that  as well as the voting public.
it is wrong  to turn the class room into a strip mall of pop culture.


----------



## Samson

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Echeaux Zulu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting to hear how you're going to "fix" education Mr. F!
> 
> Or are you just going to 'sit there?'
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2070056-post43.html
> Sorry if that was not sufficient.
> Go back to an early 1880 curriculum for the first 8 years
> teach the basics .
> Real agriculture  and ecology if you have to. On real farms .
> Math ,science ,history ,music  ,military history .
> Then you narrow it  down by aptitude .
> Teach to the student based on personal  history .
> Not how bad America sucks.
Click to expand...




> For one I would do away with the DOE and its insane text book policies.
> 
> Putting a bone in your nose is not the same as putting a man on the moon.
> 
> Teach real history and math and science ,not culture and dogma.
> Culture is based of poverty of resources and ideas, Not opertunity


.

Do you REALLY think anyone believes that "putting a bone in your nose" IS the same as putting a man on the moon?

My solution is to decrease the age for compusory education to 14, simultaneously lower the legal full time hiring age to 14, and require all "high" schools teach only vocational studies.

Anyone wishing to atted college could be admitted at age 14, based on their academic achievements through grade 8. Degree plans would obviously need to be expanded, and most graduate degrees would be attainable only after 7 years. Payment would be through the same methods that are currently in place.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Samson said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Echeaux Zulu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting to hear how you're going to "fix" education Mr. F!
> 
> Or are you just going to 'sit there?'
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2070056-post43.html
> Sorry if that was not sufficient.
> Go back to an early 1880 curriculum for the first 8 years
> teach the basics .
> Real agriculture  and ecology if you have to. On real farms .
> Math ,science ,history ,music  ,military history .
> Then you narrow it  down by aptitude .
> Teach to the student based on personal  history .
> Not how bad America sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one I would do away with the DOE and its insane text book policies.
> 
> Putting a bone in your nose is not the same as putting a man on the moon.
> 
> Teach real history and math and science ,not culture and dogma.
> Culture is based of poverty of resources and ideas, Not opertunity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Do you REALLY think anyone believes that "putting a bone in your nose" IS the same as putting a man on the moon?
> 
> My solution is to decrease the age for compusory education to 14, simultaneously lower the legal full time hiring age to 14, and require all "high" schools teach only vocational studies.
> 
> Anyone wishing to atted college could be admitted at age 14, based on their academic achievements through grade 8. Degree plans would obviously need to be expanded, and most graduate degrees would be attainable only after 7 years. Payment would be through the same methods that are currently in place.
Click to expand...

Really?
For some  that is a reasonable rational option.
Does college start at 15 ?
Do we clog up college  math with trig?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Samson said:


> Do you REALLY think anyone believes that "putting a bone in your nose" IS the same as putting a man on the moon?


Yeah,  just look outside, people are saving up money to  follow in suit.


----------



## Bezukhov

No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.


----------



## chanel

Isn't that the way its done in Europe? The US has the bizarre idea that all students are potential college candidates. They are not. I like Samsons idea.


----------



## boedicca

Samson said:


> Do you REALLY think anyone believes that "putting a bone in your nose" IS the same as putting a man on the moon?




Bones in the nose are So Last Week.   You gotta keep up with the new style.


----------



## Samson

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2070056-post43.html
> Sorry if that was not sufficient.
> Go back to an early 1880 curriculum for the first 8 years
> teach the basics .
> Real agriculture  and ecology if you have to. On real farms .
> Math ,science ,history ,music  ,military history .
> Then you narrow it  down by aptitude .
> Teach to the student based on personal  history .
> Not how bad America sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one I would do away with the DOE and its insane text book policies.
> 
> Putting a bone in your nose is not the same as putting a man on the moon.
> 
> Teach real history and math and science ,not culture and dogma.
> Culture is based of poverty of resources and ideas, Not opertunity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Do you REALLY think anyone believes that "putting a bone in your nose" IS the same as putting a man on the moon?
> 
> My solution is to decrease the age for compusory education to 14, simultaneously lower the legal full time hiring age to 14, and require all "high" schools teach only vocational studies.
> 
> Anyone wishing to atted college could be admitted at age 14, based on their academic achievements through grade 8. Degree plans would obviously need to be expanded, and most graduate degrees would be attainable only after 7 years. Payment would be through the same methods that are currently in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> For some  that is a reasonable rational option.
> Does college start at 15 ?
> Do we clog up college  math with trig?
Click to expand...


College would begin any time after students complete compulsory education, just like it does now. The difference would be, after the 8th grade, people wouldn't be warehoused against their will in institutions that were never designed for the absurd purpose of teaching courses like Trigonometry.

I'm not sure what "Clog Up College Math with Trig" means. Most colleges already teach Algebra and Trig.


----------



## The Rabbi

Bezukhov said:


> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.



More libertarian malarkey.  I guess there is no right to trial by jury of one's peers then.


----------



## The Rabbi

Echeaux Zulu said:


> Still waiting to hear how you're going to "fix" education Mr. F!
> 
> Or are you just going to 'sit there?'



We could start by dismantling public education, taking all the heads of teachers' unions and machine gunning them.
It's a start.


----------



## rdean

Jurginvoncelle said:


> The idea of education being a right, can not be a fact.
> It is a law, none the less, that you must ATTEND (if under a certain age).
> No one can force you to become educated. Public schooling is paid for with public taxes, so one could argue that taxation without appropriation would be the only thing at play in this sandbox. (that common good stuff is Communism).
> 
> The path to our future depends upon our children. Whether we decide to give them proper education for the new needs of the global economy remains to be seen. *If they dont finish high school then what about collage? No new Drs, chemists, engineers, architects, etc. These all have to be imported because we produce none.*
> 
> No its not an inalienable right but the failure of our children, is the failure of our nation.



I believe it's not just a right, but a necessity.  When the left thinks about "building the nation", they think of Doctors and engineers and people you named.  When conservatives think about building the nation, they think of businessmen and corporations.  And what's ironic is what would those businesses and corporations do without engineers and chemists and such?

And these comments:

"Self defense is more important than education.. you can do for yourself without an education (many have in this country and with great success).. you cannot survive without defending yourself"

By that logic, a caveman would be much more successful in today's culture than a doctor or an engineer.

And look at this one.  It's just weird:

Go back to an early 1880 curriculum for the first 8 years
teach the basics .
Real agriculture and ecology if you have to. On real farms .
Math ,science ,history ,music ,military history .
Then you narrow it down by aptitude .
Teach to the student based on personal history .

Let's go BACK to 1880?  Put 'em on a farm?  Science from 1880?  Does that mean no evolution, no plate tectonics, no genetics?  Narrow it down by aptitude?  Teach based on personal history?  That entire post was wrong on so many levels.

If this country doesn't invest in the future then we will become Afghanistan.  

The July 2009 Pew pol lists the percentage of US scientists who are Republican at 6% and who are conservative at 9%.  I believe, from posts on this board, those numbers are vastly inflated.

Usually, parents want "more" for their children.  In the past, when a child became a doctor or a scientist or even a University teacher, parents would boast and they would be so very proud.  I think that maybe today's conservatives actually try to talk their kids out of going to school.  I don't know what they could be thinking.

Philip Johnson, world famous architect, designed the Crystal Cathedral for the religious right.  You know they had to look and look to find someone for such an undertaking.  They wanted the best.  It must have killed them to have to settle for a gay guy because none of them were qualified.

Well, if conservatives feel this way towards education, they will just have to get used to depending on others.  A few more years and it won't even be 6%.


----------



## Samson

chanel said:


> Isn't that the way its done in Europe? The US has the bizarre idea that all students are potential college candidates. They are not. I like Samsons idea.



I'm not an expert in the European Education systems, but I've heard that they give a test to 14 year olds that they either pass, and go on to College Prep schools, or they fail, and they go to Vocational School.

In the US, detractors of this system believe it Robs Children of Potential: That there exists the possibility that students will mature and develop higher thinking skills 14-18 that would allow them to complete college, and this justifies forceably institutionalizing_* EVERYONE*_ an additional 4 years.

Not surprisingly, the education establishment is the greatest detractor of dismantaling compulsory high school.

So, to appease this argument, I don't advocate a test that would seperate the sheep from the goats: I simply end all compulsory education after the 8th grade, and then allow individuals to choose whatever they'd like to do thereafter: Work; Continue State Sponsored Vocational School; Enter College; Stay home and Watch Cartoons; Take Online Courses, all of the above.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

boedicca said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you REALLY think anyone believes that "putting a bone in your nose" IS the same as putting a man on the moon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bones in the nose are So Last Week.   You gotta keep up with the new style.
Click to expand...

Next president of the united states of  America


----------



## antagon

Bezukhov said:


> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.



that is utter stupidity, captain.


----------



## The Rabbi

I think he's more in touch with the people than the present one.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

The Rabbi said:


> I think he's more in touch with the people than the present one.



Both have more going  in the ass then out.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

I don't believe education is a "right" per se...at least in the sense that it _must _be provided to you.....that's nowhere in the Constitution....

However....it is a right for states to vote for public schools and school taxes and require schooling for children...in that sense you then have a "right" (not to mention the obligation) to an education...after all your parents are paying for it...

Laws could be changed to require more or less...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

States are  not the same as federal.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Mr.Fitnah said:


> States are  not the same as federal.



meaning?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

ScreamingEagle said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> States are  not the same as federal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaning?
Click to expand...

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Samson

ScreamingEagle said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> States are  not the same as federal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaning?
Click to expand...


Ditto.

Most education in the USA is NOT federally Funded?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

States can do as they wish, the constitution  restrains the federal government.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Samson said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> States are  not the same as federal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> Most education in the USA is NOT federally Funded?
Click to expand...


What are they spending  $63.7 billion on?


----------



## Samson

Mr.Fitnah said:


> States can do as they wish, the constitution  restrains the federal government.



No.

Federal regulations/statues trump States'.

Therefore, the States must enforce Federal Laws, e.g. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Mr.Fitnah said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> States are  not the same as federal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Oh...your question was then just in reference to the Federal govt.?

I believe I already answered that....and agree with you...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Samson said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> States can do as they wish, the constitution  restrains the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Federal regulations/statues trump States'.
> 
> Therefore, the States must enforce Federal Laws, e.g. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
Click to expand...

Yeah,  well those unfunded government  edicts are just part of what needs to be dismantled .
Those handy capable  dance troupes  can  go all the  way to Oregon and be  put to sleep.
We  dont need wheel chair  ramps to  get on every god damn curb.
If  florida wants them and  the fed and florida pays for them  thats one thing.

 If they make  Iowa pay  thats something else.


----------



## Samson

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> meaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> Most education in the USA is NOT federally Funded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they spending  $63.7 billion on?
Click to expand...


Well, you can as easily research the DOEd's budget as I can:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html



> ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including _*discretionary Pell Grant funding*_) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009&#8212;and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also _*provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 14 million postsecondary students*_.



Actually $63.7B isn't all that much when you consider that the Treasury Dept's budget to extract more taxes from us is about $13B.

If I had to guess, the main "programs" that are "annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools" is _*Free and Reduced Lunch*_. 

What is interesting is they also serve 34,000 private schools.

I'm guessing these are non-parocial.


----------



## Samson

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> States can do as they wish, the constitution  restrains the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Federal regulations/statues trump States'.
> 
> Therefore, the States must enforce Federal Laws, e.g. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah,  well those unfunded government  edicts are just part of what needs to be dismantled .
> Those handy capable  dance troupes  can  go all the  way to Oregon and be  put to sleep.
> We  dont need wheel chair  ramps to  get on every god damn curb.
> If  florida wants them and  the fed and florida pays for them  thats one thing.
> 
> If they make  Iowa pay  thats something else.
Click to expand...


Well, if it was only the wheelchair ramps that IDEA required, then it would be comparatively VERY cheap.

The wild eyed frothing USMB members that blame all Evul on Republicans should recall Jerry Ford, who signed IDEA into law, where it remains. No Politician wants to be painted as Uncaring Toward The Disabled.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Looks  like we can save a shit load of  money and  blame it  all on the progressive shitheads .
Sound like a all around winner.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Samson said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> Most education in the USA is NOT federally Funded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are they spending  $63.7 billion on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can as easily research the DOEd's budget as I can:
> U.S. Department of Education Budget Office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including _*discretionary Pell Grant funding*_) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also _*provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 14 million postsecondary students*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually $63.7B isn't all that much when you consider that the Treasury Dept's budget to extract more taxes from us is about $13B.
> 
> If I had to guess, the main "programs" that are "annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools" is _*Free and Reduced Lunch*_.
> 
> What is interesting is they also serve 34,000 private schools.
> 
> I'm guessing these are non-parocial.
Click to expand...


True....states pay the lions share of education costs.

Actually any state could refuse to follow federal "mandates"......but then they don't get any Federal money....


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Samson said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Federal regulations/statues trump States'.
> 
> Therefore, the States must enforce Federal Laws, e.g. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah,  well those unfunded government  edicts are just part of what needs to be dismantled .
> Those handy capable  dance troupes  can  go all the  way to Oregon and be  put to sleep.
> We  dont need wheel chair  ramps to  get on every god damn curb.
> If  florida wants them and  the fed and florida pays for them  thats one thing.
> 
> If they make  Iowa pay  thats something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it was only the wheelchair ramps that IDEA required, then it would be comparatively VERY cheap.
> 
> The wild eyed frothing USMB members that blame all Evul on Republicans should recall Jerry Ford, who signed IDEA into law, where it remains. No Politician wants to be painted as Uncaring Toward The Disabled.
Click to expand...


You clearly dont get it.
The fed  demands  states  do things.
States have to  do things the fed wants  to do to get the money to fulfill those demands 
The people get screwed.

This is not proper representation.


----------



## Samson

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Looks  like we can save a shit load of  money and  blame it  all on the progressive shitheads .
> Sound like a all around winner.



Ford was a Republican.

He should have just let Carter sign IDEA.

At any rate no politician, progressive or not, is going to alter IDEA. All sorts of parents would crawl out of the woodwork, dragging little crippled Johnny Halfwit on to Oprah to cry and knash their teeth over why their kid needs an an education as much as any other, and then Oprah will tearfully remind her audience that any one of us could be saddled with a kid with disabilities.


----------



## Samson

ScreamingEagle said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are they spending  $63.7 billion on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can as easily research the DOEd's budget as I can:
> U.S. Department of Education Budget Office
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including _*discretionary Pell Grant funding*_) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also _*provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 14 million postsecondary students*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually $63.7B isn't all that much when you consider that the Treasury Dept's budget to extract more taxes from us is about $13B.
> 
> If I had to guess, the main "programs" that are "annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 99,000 public schools" is _*Free and Reduced Lunch*_.
> 
> What is interesting is they also serve 34,000 private schools.
> 
> I'm guessing these are non-parocial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True....states pay the lions share of education costs.
> 
> Actually any state could refuse to follow federal "mandates"......but then they don't get any Federal money....
Click to expand...


Yes...its very interesting to actually experience the differences between states' NCLB compliance: States with Large Urban Populations turn themselves inside-out to increase the scores on state standardized tests (manaded by NCLB), while other states just go through the motions.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Ford was a progressive shitweasel I dont care what laws or bureaucracy they they have illeagly created .
It all Needs to be burned down,  none of it is constitutional.


----------



## Samson

Mr.Fitnah said:


> It all Needs to be burned down,  none of it is constitutional.



You need to send a letter to OBL explaining your support for his position.


----------



## Barb

DiamondDave said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right
> 
> The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you
Click to expand...


Knowledge is power.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Samson said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all Needs to be burned down,  none of it is constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to send a letter to OBL explaining your support for his position.
Click to expand...

Ive asked for the towers to be rebuilt   the powers that be  disagree.
I do not support the government.

You need to read the  constitution and the federalist papers are then explain out  why  your oppression  have a leg to stand on.

Just because a bunch of criminal hacks do  things  doesn't mean it is lawful.

Which  quote  appeals to  you?

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. 
Thomas Jefferson 

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Barb said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right
> 
> The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowledge is power.
Click to expand...

You are  weak and wilting


----------



## JW Frogen

Mr Clean said:


> If you're a resident of a town and a property tax payer in good standing to that town, then yes, your children have a right to an elementary and secondary education.



What if you pay your property tax and are relatively good but have trouble standing much of the time?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Ok Im out.
the thread is over.


----------



## JW Frogen

Mr.Fitnah said:


> "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence




 Wilson should not have been depressed, he did create the League of Nations.........oh yeah, sorry.

 Still, chasing a man named Pancho Villa around must have been fun.


----------



## Samson

JW Frogen said:


> Still, chasing a man named Pancho Villa around must have been fun.



I wish you'd make you're mind up:

Whose pants would you rater be in?

Maya Angelou or Pancho Villa?


----------



## JW Frogen

Probably Poncho, just so I could utter "pants, we don't need no stinking pants."


----------



## Contumacious

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yes no?



Of course it is. Both the Nazi Party Platform and the Constitution of the welfare/warfare  state empower the almighty state to steal from "A" in order to "educate" "B". I am looking forward to the day we replace old glory with the USSR Flag.


----------



## antagon

im glad im going to sleep.


----------



## rdean

Contumacious said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. Both the Nazi Party Platform and the Constitution of the welfare/warfare  state empower the almighty state to steal from "A" in order to "educate" "B". I am looking forward to the day we replace old glory with the USSR Flag.
Click to expand...


In every communist takeover, the first to go were the educated.  

Isn't it odd that Republicans are always saying the liberals are "for" communism yet it's the liberals who are "educated", so obviously, they would be the first to go?

The people that would be left over would be the "Cornfed Confederate Republican Party of Teabags".  Republican leaders already know how to control them.  With "fear".  It's part of their fundraising strategy.


----------



## Contumacious

rdean said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. Both the Nazi Party Platform and the Constitution of the welfare/warfare  state empower the almighty state to steal from "A" in order to "educate" "B". I am looking forward to the day we replace old glory with the USSR Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In every communist takeover, the first to go were the educated.
> 
> Isn't it odd that Republicans are always saying the liberals are "for" communism yet it's the liberals who are "educated", so obviously, they would be the first to go?
> 
> The people that would be left over would be the "Cornfed Confederate Republican Party of Teabags".  Republican leaders already know how to control them.  With "fear".  It's part of their fundraising strategy.
Click to expand...


You are so right.

Only the cornfed mentally ill oppose tyranny.

.


----------



## rdean

Contumacious said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. Both the Nazi Party Platform and the Constitution of the welfare/warfare  state empower the almighty state to steal from "A" in order to "educate" "B". I am looking forward to the day we replace old glory with the USSR Flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In every communist takeover, the first to go were the educated.
> 
> Isn't it odd that Republicans are always saying the liberals are "for" communism yet it's the liberals who are "educated", so obviously, they would be the first to go?
> 
> The people that would be left over would be the "Cornfed Confederate Republican Party of Teabags".  Republican leaders already know how to control them.  With "fear".  It's part of their fundraising strategy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so right.
> 
> Only the cornfed mentally ill oppose tyranny.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Then we agree on something? I think.  Are you "ill"?

Uh, let me just point out, when the uneducated take over, then that will be tyranny.  Nothing like a country run by stupid.  Bush showed us that.


----------



## Oscar Wao

rdean said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> In every communist takeover, the first to go were the educated.
> 
> Isn't it odd that Republicans are always saying the liberals are "for" communism yet it's the liberals who are "educated", so obviously, they would be the first to go?
> 
> The people that would be left over would be the "Cornfed Confederate Republican Party of Teabags". Republican leaders already know how to control them. With "fear". It's part of their fundraising strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so right.
> 
> Only the cornfed mentally ill oppose tyranny.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree on something? I think. Are you "ill"?
> 
> Uh, let me just point out, when the uneducated take over, then that will be tyranny. Nothing like a country run by stupid. Bush showed us that.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people can be too smart for their own good.  I mean "smart" in either sense.  Clever/manipulative and commonsensical smart and book smart as well.


----------



## random3434

LOL


When is the last time any of you that have posted in this thread have taught in a school? 


It's like the chicken hawks talking about going to war.


----------



## JW Frogen

I really don't want people smarter than me with power to tell me what to do.

This is why I loved being enlisted in the Navy, I rarely had that problem.


----------



## JW Frogen

If you enlist in the military, any military, watch Hogan's Heroes. Study it.

It will tell you every thing you need to know about most officers.

I have worked with a lot of Colonel Klinks. You loved them and you wanted to save their ass, but you never could let them know that is what you were doing.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Now, now, now. Don't get me wrong.

I think our leaders SHOULD be "intellectual" to some degree. After all, our Founders were intellectuals! They wrote on politics, law, philosophy, science, agriculture, theology, you name it. They were pretty dang smart and we can profit from what they teach.

That being said, I don't think intellectual SNOBS are what we need, though, especially ones who feel the need to rub their doctorates in everyone's faces, as if not having such a degree means you're lower than an amoeba.


----------



## KissMy

Dr Grump said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right
> 
> The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that defense is a right.
> 
> I find it strange you need to put it in a document, and if you are going to do that, then why not education, too.
Click to expand...


*Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*

*Freedom means the right to own Guns* (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)

*Freedom means the right to an Education*

Both are your rights to aquire & have this country, but Both need to be earned in this country.

The government does not take taxpayer funds & buy every toddler a gun, ammo, & shooting lessons. You can earn the privilege to join the government military where taxpayers loan you a gun & let you shoot a bunch of government ammo. People have the right to own & carry guns but must earn their own guns & ammo. Government does not just hand them out to everyone. The government does take these rights from dangerous criminals who have infringed the rights of others.

The government should not take taxpayer funds & educate people who are mentally retarded, undeserving, or disrupt class & the education of other students. Government funded education is a privilege students earn by scoring good grades & behaving well. Students scoring failing grades should not to be passed on to higher levels of education. The government should not force failing state run indoctrination upon children. Parents should be allowed to earn the privilege to choose a better than state education for their child using those same tax dollars by making sure their children score better than children in state run schools.


----------



## LuckyDan

Neither a right, nor a privilege. It is something one is free to acquire, part of the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Good answer, Dan.

A "right" means that you're automatically entitled to it, no questions asked, no more, no less.

A "privilege" implies a "<so and so authority> giveth and taketh away."


----------



## rdean

Oscar Wao said:


> Now, now, now. Don't get me wrong.
> 
> I think our leaders SHOULD be "intellectual" to some degree. After all, our Founders were intellectuals! They wrote on politics, law, philosophy, science, agriculture, theology, you name it. They were pretty dang smart and we can profit from what they teach.
> 
> That being said, I don't think intellectual SNOBS are what we need, though, especially ones who feel the need to rub their doctorates in everyone's faces, as if not having such a degree means you're lower than an amoeba.



I don't know anyone like that.  It looks like how you "imagine" people to be rather than how they really are.  It's one of the ways Republicans "demonize".  It's like saying, "I hate Obama because he's so arrogant.  He turns his head sometimes and you can see the side of his nose.  So arrogant.  Then he shows off with big words and numbers.  I just hate his arrogant ways".

Like I said, in a communist takeover, the first to go are always the educated.  You would have nothing to fear if I'm reading what you are saying correctly.


----------



## Contumacious

rdean said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> In every communist takeover, the first to go were the educated.
> 
> Isn't it odd that Republicans are always saying the liberals are "for" communism yet it's the liberals who are "educated", so obviously, they would be the first to go?
> 
> The people that would be left over would be the "Cornfed Confederate Republican Party of Teabags".  Republican leaders already know how to control them.  With "fear".  It's part of their fundraising strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so right.
> 
> Only the cornfed mentally ill oppose tyranny.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree on something? I think.  Are you "ill"?
> 
> Uh, let me just point out, when the uneducated take over, then that will be tyranny.  Nothing like a country run by stupid.  Bush showed us that.
Click to expand...


I am ill?

I am on your side dude. I fully support,  what you intelligent guys call,  elitism.

.


----------



## Contumacious

Oscar Wao said:


> Good answer, Dan.
> 
> A "right" means that you're automatically entitled to it, no questions asked, no more, no less.
> 
> A "privilege" implies a "<so and so authority> giveth and taketh away."



Precisely.

The Welfare/Warfare State Constitution of 1935 defines education as a right. It clearly states that your neighbor owes you a living, an education, shelter....the works.

.


----------



## Oscar Wao

rdean said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, now. Don't get me wrong.
> 
> I think our leaders SHOULD be "intellectual" to some degree. After all, our Founders were intellectuals! They wrote on politics, law, philosophy, science, agriculture, theology, you name it. They were pretty dang smart and we can profit from what they teach.
> 
> That being said, I don't think intellectual SNOBS are what we need, though, especially ones who feel the need to rub their doctorates in everyone's faces, as if not having such a degree means you're lower than an amoeba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone like that. It looks like how you "imagine" people to be rather than how they really are. It's one of the ways Republicans "demonize". It's like saying, "I hate Obama because he's so arrogant. He turns his head sometimes and you can see the side of his nose. So arrogant. Then he shows off with big words and numbers. I just hate his arrogant ways".
> 
> Like I said, in a communist takeover, the first to go are always the educated. You would have nothing to fear if I'm reading what you are saying correctly.
Click to expand...

Um, you don't need a psychology degree or even ONE psychology class to interpret basic behavior.

Obama's basic behavior is that of an arrogant intellectual snob.


----------



## beowolfe

Education is neither a right nor a privaledge.  According to state constitutions, it's an obligation of the state government.


----------



## beowolfe

Oscar Wao said:


> Now, now, now. Don't get me wrong.
> 
> I think our leaders SHOULD be "intellectual" to some degree. After all, our Founders were intellectuals! They wrote on politics, law, philosophy, science, agriculture, theology, you name it. They were pretty dang smart and we can profit from what they teach.
> 
> That being said, I don't think intellectual SNOBS are what we need, though, especially ones who feel the need to rub their doctorates in everyone's faces, as if not having such a degree means you're lower than an amoeba.



Sounds like you have a problem with the fact that you don't have a doctorate (if indeed that is the case).


----------



## Oscar Wao

I haven't even earned my bachelor's yet, heh.  One thing at a time.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dr Grump said:


> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...



You're dealing with people who think all the world's wisdom came from a naked woman eating a magic apple given to her by a talking snake.  You're dealing with people who are willing to be led by someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.   

Educaton is incompatible with conservatism.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Oscar Wao said:


> Good answer, Dan.
> 
> A "right" means that you're automatically entitled to it, no questions asked, no more, no less.
> 
> A "privilege" implies a "<so and so authority> giveth and taketh away."



That's nonsense.  All established 'rights' have limits.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Well this thread is now  finished , we have been graced by  the voice of ignorance  .
Send it  to the flame zone.


----------



## The Rabbi

KissMy said:


> *Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*
> 
> *Freedom means the right to own Guns* (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)
> 
> *Freedom means the right to an Education*
> 
> .



Bullshit.
Right to keep and bear arms is in the 2A of the US COnstitution.
WHere is the "right" to education written?


----------



## NYcarbineer

slackjawed said:


> Education is not a right. Access to an education is a privalage that one should take advantage of, and most don't.



Ah, another elegantly ironic post to start my day.  Thanks, wingnuts, you never fail to come through.


----------



## editec

It's a right if we want civilization to be a going concern.

But instead of the using the word "right" I'd call it an OBLIGATION.

Each generation is obligated to educate the next generation.

Failure by a society to do that spells the end of that society.


----------



## Contumacious

beowolfe said:


> Education is neither a right nor a privaledge.  *According to state constitutions, it's an obligation of the state government.*



Yo beo, where do the state governments get their money from?

.


----------



## Bezukhov

The Rabbi said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More libertarian malarkey.  I guess there is no right to trial by jury of one's peers then.
Click to expand...


If it involves forcing people to serve on a jury against their will, then yes, they have no right.


----------



## Bezukhov

antagon said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is utter stupidity, captain.
Click to expand...


It won't be so stupid when those who have such obligations thrust upon them suddenly deciding that they will no longer honor them.


----------



## Contumacious

NYcarbineer said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good answer, Dan.
> 
> A "right" means that you're automatically entitled to it, no questions asked, no more, no less.
> 
> A "privilege" implies a "<so and so authority> giveth and taketh away."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nonsense.  All established 'rights' have limits.
Click to expand...


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... 

*Benito Mussolini:*

.


----------



## The Rabbi

Bezukhov said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More libertarian malarkey.  I guess there is no right to trial by jury of one's peers then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it involves forcing people to serve on a jury against their will, then yes, they have no right.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  Your narrow adherence to a ridiculous theory has made your views unintelligible and repugnant.
Not that Libertarianism is anything but.


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*
> 
> *Freedom means the right to own Guns* (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)
> 
> *Freedom means the right to an Education*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> Right to keep and bear arms is in the 2A of the US COnstitution.
> WHere is the "right" to education written?
Click to expand...


youre getting in over your head again ol' rabbi.  education is an inalienable right.  you couldnt impose a federal ban on education under the constitution.  because something is not specifically in the constitution does not mean that the constitution does not provide it.

so many kooks wield the constitution like it's shitpaper.  its disrespect, man. be _informed_ 

this is an entirely different matter than government's obligation to provide free education.  thats not a given where a right exists.  universal education is merely a benefit of living in a modern, wealthy, forward-thinking nation.


----------



## rdean

Oscar Wao said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, now. Don't get me wrong.
> 
> I think our leaders SHOULD be "intellectual" to some degree. After all, our Founders were intellectuals! They wrote on politics, law, philosophy, science, agriculture, theology, you name it. They were pretty dang smart and we can profit from what they teach.
> 
> That being said, I don't think intellectual SNOBS are what we need, though, especially ones who feel the need to rub their doctorates in everyone's faces, as if not having such a degree means you're lower than an amoeba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone like that. It looks like how you "imagine" people to be rather than how they really are. It's one of the ways Republicans "demonize". It's like saying, "I hate Obama because he's so arrogant. He turns his head sometimes and you can see the side of his nose. So arrogant. Then he shows off with big words and numbers. I just hate his arrogant ways".
> 
> Like I said, in a communist takeover, the first to go are always the educated. You would have nothing to fear if I'm reading what you are saying correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, you don't need a psychology degree or even ONE psychology class to interpret basic behavior.
> 
> Obama's basic behavior is that of an arrogant intellectual snob.
Click to expand...


To me, Obama is a thoughtful, concerned intelligent man.

Now, you want to see an arrogant snob.  Watch this video.  This T-Blossom is mocking every American soldier or citizen killed or wounded from Islamic Fascism.  Look at this and tell me it's funny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc]YouTube - Now watch this drive![/ame]


----------



## Cuyo

The Rabbi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*
> 
> *Freedom means the right to own Guns* (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)
> 
> *Freedom means the right to an Education*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> Right to keep and bear arms is in the 2A of the US COnstitution.
> WHere is the "right" to education written?
Click to expand...


You guys love to quote the constitution when it appears to make your point.  But you misunderstand the framework of our government.

Not all rights flow from the constitution.  Just because you can't find something mentioned by name in the constitution, that doesn't mean it's not a right.

I'd say we have a right to pursue an education.  But a right to the education itself?  Can't exist.  It's on the individual to take the right he's been given and make the most of it.  The old lead a horse to water and all that noise.


----------



## Samson

editec said:


> It's a right if we want civilization to be a going concern.
> 
> But instead of the using the word "right" I'd call it an OBLIGATION.
> 
> Each generation is obligated to educate the next generation.
> 
> Failure by a society to do that spells the end of that society.



This makes a nice bumper sticker, and I'd like to agree with you: Except, I cannot think of any society that has met its demise at the hands of ignorance.

What spells the end of a human society is ANOTHER Human Society.

E.G. It wasn't for lack of educating their kids that the Native Americans' Society Ended.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Every state provides children public education, and in doing so is not allowed to discriminate, therefore you have a right to an education, as long as you're a child and a legal resident of the state.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*
> 
> *Freedom means the right to own Guns* (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)
> 
> *Freedom means the right to an Education*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> Right to keep and bear arms is in the 2A of the US COnstitution.
> WHere is the "right" to education written?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> youre getting in over your head again ol' rabbi.  education is an inalienable right.  you couldnt impose a federal ban on education under the constitution.  because something is not specifically in the constitution does not mean that the constitution does not provide it.
> 
> so many kooks wield the constitution like it's shitpaper.  its disrespect, man. be _informed_
> 
> this is an entirely different matter than government's obligation to provide free education.  thats not a given where a right exists.  universal education is merely a benefit of living in a modern, wealthy, forward-thinking nation.
Click to expand...


I know keeping and bearing arms is a right because it says so in the 2A.
How do you know education is an "inalienable" right?

Just because something is desirable doesn't turn it into a right.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> Teach real history and math and science ,not culture and dogma.
> Culture is based of poverty of resources and ideas, Not *opertunity* .



It's obvious that you do not value education.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Samson said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a right if we want civilization to be a going concern.
> 
> But instead of the using the word "right" I'd call it an OBLIGATION.
> 
> Each generation is obligated to educate the next generation.
> 
> Failure by a society to do that spells the end of that society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This makes a nice bumper sticker, and I'd like to agree with you: Except, I cannot think of any society that has met its demise at the hands of ignorance.
> 
> What spells the end of a human society is ANOTHER Human Society.
> 
> E.G. It wasn't for lack of educating their kids that the Native Americans' Society Ended.
Click to expand...


educated and free - Google Search

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."


----------



## AvgGuyIA

We are being set up for Universal college diplomas paid for by the public, no matter how long a person decides to stay in school.


----------



## Care4all

Yes, I see it is an inalienable right....one that is not writen down, or forbidden by the constitution.

There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

AND just because it is one of our rights, does NOT MEAN that the government HAS TO provide it for us, they just do not have the power given to them, to PREVENT us or to stop us...from becoming educated.


----------



## Contumacious

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*
> 
> *Freedom means the right to own Guns* (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)
> 
> *Freedom means the right to an Education*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> Right to keep and bear arms is in the 2A of the US COnstitution.
> WHere is the "right" to education written?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> youre getting in over your head again ol' rabbi.  education is an inalienable right.  you couldnt impose a federal ban on education under the constitution.  because something is not specifically in the constitution does not mean that the constitution does not provide it.
> 
> so many kooks wield the constitution like it's shitpaper.  its disrespect, man. be _informed_
> 
> this is an entirely different matter than government's obligation to provide free education.  thats not a given where a right exists.  universal education is merely a benefit of living in a modern, wealthy, forward-thinking nation.
Click to expand...


Vernon, the Constitution protects your right to pursue an education. 

The Constitution does NOT force your neighbor to provide you an education.

.

.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy

Education is not a right.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Care4all said:


> There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.



OMG

This is one of  the problems we face , Hard  packed ignorance.


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> Every state provides children public education, and in doing so is not allowed to discriminate, therefore you have a right to an education, as long as you're a child and a legal resident of the state.



In support of this, from the NYS Constitution:

The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated. 

and

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof.

____

I would say that establishes education as a right.


----------



## Care4all

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG
> 
> This is one of  the problems we face , Hard  packed ignorance.
Click to expand...


Actually, you should read up on our inalienable rights....you may find ignorance looking at you in the mirror Mr. Fit....


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> be _informed_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know keeping and bearing arms is a right because it says so in the 2A.
> How do you know education is an "inalienable" right?
> 
> Just because something is desirable doesn't turn it into a right.
Click to expand...




			
				the Founders in The U.S. Constitution said:
			
		

> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



how do i know?  how _dont_ you know?

educating oneself is probably a _natural_ right like breathing, and happens just as naturally and plurally.

taken to the more formal constructs of a class/teacher/student environment, it is a right inherited from our freedom of speech enterprise and assembly fortified by our pursuit of happiness ethos.  this escapes you?

i think people are confused about rights and entitlement to provision.  those are benefits.   people wield rights as if they were a valid basis to demand the government supply benefits for them.  like the rhetoric behind the dems' healthcare push...

'healthcare is a right!'  well, ok.  you certainly couldnt _ban_ people caring for their health.  what a lengthy and tenuous bridge to demand on that basis that the government is out of step for not _supplying_ it.  the fact of the matter is that the government has the power to accomodate what you call is desireable through a number of measures. ever since the civil rights era, groups have tried to justify their causes of desirability on the same basis.  their opposition would say 'healthcare's not a right!' in response.  self preservation and by extension healthcare is indeed.  i digress to the shitpaper thing as they wrestle with the constitution far from where it applies.

if the government wanted to weasel out of providing americans a free education, i feel we do have standing to be pissed.  i would question, under this far, far fetched circumstance, why they are trying to undermine the nation and make us inferior to the rest of the developed world with that .._un_desireable.. policy.


----------



## The Rabbi

You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
Sorry.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## antagon

Care4all said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG
> 
> This is one of  the problems we face , Hard  packed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you should read up on our inalienable rights....you may find ignorance looking at you in the mirror Mr. Fit....
Click to expand...


thanks, Care.  reading your response calmed me considerably.  i neednt add more.


----------



## slackjawed

from:
Is education a civil right?


"Is education a civil right?

Technically speaking, no. However, since the famous 1954 case of Brown v. The Board of Education, it has been illegal for public schools to discriminate on the basis of race. It is also illegal for a public school district to be segregated as a result of intentional practices, such as drawing the schools&#8217; boundaries around exclusively single race areas (this is known as de jury segregation). "



from;
Education

"Introduction

The right to education is a fundamental human right. Every individual, irrespective of race, gender, nationality, ethnic or social origin, religion or political preference, age or disability, is entitled to a free elementary education. This right is explicitly stated in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948:"



It seems that while education is not a right defined by anything in US law, pursuit of education IS a right defined in US law, and if public education is available, it must be made available to all in an equal manner.

The United nations defines education as a 'human right'.

from the above link;
"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. &#8230;" (Article 26)"


So it appears that the argument over whether education is a "right" is based on which definition is to be used, ie: civil right vs. human right.

My opinion is that while it is not a 'civil right' in the USA, I can agree that access to education, especially equal access to education is a 'human right'. 

I believe that education is a privelage in the USA that too few actually take advantage of. 

Even those that believe that education is a right must recognize that noone can be forced to learn against their will. 

The question of what an education must contain to be considered an education has been the subject of debate since Plato. Those that practice certain fundamental religions believe that educating their children simply means teaching them the content of their particular religious texts. Those that practice a more secular life believe that education means teaching children subjects that include the sciences, and leaving out the religious texts. Those arguments will likely continue, simply because the world is not made of a homogenous group of people. Even our nation is not a homogenous society.

I believe that we all have a responsibility to educate our children. Personally, I volunteer at the local high school to tutor students that need help. I urge everyone who has that ability to do the same. If you have an education, realize that knowledge is only 'borrowed'. To best serve your fellow humans, passing that education and knowledge on to the next generation is the right thing to do.


----------



## rdean

The Rabbi said:


> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.



So is education necessary?  Or are you against education in general?


----------



## Murf76

Bezukhov said:


> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.



Agreed.  We have no "right" that, by virtue of its existence, requires the labor or property (money) of other citizens.

I have to disagree with Rabbi's earlier premise that we have a "right to a jury trial".  This is not mentioned at all in the U.S. Constitution.  
*"In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Finally, the 7th Amendment requires that certain federal civil trials guarantee a jury trial if the amount exceeds twenty dollars."*
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Education is bought and sold.  Therefore, like healthcare, it is a commodity.

States will do as they please, under the 10th.  But, there is no enumerated power that I'm aware of that would allow the central government to directly mandate education for U.S. citizens, which is why many people believe the Department of Education is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

Either we believe in Limited Government, or we don't.  Either we believe in upholding the U.S. Constitution, or we don't.   The misuse of the Commerce Clause has all but dismantled our Federalist form of government.   We have come to the point where Washington politicians like Nancy Pelosi no longer recognize ANY limits to their authority.


> From her press release, Pelosi states:
> 
> The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. *Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.*
> Nancy, Are You Serious?|Tenth Amendment Center



A statement like that should freeze the blood of all but the most staunch of leftists.  It's visceral proof that these people have literally no compunctions whatsoever about the _Spirit_ of Liberty and the vows they personally made to uphold our Constitution protecting it.

Libertarians and Republicans should be natural allies in the matter of limiting the reach of central government.   This IS the make-it-or-break-it issue of our day.  It transcends lesser disagreements about social issues, which should be decided in the States and only on questions which do not impede the unalienable rights of citizens.

Certainly the founders prized education, believing that only an educated populace could preserve liberty.  Curious then, why they elected NOT to include mandatory education as a provision of our contract with federal government.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.



So you think that if my state denied my (hypothetical) child an education that I couldn't win in the Supreme Court, if it went that far?


----------



## Murf76

Care4all said:


> Yes, I see it is an inalienable right....one that is not writen down, or forbidden by the constitution.
> 
> There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> AND just because it is one of our rights, does NOT MEAN that the government HAS TO provide it for us, they just do not have the power given to them, to PREVENT us or to stop us...from becoming educated.



The 9th amendment says essentially that just because it's not written down in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean that it might not be a right just as paramount and unalienable as any that are.
*"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."*

That said, the sword swings both ways when we start making up arbitrary "rights".  In the matter of education, who is to say that we don't have a right to remain ignorant if we so choose, or to choose the same for our offspring.  _"Ignorance is bliss"_, they say.  Who's to say otherwise and sit in judgment of what comprises "Happiness"?

Personally, I don't see any reason why State laws mandating public education can't be challenged on that basis.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Care4all said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG
> 
> This is one of  the problems we face , Hard  packed ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you should read up on our inalienable rights....you may find ignorance looking at you in the mirror Mr. Fit....
Click to expand...


The bill of rights  constrains the government,  not the people.


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.



hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.


----------



## antagon

Murf76 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I see it is an inalienable right....one that is not writen down, or forbidden by the constitution.
> 
> There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> AND just because it is one of our rights, does NOT MEAN that the government HAS TO provide it for us, they just do not have the power given to them, to PREVENT us or to stop us...from becoming educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th amendment says essentially that just because it's not written down in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean that it might not be a right just as paramount and unalienable as any that are.
> *"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."*
> 
> That said, the sword swings both ways when we start making up arbitrary "rights".  In the matter of education, who is to say that we don't have a right to remain ignorant if we so choose, or to choose the same for our offspring.  _"Ignorance is bliss"_, they say.  Who's to say otherwise and sit in judgment of what comprises "Happiness"?
> 
> Personally, I don't see any reason why State laws mandating public education can't be challenged on that basis.
Click to expand...


roger that.  god help the plaintiff looking to remain ignorant, but true.  im sure there's precedence for 'alternative' schooling situations.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
Click to expand...

Rights come from  God.
You cannot  not make  or give someone an education ,  they have to take it, they have to acquire it .
You can lead  a liberal to knowledge,  but you  cannot make them think.


----------



## antagon

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that if my state denied my (hypothetical) child an education that I couldn't win in the Supreme Court, if it went that far?
Click to expand...


that would be a discrimination concern unless they enjoined your seeking to educate ur kid or locked you up for the same, etc.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
Click to expand...


Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
Click to expand...


you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.



			
				Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> "that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"



if you think the government is allowed to prevent the education of its citizens, or bigbro their hairdos or the color of their sox because there's no specific amendment preventing it from doing so, you have totally mistaken the constitution.

obtuse, my friend, is dirt-stupid's lil' sister.


----------



## manu1959

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you think the government is allowed to prevent the education of its citizens, or bigbro their hairdos or the color of their sox because there's no specific amendment preventing it from doing so, you have totally mistaken the constitution.
> 
> obtuse, my friend, is dirt-stupid's lil' sister.
Click to expand...


the government is not required to take money from its citizens and give it to others so they can persue life liberty and happiness.....

if you want an education go get one......


----------



## KissMy

*Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*

*Freedom means the right to own Guns - But not the right to have taxpayers give you a FREE Gun!* (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)

*Freedom means the right to an Education - But not the right to have taxpayers give you a FREE Education!*

Both are your rights to pursue, acquire & have this country without government imposed restrictions, but Both need to be earned in this country & not given away freely.

The government does not take taxpayer funds & buy every toddler a gun, ammo, & shooting lessons. You can earn the privilege to join the government military where taxpayers loan you a gun & let you shoot a bunch of government ammo. People have the right to own & carry guns but must earn their own guns & ammo. Government does not just hand them out to everyone. The government does take these rights from dangerous criminals who have infringed the rights of others.

The government should not take taxpayer funds & educate people who are mentally retarded, undeserving, or disrupt class & the education of other students. Government funded education is a privilege students earn by scoring good grades & behaving well. Students scoring failing grades should not to be passed on to higher levels of education. The government should not force failing state run indoctrination upon children. Parents should be allowed to earn the privilege to choose a better than state education for their child using those same tax dollars by making sure their children score better than children in state run schools.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

manu1959 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you think the government is allowed to prevent the education of its citizens, or bigbro their hairdos or the color of their sox because there's no specific amendment preventing it from doing so, you have totally mistaken the constitution.
> 
> obtuse, my friend, is dirt-stupid's lil' sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the government is not required to take money from its citizens and give it to others so they can persue life liberty and happiness.....
> 
> if you want an education go get one......
Click to expand...

I dont mean to  be ironic 
In this case, You cant  fix stupid. 
It isdeliberately stupid,  the kind where you lie to yourself and then expect other people to go  along.


----------



## antagon

Mr.Fitnah said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rights come from  God.
> You cannot  not make  or give someone an education ,  they have to take it, they have to acquire it .
> You can lead  a liberal to knowledge,  but you  cannot make them think.
Click to expand...


i come from a different ilk, playboy.  momma gave me an education.  shoved it down my throat till i shoved it down my own.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Id say you have  an" incomplete "education.


----------



## manu1959

Mr.Fitnah said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> if you think the government is allowed to prevent the education of its citizens, or bigbro their hairdos or the color of their sox because there's no specific amendment preventing it from doing so, you have totally mistaken the constitution.
> 
> obtuse, my friend, is dirt-stupid's lil' sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the government is not required to take money from its citizens and give it to others so they can persue life liberty and happiness.....
> 
> if you want an education go get one......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont mean to  be ironic
> In this case, You cant  fix stupid.
> It isdeliberately stupid,  the kind where you lie to yourself and then expect other people to go  along.
Click to expand...


no clue what you are trying to say here......but then i went to public school....and paid my way through university.....so that may be it.....


----------



## antagon

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Id say you have  an" incomplete "education.



alas, a never-ending quest, that


----------



## manu1959

an education through high school is free and paid for by the state.....after that you are on your own......

should the state pay for university as well.....is that what you all want your "right" to an education to include.....a free ride to the university of your choice.....


----------



## antagon

manu1959 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you think the government is allowed to prevent the education of its citizens, or bigbro their hairdos or the color of their sox because there's no specific amendment preventing it from doing so, you have totally mistaken the constitution.
> 
> obtuse, my friend, is dirt-stupid's lil' sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the government is not required to take money from its citizens and give it to others so they can persue life liberty and happiness.....
> 
> if you want an education go get one......
Click to expand...


thanks for popping in 

in an earlier post i pointed out the distinction between something being a right the government is not empowered to quash and the distant stretch that it is required to provide it.

that the government isnt required to fund education is certain.  but that does not give government the right to stop anyone from educating themselves or others.  that (education) is a right we have unto ourselves as citizens.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.
Click to expand...


You still refuse to answer my question, taking refuge in an ipse dixit fallacy.

Let me ask more:
Where does the "right" of education come from?  How do you know this?  What are the parameters of that right?  Does everyone have the right to a medical education?  A legal education?  An education as a diesel mechanic?
What other rights are included that fall on society to provide?

Your answers are amusing and betray the fact that you have swallowed something hook line and sinker without ever having considered whether they are true or not.


----------



## manu1959

antagon said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> if you think the government is allowed to prevent the education of its citizens, or bigbro their hairdos or the color of their sox because there's no specific amendment preventing it from doing so, you have totally mistaken the constitution.
> 
> obtuse, my friend, is dirt-stupid's lil' sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the government is not required to take money from its citizens and give it to others so they can persue life liberty and happiness.....
> 
> if you want an education go get one......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for popping in
> 
> in an earlier post i pointed out the distinction between something being a right the government is not empowered to quash and the distant stretch that it is required to provide it.
> 
> that the government isnt required to fund education is certain.  but that does not give government the right to stop anyone from educating themselves or others.  that (education) is a right we have unto ourselves as citizens.
Click to expand...


so just so i am clear.....your aguement is that as a us citizen i have the right to go and aquire an education...the government has no obligation) to pay for it.....(even though they do until university)....and the government can not prevent me from getting this education....(however they do make me get one until university).....

if i understand you correctly....all of the above is pretty obvious....

why is it improtant to you to "prove" education is a right.....


----------



## amrchaos

(Sarcasm--Noted for those that can not appreciate it!!)

As an corporatists and elitist, I must desist!!

If we educate the ignorant masses, how can we mislead and take advantage of them?  How can we gain money if there are no fools to separate it from??

Surely this is an attempt to spread socialism!!  Who will pay for educating the people?  Not I!!  I want lots of cattle-people to herd and milk!  

In the words of a great poet:

"*Hey Teacher*
_Leave them kids alone_"​ by Pink Floyd

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4SKL7f9n58]YouTube - Pink Floyd- Another Brick in the Wall[/ame]

(of course miseducating the ignorant masses is along my line as well, just that in this case, it seems as if we are trying to remedy the problem!!  What fools the general public is.  Ha Ha.  Dumb without information!! Dumb with wrong information.  What is the difference?? Ha Ha)


----------



## antagon

..so he cuts of the quote where TJ explains rights are from the creator in the DoI.    id say rights come from god, too, or that theyre just there, a given.  this are known to individuals, something that the founders, particularly jefferson, stressed should be understood by all kids in his virginia.  

if you dont know your rights, you could get them trampled. so for you, who suffer an ambiguity that basic shit like picking up knowledge is not endowed on us by 'god', or are _natural rights_, you'd be satisfied that the government prevents you from reading, establishing schools or informing your kids about life.  tuff.


----------



## antagon

manu1959 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the government is not required to take money from its citizens and give it to others so they can persue life liberty and happiness.....
> 
> if you want an education go get one......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for popping in
> 
> in an earlier post i pointed out the distinction between something being a right the government is not empowered to quash and the distant stretch that it is required to provide it.
> 
> that the government isnt required to fund education is certain.  but that does not give government the right to stop anyone from educating themselves or others.  that (education) is a right we have unto ourselves as citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so just so i am clear.....your aguement is that as a us citizen i have the right to go and aquire an education...the government has no obligation) to pay for it.....(even though they do until university)....and the government can not prevent me from getting this education....(however they do make me get one until university).....
> 
> if i understand you correctly....all of the above is pretty obvious....
> 
> why is it improtant to you to "prove" education is a right.....
Click to expand...


i thought it was obvious, too.  that rabbi guy wasnt getting it, and he challenged me to prove it... it comes down to unenumerated rights and some kind of deficit he's got with comprehending them.


----------



## manu1959

antagon said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for popping in
> 
> in an earlier post i pointed out the distinction between something being a right the government is not empowered to quash and the distant stretch that it is required to provide it.
> 
> that the government isnt required to fund education is certain.  but that does not give government the right to stop anyone from educating themselves or others.  that (education) is a right we have unto ourselves as citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so just so i am clear.....your aguement is that as a us citizen i have the right to go and aquire an education...the government has no obligation) to pay for it.....(even though they do until university)....and the government can not prevent me from getting this education....(however they do make me get one until university).....
> 
> if i understand you correctly....all of the above is pretty obvious....
> 
> why is it improtant to you to "prove" education is a right.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i thought it was obvious, too.  that rabbi guy wasnt getting it, and he challenged me to prove it... it comes down to unenumerated rights and some kind of deficit he's got with comprehending them.
Click to expand...


i think it is more tied to word freedom than to the word right.....if i had to guess.....people want to argue it isn't a right so it doesn't become an etitlement paid for by the government....or that you then argue if education is a right paid for by the government why not health care....food...a job...tvs...booze....take your pick....


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> ..so he cuts of the quote where TJ explains rights are from the creator in the DoI.    id say rights come from god, too, or that theyre just there, a given.  this are known to individuals, something that the founders, particularly jefferson, stressed should be understood by all kids in his virginia.
> 
> if you dont know your rights, you could get them trampled. so for you, who suffer an ambiguity that basic shit like picking up knowledge is not endowed on us by 'god', or are _natural rights_, you'd be satisfied that the government prevents you from reading, establishing schools or informing your kids about life.  tuff.



So your argument is that rights come from god?  Where does god enumerate rights, like the right to vote, to bear arms, to get an education etc??  I am pretty familiar with the "Old Testament" and can recall no such passage.  Please enligthten us as to how you know what is in god's mind.
Or you posit they are "just there."  Just where?  If you want to make an analogy to physical property then I can prove rocks have mass, volume hardness etc.
So which is it?  Are rights given by god even though there is no statement anywhere in any major religion that supports this? Or are they "just there" because you say so?
You are losing coherence here btw.


----------



## rdean

Mr.Fitnah said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rights come from  God.
> You cannot  not make  or give someone an education ,  they have to take it, they have to acquire it .
> You can lead  a liberal to knowledge,  but you  cannot make them think.
Click to expand...


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following are from the New Testament:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

 Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

------------------------------------

So, did Gawd also make slavery?  Was it "His" idea?  After all, both father and son seem to approve.


----------



## NYcarbineer

antagon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that if my state denied my (hypothetical) child an education that I couldn't win in the Supreme Court, if it went that far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would be a discrimination concern unless they enjoined your seeking to educate ur kid or locked you up for the same, etc.
Click to expand...


Well, it couldn't be discrimination if they denied my kid education unless he had a right to that education.

Every kid has a right to an education in this country and about the only way a state could get around that would be to abolish their entire public school system, and we all know that no such thing is going to happen, therefore, de facto shall we say, education in the US is a right.


----------



## NYcarbineer

manu1959 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you dont understand natural, inalienable, enumerated and unenumerated rights.  its a prerequisite to comprehending the answers youve already been given.  rights of all these types are protected by the constitution.  understanding these types of rights is paramount in understanding the document or the united states.  you clearly lack a comprehension of your new land or its founding docs, despite your arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you think the government is allowed to prevent the education of its citizens, or bigbro their hairdos or the color of their sox because there's no specific amendment preventing it from doing so, you have totally mistaken the constitution.
> 
> obtuse, my friend, is dirt-stupid's lil' sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the government is not required to take money from its citizens and give it to others so they can persue life liberty and happiness.....
> 
> if you want an education go get one......
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  The defense of the nation takes lots of money from some to protect all.


----------



## manu1959

education isn't a right....it is required by law through the end of high school.......try not sending your kids to school and see what happens.....

if you want a university education you have the fredom to go and buy one.....


----------



## Contumacious

NYcarbineer said:


> Every kid has a right to an education in this country a.



If they have a right to an education then taxpayers have a responsibility to provide the same. Every time a child is born my right not be a slave evaporates.

.


----------



## manu1959

Contumacious said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every kid has a right to an education in this country a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to an education then taxpayers have a responsibility to provide the same. Every time a child is born my right not be a slave evaporates.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


the tax payers do provide....the government takes your money....creats a school and makes you send your kid to it....and kids are required by law to attend school....

a university education is a different matter....


----------



## antagon

manu1959 said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so just so i am clear.....your aguement is that as a us citizen i have the right to go and aquire an education...the government has no obligation) to pay for it.....(even though they do until university)....and the government can not prevent me from getting this education....(however they do make me get one until university).....
> 
> if i understand you correctly....all of the above is pretty obvious....
> 
> why is it improtant to you to "prove" education is a right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i thought it was obvious, too.  that rabbi guy wasnt getting it, and he challenged me to prove it... it comes down to unenumerated rights and some kind of deficit he's got with comprehending them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think it is more tied to word freedom than to the word right.....if i had to guess.....people want to argue it isn't a right so it doesn't become an etitlement paid for by the government....or that you then argue if education is a right paid for by the government why not health care....food...a job...tvs...booze....take your pick....
Click to expand...


true, but these things are protected in the constitution as' rights' (the 9th), and further by the founders. rights _empower_ freedoms.  

i mentioned the consequence of the civil rights era where protection of rights on the basis of 'all men created equal' gave rise to more nebulous connections to the same.  gay rights for an example, takes a lifestyle created by man, and elevates it to the same as one 'god' created.  not to harp on the gay thing, because i could care less, the movement pushed the science of 'born that way' to validate this.  

people need to be educated about the extent of rights like that to bear arms, such that they recognize the government isnt forced to provide guns as a virtue of a right.  democrats know that.  theyre trying to get their ignorant base aroused.  the republican/'bagger base butchers right back misusing the terms claiming basic rights dont exist.

i say back away from the constitution, and go after the politician.  all of those issues you'd mentioned are valid provisions of government; if we want to eradicate or roll them back, that'll take a helluva politician to put his/her neck on the line.  to make a minor change to our healthcare system, it requires the same.  polls show its getting wrung.


----------



## Contumacious

manu1959 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every kid has a right to an education in this country a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to an education then taxpayers have a responsibility to provide the same. Every time a child is born my right not be a slave evaporates.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the tax payers do provide....the government takes your money....creats a school and makes you send your kid to it....and kids are required by law to attend school....
> 
> a university education is a different matter....
Click to expand...


Prior to 1909 the "right" to a taxpayer financed education did not exist. 

.


----------



## antagon

Contumacious said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every kid has a right to an education in this country a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If they have a right to an education then taxpayers have a responsibility to provide the same.* Every time a child is born my right not be a slave evaporates.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

where is this mechanism established in our government?  the 'government', by the way, and 'taxpayers' are mutually exclusive.  taxation is more of a communal/authoritarian relationship than "taxpayers this, taxpayers that" implies.


----------



## manu1959

Contumacious said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to an education then taxpayers have a responsibility to provide the same. Every time a child is born my right not be a slave evaporates.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the tax payers do provide....the government takes your money....creats a school and makes you send your kid to it....and kids are required by law to attend school....
> 
> a university education is a different matter....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prior to 1909 the "right" to a taxpayer financed education did not exist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


times are a changing.......


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Seems to me this kinda sums it up...

conservative "rights" = those enumerated in the US Constitution (like you can buy your own education in the pursuit of happiness or you can vote for public schools in your state)

liberal "rights" = federal free goodies  (like nationally paid-for...& managed...education and healthcare) 

Liberals seem to think we should abandon the US Constitution in favor of the UN's enumerated "human rights" which do nothing but foster the entitlement viewpoint and are nothing more than a recipe for world socialism...


----------



## amrchaos

All kidding aside


What exactly is a right.  I think we are not using the same definition of "rights" here.  For instance, I do not think education is a right.  It is a desire to have a society with the vast majority having the ability to think for themselves and garner information as they desire.  But that is a goal by our citizenry and is reflected in our government.  It may not be desirous in other nations in which a dictatorship is in control.  And it may not be to the liken of nations in which primitive superstitions hold sway over the populace.

In my opinion, a right is an ability held by an individual that is respected by the government.  In this view, government does not protect rights but is forced by the citizenry to abide by them.  The moment the citizenry begins to allow the government to trample a right is the moment that right cease to exists. 

Notice how my explaination of what a right is is tied to how we can lose them versus the following notion: rights are granted by god.  I love to ask the following question--So when a man is convicted of a crime, does god or man take away his rights when the man becomes a prisoner? The right I am referring to is his ability to travel freely. 

( Of course I did have some one state that the "right to travel freely" is neither a human nor civil right because it was not listed in the constitution!!  Surely this is promoting our forefathers to God-status.  This is a terrible mistake even they would have shunned most quickly.  They did not have the power of foresight and constructed their idea of a republic to the best of their abilities. But please do not think these men are without flaw or that they had the ability to list every right to protect the citizenry from a potentially oppressive government.  It is up to us citizens to do the rest.  )


----------



## antagon

rdean said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights come from  God.
> You cannot  not make  or give someone an education ,  they have to take it, they have to acquire it .
> You can lead  a liberal to knowledge,  but you  cannot make them think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> The following are from the New Testament:
> 
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
> 
> Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> So, did Gawd also make slavery?  Was it "His" idea?  After all, both father and son seem to approve.
Click to expand...


folks... as i use it god or jefferson's creator are existentialist concepts.  they mean that before and above any human input, they exist.  the bible is a document written by humans... the constitution too... thus the de facto admission in the 9th.  flipping through these documents to be aprised of your rights is for dolts.  

if you guys are sincere in looking to these sources for proof of your rights you are out of touch with your humanity.

this is post-enlightenment existentialism ala JLocke and THobbes, whose ideas the founders incorporated in our charter.  put the bibles and torahs down.


----------



## The T

KissMy said:


> *Our rights in this country start with the Freedom to do anything as long as you do not infringe on another's Freedom.*


 
Replace 'Freedom' With _*Liberty.*_

*



Freedom means the right to own Guns - But not the right to have taxpayers give you a FREE Gun! (which had to be written into the constitution because it is one of the first rights a free people loose to a tyrannical government ruler. That had to be clarified in the constitution)
		
Click to expand...

* 
See *THIS post*. You aren't too far off the mark.



> *Freedom means the right to an Education - But not the right to have taxpayers give you a FREE Education!*
> 
> Both are your rights to pursue, acquire & have this country without government imposed restrictions, but Both need to be earned in this country & not given away freely.


Actually they are a natural Birthright of those BORN into citizenship. They must be _earned_ by those seeking to come here and assimilate by test of demonstrated _knowledge. _

But i understand your premise, and as to that is is one that MOST citizens ignore, and will NEVER defend until it is in _DANGER_ of being _lost._

So therefore the Founders told us we ALWAYS as citizens MUST be ever watchful, _vigilant_ for the signs of what we are about to lose. So it appears to me that too many are in the '_Rights taken for GRANTED column'_...would you not agree? It's a matter of Good _Citizenship._

As to education? It boils to _responsibility_ *IF* a family, a _society_ is to survive the ages. Therefore their 'RIGHT' is to educate their prodginy as they seem fit. (Or so it would seem)...Even wild animals TRAIN their offspring to get along/survive in their settings.

SO? What made it _Mandatory for the 'Gubmint' to lay out an edict that your children MUST attend school...and at TAXPAYER EXPENSE?_

_See _*WIKI**....* Long, and drawn out to be sure...but the bottom line? Societies do these things to ensure their Societies survive. (We could get into LAW on how this achieved, or rather _should be achieved_...but isn't for my discussion at this point and time...you have a few years to be here? I don't). So Government mandates it by LAW. Enough said. HOW has been uder debate for years with Homeschoolers, and the like...

-So- Here we are my friend...YES we have the right to TEACH our young skulls-full of mush, and the responsibility to do so IF we are to survive as a civil Society.

Your contention is _what_ shall we teach? If it were up to me? The SKILLS to make it in society...and NOT the horseshit curriculum we see now dictated by the Government, and their accomplices in the -Teachers' Unions that are more concerned with their TENURE, and Pensions than they are with really _teaching LIFE LESSONS..._and real TRUTH.



> The government does not take taxpayer funds & buy every toddler a gun, ammo, & shooting lessons.


True enough, nor should they.


> You can earn the privilege to join the government military where taxpayers loan you a gun & let you shoot a bunch of government ammo. People have the right to own & carry guns but must earn their own guns & ammo. Government does not just hand them out to everyone.


 
In other words? JOIN the Military, And defend your Republic from those that seek to take it away? I heartily endorse it, It's a real character builder. 





> The government does take these rights from dangerous criminals who have infringed the rights of others.


 
NOW we are getting to the CRUX of your arguement...And YES. That is so. Thes people have demonstrated that they cannot live in civil society, and have shown a propensity for not following the rules of Society BY infringing on the _*liberties*_ of others. THAT is why LAWS exist in the first place by the Constitution.


> The government should not take taxpayer funds & educate people who are mentally retarded, undeserving, or disrupt class & the education of other students. Government funded education is a privilege students earn by scoring good grades & behaving well.


 
So they should removed out of the normal learning enviroment, as not to disrupt others and their purpose...I'm with you so far...





> Students scoring failing grades should not to be passed on to higher levels of education.


 True. They have shown that they have not learned enough to function in the cirricculum, and therefore require further time to learn it to the satisfaction of the set standards...(Now WHOM sets the standards...is another story, and a WHOPPER of a thread...huh...?).





> The government should not force failing state run indoctrination upon children.


 If you mean FEDERAL Government? Good Point. Heck, the _*Federal DOE*_ should NOT exists at all. Things like School boards are a LOCAL affair entirely. i wonder HOW MANY School Boards, States like jumping through HOOPS to get their money back that should have NEVER been paid to the Federal Government in the first place...THIS is a CONTROL ISSUE.





> Parents should be allowed to earn the privilege to choose a better than state education for their child using those same tax dollars by making sure their children score better than children in state run schools.


 
In a word? YES. WE spend more per capita per student than alot of countries have GDP wise. Is this why we fall behind? (And continue to)?

Truth is? The Education system is broken, and too many Politicians, have lost sight of this...by their blind obedience to UNIONS that seem to run things now, all for the SAKE of the _UNION VOTE_ to remain ensconsed. (And Mind you...these *unions* were NEVER elected BY the people...so HOW for heaven's sake have THEY so much power)?

You will forgive me however for using YOUR particuliar post for what I've done here. I read what you wrote, and thought that I would expand a bit.

I tried to illustrate YOUR particuliar points by expanding on them with MY thoughts...So don't fret. *I* understood what your pont was. YOU are a Liberty loving individual that wants to be left alone. _That much is certain._

_~T_


----------



## NYcarbineer

Contumacious said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have a right to an education then taxpayers have a responsibility to provide the same. Every time a child is born my right not be a slave evaporates.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the tax payers do provide....the government takes your money....creats a school and makes you send your kid to it....and kids are required by law to attend school....
> 
> a university education is a different matter....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prior to 1909 the "right" to a taxpayer financed education did not exist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I fear that your hopes of going back to 1900 will be in vain.


----------



## The T

NYcarbineer said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tax payers do provide....the government takes your money....creats a school and makes you send your kid to it....and kids are required by law to attend school....
> 
> a university education is a different matter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to 1909 the "right" to a taxpayer financed education did not exist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fear that your hopes of going back to 1900 will be in vain.
Click to expand...

 
-So says the _Progressive_ moron.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights come from  God.
> You cannot  not make  or give someone an education ,  they have to take it, they have to acquire it .
> You can lead  a liberal to knowledge,  but you  cannot make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> The following are from the New Testament:
> 
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
> 
> Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> So, did Gawd also make slavery?  Was it "His" idea?  After all, both father and son seem to approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> folks... as i use it god or jefferson's creator are existentialist concepts.  they mean that before and above any human input, they exist.  the bible is a document written by humans... the constitution too... thus the de facto admission in the 9th.  flipping through these documents to be aprised of your rights is for dolts.
> 
> if you guys are sincere in looking to these sources for proof of your rights you are out of touch with your humanity.
> 
> this is post-enlightenment existentialism ala JLocke and THobbes, whose ideas the founders incorporated in our charter.  put the bibles and torahs down.
Click to expand...


Youa re avoiding the question.
So if the Bible does not provide information about what god wants, then what does?  How has god communicated to you (or Jefferson for that matter) the information that education is a right?


----------



## The T

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> The following are from the New Testament:
> 
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
> 
> Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> So, did Gawd also make slavery? Was it "His" idea? After all, both father and son seem to approve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> folks... as i use it god or jefferson's creator are existentialist concepts. they mean that before and above any human input, they exist. the bible is a document written by humans... the constitution too... thus the de facto admission in the 9th. flipping through these documents to be aprised of your rights is for dolts.
> 
> if you guys are sincere in looking to these sources for proof of your rights you are out of touch with your humanity.
> 
> this is post-enlightenment existentialism ala JLocke and THobbes, whose ideas the founders incorporated in our charter. put the bibles and torahs down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youa re avoiding the question.
> So if the Bible does not provide information about what god wants, then what does? How has god communicated to you (or Jefferson for that matter) the information that education is a right?
Click to expand...

 
True dat. Education is NOT a right, it's an _obligation put upon Societies if they want to survive._


----------



## Oscar Wao

Education is not a right; it is a responsibility.  Plain and simple.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
Click to expand...


Can you deny Catholics the right to establish parochial schools?


----------



## Contumacious

manu1959 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tax payers do provide....the government takes your money....creats a school and makes you send your kid to it....and kids are required by law to attend school....
> 
> a university education is a different matter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to 1909 the "right" to a taxpayer financed education did not exist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> times are a changing.......
Click to expand...


.....for the worse.

Now children spent 12 years being indoctrinated in state supremacy.

.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hopelessly over your head.  its like the three lil pigs thing, the last time you got stumped.  you simply are one of the folks to use the constitution without any understanding of it.  i quoted the ninth amendment for your review, however you insist on believing that rights have to be laid out in specifics.  maybe wherever youre from.  not in the united states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you deny Catholics the right to establish parochial schools?
Click to expand...


Nope.  Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Care4all

''Tenth Amendment''
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, *nor prohibited by it* to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, *or to the people*.


----------



## Wicked Jester

K thru 12 is a definite right.

Higher ed is ones own responsibility, or the responsibility of ones parents to provide.

What we are seeing is the progressive leftys (socialist, communist scum) attempt to dumb down this nation to their level. It used to be that students were encouraged to work hard towards those college scholarships. What the left wants is a guarantee that no matter how stupid you are, you're going to get that free ride to college. So, what we will have is untold numbers of taxpayers dollars going towards sending a bunch of unmotivated dumbasses to college who will never be able to graduate because they didn't spend the time in K thru 12 actually working hard on their educations. Oh, but then we all know the proggresive scumbags will be wailing to have them graduated, regardless of the fact that they don't deserve to be. And that's a god damn fact!

Before you know it, the progressive scumbags are going to be wailing for free healthcare and education for all family pets born in the US. 

Screw the progressives!


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is post-enlightenment existentialism ala JLocke and THobbes, whose ideas the founders incorporated in our charter.  put the bibles and torahs down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youa re avoiding the question.
> So if the Bible does not provide information about what god wants, then what does?  How has god communicated to you (or Jefferson for that matter) the information that education is a right?
Click to expand...


_We hold these truths to be self-evident_, dumbass.  its an american thing... you'll know when you get there.


----------



## G.T.

I'm a firm believer that Rights were given to us by the minds of Men, not by simply being born or a "creator." It's sad, but it's true in my eyes. 

So, it's one that I'd add to the list that I believe men made to begin with. Why? Because I feel that Education partly pertains to Security. Pen vs. Sword, and all of that.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is post-enlightenment existentialism ala JLocke and THobbes, whose ideas the founders incorporated in our charter.  put the bibles and torahs down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youa re avoiding the question.
> So if the Bible does not provide information about what god wants, then what does?  How has god communicated to you (or Jefferson for that matter) the information that education is a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident_, dumbass.  its an american thing... you'll know when you get there.
Click to expand...


OK, so an ipse dixit fallacy is the best you can do here.  It must be "self evident".
Hey, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. It's mine, I assure you.  It's self evident.

What a 'tard.


----------



## editec

EDUCATION isn't a right...its a responsibility though.

Each generation is RESPONSIBLE for teaching the next.

This debate couldn't exist if we could agree on the meaning of the world "Right".

Sadly we cannot.

Some of you think rights are something that comes from GOD.

Some of us think that rights are something that exist only as a manifestation of society.

Do any of us have *the right* to exist?

Perhaps...but is that right unalienable?

Of course not.

Anyone of us can deny anyone every RIGHT most of us think we have.

*Dead people have no rights.*


----------



## G.T.

editec said:


> EDUCATION isn't a right...its a responsibility though.
> 
> Each generation is RESPONSIBLE for teaching the next.
> 
> This debate couldn't exist if we could agree on the meaning of the world "Right".
> 
> Sadly we cannot.
> 
> Some of you think rights are something that comes from GOD.
> 
> Some of us think that rights are something that exist only as a manifestation of society.
> 
> Do any of us have *the right* to exist?
> 
> Perhaps...but is that right unalienable?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Anyone of us can deny anyone every RIGHT most of us think we have.
> 
> *Dead people have no rights.*




Basically what I meant by my post. Rights (per our Documents) given by a creator? Because "Men" said so?.....doesn't fly with me.


----------



## midcan5

"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way -- by rote, or something.  Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman


In logic the original question is a type three error, it is the wrong question. Education is too important to ask the question so that the wingnuts for freedom (whatever that is) turn it down based on a Pavlovian thought process that somehow tells them anything 'free' is bad. 'Free' of course entails other costs which they abhor. Greed and selfishness have never left the human soul.

Education is an essential ingredient for a civilized society and education should be liberal, tolerant, broad based, historical and rational. At the early stages it should be rudimentary reading writing and arithmetic. Later it should cover reality as it is and not how some want it to be. There is the crux of the problem. My view is idealistic, but since we still kill and hate each other so easily we need idealism.



"The new conflict is between liberal universalism and a communitarianism which asserts the need for cultures to maintain their own values and traditions. Is the latter just a temporary brake on the former, or will the universalist dream die? One of the tasks of politics is to work out which values are universal and which are not."  Julian Baggini


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say when you can't answer the question.
> Once again: I know there is a right to keep and bear arms because the 2A says so.  How do you know there is a right to education?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you deny Catholics the right to establish parochial schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...


Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right. 

As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay, 

the answer is also YES.  If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.


----------



## NYcarbineer

G.T. said:


> I'm a firm believer that Rights were given to us by the minds of Men, not by simply being born or a "creator." It's sad, but it's true in my eyes.
> 
> So, it's one that I'd add to the list that I believe men made to begin with. Why? Because I feel that Education partly pertains to Security. Pen vs. Sword, and all of that.



Saying that God gives us our rights is like saying God gives us our food.  You will get very hungry waiting at your front door for God to show up with the groceries.


----------



## Murf76

Contumacious said:


> Now children spent 12 years being indoctrinated in state supremacy.



And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you deny Catholics the right to establish parochial schools?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right.
> 
> As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay,
> 
> the answer is also YES.  If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.
Click to expand...


No, education is not a right.  Free exercise of religion is a right. In this case the education is merely ancillary to the exercise of religious rights.
Logic fail on your part.
An American child can be denied a public education if the proper legislation were passed.
I will point out that presently a very large percentage of American children are denied educations by being forced to go to local public schools.
In any case, your example is flawed.  By analogy, emergency room treatment is a right because no one can be denied treatment.  The fact thtat legally this is now the case does not argue for or against emergency room treatment being a right.  A change in the law and this "right" would cease to exist.
That is not the case with other rights.  If the city of Boston passed a law against printing the Boston Herald it would not stand up to court scrutiny because of hte 1st amendment.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right.
> 
> As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay,
> 
> the answer is also YES.  If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, education is not a right.  Free exercise of religion is a right. In this case the education is merely ancillary to the exercise of religious rights.
> Logic fail on your part.
> An American child can be denied a public education if the proper legislation were passed.
> I will point out that presently a very large percentage of American children are denied educations by being forced to go to local public schools.
> In any case, your example is flawed.  By analogy, emergency room treatment is a right because no one can be denied treatment.  The fact thtat legally this is now the case does not argue for or against emergency room treatment being a right.  A change in the law and this "right" would cease to exist.
> That is not the case with other rights.  If the city of Boston passed a law against printing the Boston Herald it would not stand up to court scrutiny because of hte 1st amendment.
Click to expand...


By your logic no rights exist because any could be changed by legislation.  The 2nd Amendment could be repealed, therefore there is no right to bear arms.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now children spent 12 years being indoctrinated in state supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.
Click to expand...


A gun is a commodity.  Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youa re avoiding the question.
> So if the Bible does not provide information about what god wants, then what does?  How has god communicated to you (or Jefferson for that matter) the information that education is a right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident_, dumbass.  its an american thing... you'll know when you get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so an ipse dixit fallacy is the best you can do here.  It must be "self evident".
> Hey, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. It's mine, I assure you.  It's self evident.
> 
> What a 'tard.
Click to expand...


while you assume it is retarded that rights exist through assertion, it is the basis of our government and many of the others which have patterned themselves after it.  that you feel rights could be endowed by a piece of paper, be it a torah or the constitution is retarded.  the constitution is a government charter and about the rights _government_ has or defers to its constituent states and citizens.  in that sense, i operate my on constitution where i feel i could pursue an education.  its worked out for me beyond my capacity to make use of it.  for you, its clearly still debatable whether you should learn anything or not.


----------



## NYcarbineer

In the original Constitution, women did not have the right to vote.  Did that right thus not exist, until it was added to the Constitution, or was it always a right that our government, via the will of the people, had simply neglected to enforce?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

NYcarbineer said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now children spent 12 years being indoctrinated in state supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun is a commodity.  Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?
Click to expand...


Wrong.  A gun is NOT a commodity.  It's a tool....and the right of citizens to bear arms here in America is guaranteed by the Constitution.

You need to learn the definition of words before you shoot your mouth off.


----------



## Murf76

I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.  

If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power.  The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.


----------



## antagon

NYcarbineer said:


> In the original Constitution, women did not have the right to vote.  Did that right thus not exist, until it was added to the Constitution, or was it always a right that our government, via the will of the people, had simply neglected to enforce?



no.  voting is not a natural right.  it is a type of participation in government. id say that right existed since it was added to the constitution.  

natural rights are conceded in the constitution, and the government thus subordinates itself to them.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.
> 
> If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power.  The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.





You think Nature granted the right to life? What of the food chain then,  . A gazelle was not granted an inalienable right to life when a Lion bites its neck, huh? Or are you saying Nature was partial to men? Before civilized society, "Nature" did not have men respecting life. It was the other way around, MEN became smarter, not "Nature" or "God." 

Sounds nice, but reality seems quite opposite. To knock people for having a different perspective is the antithesis of progress, tbh.


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> A gun is a commodity.  Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?




Phillip's right.  It's a tool, a weapon.  And sure, they can be bought and sold.  But you can also make your own if you have the talent to do so.  We are human animals.  And because we're capable of defending ourselves, capable of making tools which aid in that endeavor, we have a right to do so.  

Self-defense is not an imposition upon any other American's citizen rights.  It doesn't require the labor or property of another to accomplish.  It takes nothing away from anyone but from the person (or persons) who attempt first to take something away from us.


----------



## Murf76

G.T. said:


> You think Nature granted the right to life? What of the food chain then,  . A gazelle was not granted an inalienable right to life when a Lion bites its neck, huh? Or are you saying Nature was partial to men? Before civilized society, "Nature" did not have men respecting life. It was the other way around, MEN became smarter, not "Nature" or "God."
> 
> Sounds nice, but reality seems quite opposite. To knock people for having a different perspective is the antithesis of progress, tbh.



Read a book, man.  Seriously.  Have you never heard of the philosophy of "Natural Law"?

I am Human... therefore I have a right to be Human.  Lions have a right to be Lions, therefore... they have a right to bite any gazelle through the neck that they can catch.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> Read a book, man.  Seriously.  Have you never heard of the philosophy of "Natural Law"?
> 
> I am Human... therefore I have a right to be Human.  Lions have a right to be Lions, therefore... they have a right to bite any gazelle through the neck that they can catch.



That doesn't even make any sense. You have a right to be human? Ok, humans were cannibals, murderers, predators, rapists.....all by NATURE. It was *societal* LAWS that changed this, not Natural ones. Natural LAW is the food chain. If my family is starving, and I'm bigger and badder than you, I take you or your food. And your wives, too, while I'm at it. THAT'S Nature. What you speak of is MAN's becoming CIVILIZED.


----------



## antagon

natural law already has an understood definition GT.  youre making a symantic argument?


----------



## G.T.

antagon said:


> natural law already has an understood definition GT.  youre making a symantic argument?



I'm disagreeing with its understood definition.


----------



## Murf76

G.T. said:


> That doesn't even make any sense. You have a right to be human? Ok, humans were cannibals, murderers, predators, rapists.....all by NATURE. It was *societal* LAWS that changed this, not Natural ones. Natural LAW is the food chain. If my family is starving, and I'm bigger and badder than you, I take you or your food. And your wives, too, while I'm at it. THAT'S Nature. What you speak of is MAN's becoming CIVILIZED.



Clearly, you didn't take the time to google or to think your post through before you made it. 

It's _because_ we are Human that we are capable of Civilization.  We can engage in a more detailed thought process, rise above the Barbarian, and understand that Peace is only possible when we refrain from imposing upon the rights of others.

Natural Rights are about being a Human Animal.  They're about what we can provide for ourselves by virtue of our humanity.  We can make a tool and defend our possession of it... therefore, no one has a right to take it from us.  If they try, they are impeding our right to our own property and causing a situation in which conflict will naturally arise.


----------



## G.T.

I mean, even the Legal definition is flawed. Take a look: _a body of law or a specific principle of law that is held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law _

If it were derived from Nature, it would be Survival of the Fittest. It is not, it's derived from a species becoming Sentient and Civilized.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make any sense. You have a right to be human? Ok, humans were cannibals, murderers, predators, rapists.....all by NATURE. It was *societal* LAWS that changed this, not Natural ones. Natural LAW is the food chain. If my family is starving, and I'm bigger and badder than you, I take you or your food. And your wives, too, while I'm at it. THAT'S Nature. What you speak of is MAN's becoming CIVILIZED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you didn't take the time to google or to think your post through before you made it.
> 
> It's _because_ we are Human that we are capable of Civilization.  We can engage in a more detailed thought process, rise above the Barbarian, and understand that Peace is only possible when we refrain from imposing upon the rights of others.
> 
> Natural Rights are about being a Human Animal.  They're about what we can provide for ourselves by virtue of our humanity.  We can make a tool and defend our possession of it... therefore, no one has a right to take it from us.  If they try, they are impeding our right to our own property and causing a situation in which conflict will naturally arise.
Click to expand...


Spare me the gradeschool tactics. 

But no, Humans WERE Barbarians. Did you forget? In becoming Civilized, we assigned a list of inalienable rights. They were not assumed by Nature.


----------



## antagon

G.T. said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural law already has an understood definition GT.  youre making a symantic argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disagreeing with its understood definition.
Click to expand...


that would make it a question of symantics: that you feel the words used to describe the concept arent fitting.  notwithstanding, there is a concept named natural law which addresses humans independent from your lion and gazelle.

if you feel we should behave like lions and impalas because that's natural, that's a different story.


----------



## G.T.

antagon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural law already has an understood definition GT.  youre making a symantic argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disagreeing with its understood definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would make it a question of symantics: that you feel the words used to describe the concept arent fitting.  notwithstanding, there is a concept named natural law which addresses humans independent from your lion and gazelle.
> 
> if you feel we should behave like lions and impalas because that's natural, that's a different story.
Click to expand...



I think we should behave like Civilized Sentient beings, but "Civilized" is not Natural its' Altruist, and it's basic goal is coexistence. Our ability to reason got us to these underlying Rights, not Nature or God.  Which, btw, are rights that I agree with. No I don't want to behave like a Lion.


----------



## manifold

The question is too vague to simply answer yes or no.

Despite the eloquence of Thomas Jefferson and all his talk of *inalienable* and *creator* yadda yadda, WE ultimately decide collectively what is and what is not a "right."  And anyone paying attention knows that it's a constantly moving target. So if you're asking me IS education a right, I must assume you're asking if the status quo treats it as one.  By and large the answer to that is yes.  If you're asking me SHOULD education be a right I'd say to a point, yes.  I believe we are all better off if we treat the basics of education as an irrevocable right of the individual.  But when I say basic, I truly mean basic, as in, how to read, how to write and how to add & subtract.  After that, the only education right that should exist is the right to make the personal trade-offs and sacrifices necessary to embark upon one's chosen academic pursuits.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.
> 
> If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power.  The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.




The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them.  So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PatekPhilippe said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even after 12 years... they still don't manage to learn the difference between an "unalienable right" and a fucking commodity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gun is a commodity.  Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  A gun is NOT a commodity.  It's a tool....and the right of citizens to bear arms here in America is guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> You need to learn the definition of words before you shoot your mouth off.
Click to expand...


An education is not a tool?  

Btw, there's no reason something cannot be a commodity AND a tool.  

And because the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, that's what makes it a right?  Because it was arbitrarily determined to be a right by MEN?  I thought rights came from GOD?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A gun is a commodity.  Is the right to own one an 'unalienable right'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phillip's right.  It's a tool, a weapon.  And sure, they can be bought and sold.  But you can also make your own if you have the talent to do so.  We are human animals.  And because we're capable of defending ourselves, capable of making tools which aid in that endeavor, we have a right to do so.
> 
> Self-defense is not an imposition upon any other American's citizen rights.  It doesn't require the labor or property of another to accomplish.  It takes nothing away from anyone but from the person (or persons) who attempt first to take something away from us.
Click to expand...


The Constitution establishes that we collectively defend ourselves and yes that does take from some to defend all.

If you believe the NATION has a right to defend itself, then you believe that right can be justifiably accomplished by taking from others, including drafting citizens into the military and requiring them under threat of imprisonment 

to fight and even die for their country.

Anyone who says that a right cannot take from others is daft.


----------



## Murf76

G.T. said:


> Spare me the gradeschool tactics.
> 
> But no, Humans WERE Barbarians. Did you forget? In becoming Civilized, we assigned a list of inalienable rights. They were not assumed by Nature.



And as I posted earlier... you, and others like you, view "unalienable rights" as arbitrarily assigned, which means you, and others like you, cannot be trusted to keep them sacrosanct.  That which can be given, can be taken away.  But that which exists naturally..continues to exist.

In your arrogance, you think you're smarter than our founders.  You think you can reinvent the wheel.  But they UNDERSTOOD things which your partisanship blinds you to seeing.  These were men who lived close to the ground.  They were studied in history and philosophy.  They weren't distracted by baseball games and reality TV.  

Our U.S. Constitution was written based, not on the issues of the day, but upon Human Nature.  We are not fundamentally different, despite our technology, than our colonial ancestors were.  We have the same concerns about survival, the same array of emotional response, etc.

The idea that YOUR baseless opinion could outweigh that of Benjamin Franklin's, James Madison's, or Thomas Jefferson's is laughable.   These were thoughtful, studied men,  whose planning and forethought have provided us with the best standard of living in the world.   And it is thanks to them, that you are free to bore us with your insipid rantings.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which thus means that in that sense education is a right just as free speech is a right.
> 
> As to what appears to be the other question, which is, is it an American child's right to receive an education, regardless of the ability to pay,
> 
> the answer is also YES.  If you say no, please list the circumstances under which an American child can be denied a public education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, education is not a right.  Free exercise of religion is a right. In this case the education is merely ancillary to the exercise of religious rights.
> Logic fail on your part.
> An American child can be denied a public education if the proper legislation were passed.
> I will point out that presently a very large percentage of American children are denied educations by being forced to go to local public schools.
> In any case, your example is flawed.  By analogy, emergency room treatment is a right because no one can be denied treatment.  The fact thtat legally this is now the case does not argue for or against emergency room treatment being a right.  A change in the law and this "right" would cease to exist.
> That is not the case with other rights.  If the city of Boston passed a law against printing the Boston Herald it would not stand up to court scrutiny because of hte 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your logic no rights exist because any could be changed by legislation.  The 2nd Amendment could be repealed, therefore there is no right to bear arms.
Click to expand...


Aha! Now you get it!


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the gradeschool tactics.
> 
> But no, Humans WERE Barbarians. Did you forget? In becoming Civilized, we assigned a list of inalienable rights. They were not assumed by Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as I posted earlier... you, and others like you, view "unalienable rights" as arbitrarily assigned, which means you, and others like you, cannot be trusted to keep them sacrosanct.  That which can be given, can be taken away.  But that which exists naturally..continues to exist.
> 
> In your arrogance, you think you're smarter than our founders.  You think you can reinvent the wheel.  But they UNDERSTOOD things which your partisanship blinds you to seeing.  These were men who lived close to the ground.  They were studied in history and philosophy.  They weren't distracted by baseball games and reality TV.
> 
> Our U.S. Constitution was written based, not on the issues of the day, but upon Human Nature.  We are not fundamentally different, despite our technology, than our colonial ancestors were.  We have the same concerns about survival, the same array of emotional response, etc.
> 
> The idea that YOUR baseless opinion could outweigh that of Benjamin Franklin's, James Madison's, or Thomas Jefferson's is laughable.   *These were thoughtful, studied men,  whose planning and forethought have provided us with the best standard of living* in the world.   And it is thanks to them, that you are free to bore us with your insipid rantings.
Click to expand...


Right, the minds of men provided these ideas through observation and called them Natural, I disagree with their findings of the "source" but agree that these rights should exist in a Civilized Society. 

I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with, I'd simply add a couple. But no, they didn't exist Naturally we simply disagree here. If they existed Naturally, we wouldn't need Laws protecting them, afterall, because _Nature_ provides them and not Man-Power, eh? NO. 

We disagree where they came from. Evidence is on my side, all I need to do is point to pre civilized man.


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them.  So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.



The same people who guaranteed our unalienable rights, made a constitution which allowed for the eventual resolution of a moral wrong that was already identified as such.

Did they kick the can down the road?  Yup.  They did.  And we paid for that mistake in blood.  But... we didn't have to invalidate the entire U.S. Constitution to correct it, did we?  All we had to do was add an amendment.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident_, dumbass.  its an american thing... you'll know when you get there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so an ipse dixit fallacy is the best you can do here.  It must be "self evident".
> Hey, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. It's mine, I assure you.  It's self evident.
> 
> What a 'tard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while you assume it is retarded that rights exist through assertion, it is the basis of our government and many of the others which have patterned themselves after it.  that you feel rights could be endowed by a piece of paper, be it a torah or the constitution is retarded.  the constitution is a government charter and about the rights _government_ has or defers to its constituent states and citizens.  in that sense, i operate my on constitution where i feel i could pursue an education.  its worked out for me beyond my capacity to make use of it.  for you, its clearly still debatable whether you should learn anything or not.
Click to expand...


It is amusing that you question my education when you cannot write a coherent sentence or reason logically.  I've read the last three sentences of your post and still can't make any sense out of them.
In any case, while the Founders gave lip service to the idea of natural rights, in fact rights are only granted by society as a whole and enshrined in legislation and court decisions.  Rights are a function of society, not bestowed by the Fairy Godmother or Sky Demon or anything else.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> The same *people who guaranteed *our unalienable rights, made a *constitution which allowed *for the eventual resolution of a moral wrong that was already identified as such.
> 
> Did they kick the can down the road?  Yup.  They did.  And we paid for that mistake in blood.  But... we didn't have to invalidate the entire U.S. Constitution to correct it, did we?  All we had to do was add an amendment.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.
> 
> If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power.  The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them.  So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.
Click to expand...


Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so an ipse dixit fallacy is the best you can do here.  It must be "self evident".
> Hey, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. It's mine, I assure you.  It's self evident.
> 
> What a 'tard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while you assume it is retarded that rights exist through assertion, it is the basis of our government and many of the others which have patterned themselves after it.  that you feel rights could be endowed by a piece of paper, be it a torah or the constitution is retarded.  the constitution is a government charter and about the rights _government_ has or defers to its constituent states and citizens.  in that sense, i operate my on constitution where i feel i could pursue an education.  its worked out for me beyond my capacity to make use of it.  for you, its clearly still debatable whether you should learn anything or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amusing that you question my education when you cannot write a coherent sentence or reason logically.  I've read the last three sentences of your post and still can't make any sense out of them.
> In any case, *while the Founders gave lip service to the idea of natural rights, in fact rights are only granted by society as a whole and enshrined in legislation and court decisions.  Rights are a function of society, not bestowed by the Fairy Godmother or Sky Demon or anything else*.
Click to expand...



So you disagree with Murf, also.


----------



## The Rabbi

I dont know.  I dont know what Murf's position is.  He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong.  But I can't tell.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> I dont know.  I dont know what Murf's position is.  He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong.  But I can't tell.



His position is that he agrees with the Founders that the Rights were granted by Nature.


----------



## manifold

For the logically challenged:

If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> The Constitution establishes that we collectively defend ourselves and yes that does take from some to defend all.
> 
> If you believe the NATION has a right to defend itself, then you believe that right can be justifiably accomplished by taking from others, including drafting citizens into the military and requiring them under threat of imprisonment
> 
> to fight and even die for their country.
> 
> Anyone who says that a right cannot take from others is daft.



The Constitution doesn't mention the words, "draft" or "conscription".  It simply says that Congress may "raise and support Armies" and that the funding must be revisited every two years.

The traditional interpretation has supported citizen conscription... but this was never specified.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution establishes that we collectively defend ourselves and yes that does take from some to defend all.
> 
> If you believe the NATION has a right to defend itself, then you believe that right can be justifiably accomplished by taking from others, including drafting citizens into the military and requiring them under threat of imprisonment
> 
> to fight and even die for their country.
> 
> Anyone who says that a right cannot take from others is daft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't mention the words, "draft" or "conscription".  It simply says that Congress may "raise and support Armies" and that the funding must be revisited every two years.
> 
> The traditional interpretation has supported citizen conscription... but this was never specified.
Click to expand...


If you believe the draft is/was unconstitutional, say so.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope everyone reading along understands that the people we see verbalizing their contempt and disbelief in "unalienable rights" are just a sampling of a larger ideology.
> 
> If we want to preserve our national heritage of respect for that which God (or nature) has bestowed upon mankind... leftists cannot be trusted in power.  The notion that our "rights" can be arbitrarily assigned, means that they can just as easily be arbitrarily withdrawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them.  So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?
Click to expand...


Are you being obtuse for any specific reason?  Slavery and women's suffrage.


----------



## Murf76

manifold said:


> For the logically challenged:
> 
> If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.



Sure.  Any right can be taken away, unalienable or no.  But when they are... that's how you know you're living in TYRANNY.



Oh... and btw.  when your avatar is an ass, no matter how pretty... one is left to assume it's representative.


----------



## antagon

G.T. said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the gradeschool tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> *These were thoughtful, studied men*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.
Click to expand...


the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them.  natural in the sense that gravity is natural.  we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact.  the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them.  So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being obtuse for any specific reason?  Slavery and women's suffrage.
Click to expand...


Are you actually this stupid?  Where is slavery limited to black people?


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *These were thoughtful, studied men*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them.  natural in the sense that gravity is natural.  we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact.  the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.
Click to expand...


Roughly 3000 years of human history tends to disprove this nicety.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know.  I dont know what Murf's position is.  He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong.  But I can't tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that he agrees with the Founders that the Rights were granted by Nature.
Click to expand...


Then, yes I disagree with him.


----------



## G.T.

antagon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *These were thoughtful, studied men*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them.  natural in the sense that gravity is natural.  we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact.  the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.
Click to expand...


I think Sentient man decided what those Rights were, and so I simply disagree where they "came from" thus disagree with those same Men's Premise. That's all, and my position is quite simple and not disprovable. If so, do so logically. Let's see it. Don't forget that just because someone said so, doesn't make it so "in Nature" or otherwise.


----------



## beowolfe

Paulie said:


> Jurginvoncelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of education being a right, can not be a fact.
> It is a law, none the less, that you must ATTEND (if under a certain age).
> No one can force you to become educated. Public schooling is paid for with public taxes, so one could argue that taxation without appropriation would be the only thing at play in this sandbox. (that common good stuff is Communism).
> 
> The path to our future depends upon our children. Whether we decide to give them proper education for the new needs of the global economy remains to be seen. If they don&#8217;t finish high school then what about collage? No new Dr&#8217;s, chemists, engineers, architects, etc. These all have to be imported because we produce none.
> 
> No it&#8217;s not an inalienable right but the failure of our children, is the failure of our nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grammar and syntax errors in this post are quite ironic in the face of its intended purpose.
Click to expand...



Not just grammar and syntax.  Check this out:



> *taxation without appropriation*




He has a vocabulary problem too.


----------



## beowolfe

Bezukhov said:


> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.



True.  But in this case, the obligation is on the government.


----------



## Murf76

The Rabbi said:


> I dont know.  I dont know what Murf's position is.  He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong.  But I can't tell.



Okay.  Let me see if I can clarify a bit....

Healthcare and education are NOT unalienable rights.  They are not endowed upon us by God (or by Nature if you have no God).  They are not things we were born with.  We're human animals, so we can speak our opinion... therefore, we have a natural right to do so.

When unalienable rights are observed, and no one impedes upon the rights of other citizens... we can enjoy a peaceful, civilized way of life.  This would be our natural state of grace (or being), when it is strictly adhered to.

The "human rights" argument is simply a transparent globalization effort which installs government as an enforcer of wealth redistribution.  Government is FORCE.  Redistribution is FORCE.  It cannot result in peace, because it does not respect the unalienable rights of our humanity.  It TAKES from us our labor or property.

The Bill of Rights does NOT endow us with rights.  It simply guarantees that government will not impose upon our naturally existing rights as human beings.

It IS possible to do that... to impede these rights as a matter of tyranny.  But it doesn't cause them not to exist, and it is a perversion of our Constitution to do so.

Healthcare and Education are laudable goals... but they are NOT rights.  Each requires the labor and money (property) of other citizens.  These are not something which we can fully acquire on our own.  That said, the government does NOT have the right to stop us from acquiring it.  And they do.  In fact, they'll do even more of it if we don't step up to the plate and put the statists out of power.

An _arbitrary_ "right", endowed by men... can just as easily be taken away, by men.  An unalienable right is NOT an imposition upon others.  It simply exists.  And when it is impeded, the result is disharmony.

The fact that we have traditionally allowed certain impositions, like federally-funded healthcare or state-funded education, does not mean that they aren't in opposition with our natural rights.  It simply means that we have been societally tolerant of them on the whole.  But, on the other hand... look at the conflict they do in fact cause, because they are NOT the exception to the rule.  They redistribute labor and property from one citizen to another and in so doing cause disharmony because the process is involuntary.


----------



## Murf76

beowolfe said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But in this case, the obligation is on the government.
Click to expand...


The government has no separate wealth of its own.  It conscripts wealth from citizens.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being obtuse for any specific reason?  Slavery and women's suffrage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually this stupid?  Where is slavery limited to black people?
Click to expand...


In pre-emancipation America.  The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America.  The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,

but not if you're black.

And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.

In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.


----------



## manifold

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being obtuse for any specific reason?  Slavery and women's suffrage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually this stupid?  Where is slavery limited to black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In pre-emancipation America.  The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America.  The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,
> 
> but not if you're black.
> 
> And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.
> 
> In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.
Click to expand...



Still though, it sure was one helluva damn good sales pitch.

People are still buying it today!


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.



That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.

If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided.  What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it.   Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand.  Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career.  We can't pay enough.   We can't import enough.  What then??? 

Yeah.  It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that.  But in exploring it  out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications.   In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know.  I dont know what Murf's position is.  He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong.  But I can't tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Let me see if I can clarify a bit....
> 
> Healthcare and education are NOT unalienable rights.  They are not endowed upon us by God (or by Nature if you have no God).  They are not things we were born with.  We're human animals, so we can speak our opinion... therefore, we have a natural right to do so.
> 
> When unalienable rights are observed, and no one impedes upon the rights of other citizens... we can enjoy a peaceful, civilized way of life.  This would be our natural state of grace (or being), when it is strictly adhered to.
> 
> The "human rights" argument is simply a transparent globalization effort which installs government as an enforcer of wealth redistribution.  Government is FORCE.  Redistribution is FORCE.  It cannot result in peace, because it does not respect the unalienable rights of our humanity.  It TAKES from us our labor or property.
> 
> The Bill of Rights does NOT endow us with rights.  It simply guarantees that government will not impose upon our naturally existing rights as human beings.
> 
> It IS possible to do that... to impede these rights as a matter of tyranny.  But it doesn't cause them not to exist, and it is a perversion of our Constitution to do so.
> 
> Healthcare and Education are laudable goals... but they are NOT rights.  Each requires the labor and money (property) of other citizens.  These are not something which we can fully acquire on our own.  That said, the government does NOT have the right to stop us from acquiring it.  And they do.  In fact, they'll do even more of it if we don't step up to the plate and put the statists out of power.
> 
> An _arbitrary_ "right", endowed by men... can just as easily be taken away, by men.  An unalienable right is NOT an imposition upon others.  It simply exists.  And when it is impeded, the result is disharmony.
> 
> The fact that we have traditionally allowed certain impositions, like federally-funded healthcare or state-funded education, does not mean that they aren't in opposition with our natural rights.  It simply means that we have been societally tolerant of them on the whole.  But, on the other hand... look at the conflict they do in fact cause, because they are NOT the exception to the rule.  They redistribute labor and property from one citizen to another and in so doing cause disharmony because the process is involuntary.
Click to expand...


Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.


----------



## Murf76

G.T. said:


> Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.



I only said that human beings are _capable_ of a detailed thought process.  I didn't say they all engage in it.  Clearly... some don't.


----------



## NYcarbineer

manifold said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually this stupid?  Where is slavery limited to black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In pre-emancipation America.  The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America.  The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,
> 
> but not if you're black.
> 
> And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.
> 
> In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still though, it sure was one helluva damn good sales pitch.
> 
> People are still buying it today!
Click to expand...


The founders were merely trying to attach some veneer of profondity and grandiosity to their selfish desires to justify treason.


----------



## NYcarbineer

As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.

Would that be an unalienable right?  A natural right?  A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?

eh??


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.
> 
> Would that be an unalienable right?  A natural right?  A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?
> 
> eh??



So?  Emigrate to Iraq then.  They can put whatever they want in _their_ Constitution.  It's _their_ country.   Drop  us a postcard when you get there, why don't you?  I'm sure we'll all be waiting on tenterhooks to see how you've adjusted to your new country.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only said that human beings are _capable_ of a detailed thought process.  I didn't say they all engage in it.  Clearly... some don't.
Click to expand...


Yes, clearly. One believes in something with no evidence, one follows thought and observation.


----------



## antagon

G.T. said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them.  natural in the sense that gravity is natural.  we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact.  the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Sentient man decided what those Rights were, and so I simply disagree where they "came from" thus disagree with those same Men's Premise. That's all, and my position is quite simple and not disprovable. If so, do so logically. Let's see it. Don't forget that just because someone said so, doesn't make it so "in Nature" or otherwise.
Click to expand...


that's fine how you want to see things, however, enlightenment thinking put forth the idea that there are rights which needn't be enumerated, and exist with or without this human edict you refer to.  

rabbi and yourself feel that violations of rights _prove_ that rights dont exist, ie. not granted the victim by the violator, however, that they could be recognized as violations of rights by a third party (or any of the original players)_proves_ that they _do_ exist, notwithstanding the violation.  thats all thats required for a concept like rights to exist: recognition.

if you mean that only sentient man can appreciate or recognize these among most other concepts, then we're pulling on the same end of the rope, but if you think concepts come in and out of existence depending on what sentient men do or say, than youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.


----------



## Murf76

G.T. said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only said that human beings are _capable_ of a detailed thought process.  I didn't say they all engage in it.  Clearly... some don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, clearly. One believes in something with no evidence, one follows thought and observation.
Click to expand...


And what is your "evidence" that Education is a "right"?  

See, the problem is... that you've come out on the wrong side of your own equation.  Natural Law is a centuries-old philosophy.  Robbing citizens of their labor or property just because you want to... is still just robbery.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being obtuse for any specific reason?  Slavery and women's suffrage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually this stupid?  Where is slavery limited to black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In pre-emancipation America.  The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America.  The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,
> 
> but not if you're black.
> 
> And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.
> 
> In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.
Click to expand...


Actually they did.
Please post any evidence that Blacks did not have inalienable rights as whites did.


----------



## antagon

manifold said:


> For the logically challenged:
> 
> If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.



you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans.  rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless _without_ defense.

you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the logically challenged:
> 
> If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans.  rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless _without_ defense.
> 
> you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.
Click to expand...


So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?


----------



## antagon

NYcarbineer said:


> As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.
> 
> Would that be an unalienable right?  A natural right?  A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?
> 
> eh??



you said it yourself: an enumerated right in the iraqi constitution.

caring for your health and that of others is an unalienable right.

getting institutionalized healthcare for free is, perhaps, one of the constitutional rights iraqis now sport.

i would have thought access to electricity and running water would be higher priorities, but, hey, thats iraq.

seeking and sharing knowledge is an unalienable right.

getting institutionalized education for free is a state-funded _benefit_ for 90-some% of americans.


----------



## manifold

antagon said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the logically challenged:
> 
> If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans.  rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless _without_ defense.
> 
> you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.
Click to expand...


The fact that ideas do not enforce themselves is my point.

Glad you managed to figure it out, even if you went about it ass backwards.


----------



## G.T.

antagon said:


> that's fine how you want to see things, however, *enlightenment thinking put forth the idea that there are rights which needn't be enumerated, and exist with or without this human edict you refer to.  *
> rabbi and yourself feel that violations of rights _prove_ that rights dont exist, ie. not granted the victim by the violator, however, that they could be recognized as violations of rights by a third party (or any of the original players)_proves_ that they _do_ exist, notwithstanding the violation.  thats all thats required for a concept like rights to exist: recognition.
> 
> if you mean that only sentient man can appreciate or recognize these among most other concepts, then we're pulling on the same end of the rope, but if you think concepts come in and out of existence depending on what sentient men do or say, than youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.



And I disagree with them, based on logic and observation. The rights do need to be enumerated and there's nothing that exists in Nature or reality that suggests otherwise.


----------



## Murf76

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the logically challenged:
> 
> If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans.  rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless _without_ defense.
> 
> you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?
Click to expand...


This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi. 
  Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free?  Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people? 

If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.

Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country.  It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction.  It's _because_ this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery.  It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence.  People are discontent in a state of bondage.  They will struggle for freedom.  Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a _natural_ consequence of bondage.

Sure.  The founders kicked the can down the road.   And that was a mistake.  They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood.  But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter.  And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people.  It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the logically challenged:
> 
> If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans.  rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless _without_ defense.
> 
> you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?
Click to expand...


rights are always abstract, arent they?  rather useless was the 'admission'.  

like other concepts, they can have pervasive effect, but require practice and defense.  whats the right to bear arms if you dont have a collection? not _useless_, because you can always start a collection, but _rather useless_ because you havent.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi.
> Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free?  Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people?
> 
> If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.
> 
> Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country.  It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction.  It's _because_ this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery.  It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence.  People are discontent in a state of bondage.  They will struggle for freedom.  Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a _natural_ consequence of bondage.
> 
> Sure.  The founders kicked the can down the road.   And that was a mistake.  They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood.  But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter.  And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people.  It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.



Believing people should be free ............ matter of fact, believing that our society should guarantee ALL of these said unalienable rights, does *not* mean that they came from Nature or God. 

Do I believe Humans should be free? Sure (although "tru" freedom cannot exist). 

Does nature believe this? Hell to the mother fuck no, it doesn't. Nature is survival of the fittest. "Civilization" is practicing RESTRAINT from being one of Nature's animals. 

The fact that we "figured it out" (how to coexist/prosper/etc.) does not imply that it's what any Nature or God intended. It simply implies intelligence.


----------



## The Rabbi

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans.  rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless _without_ defense.
> 
> you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi.
> Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free?  Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people?
> 
> If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.
> 
> Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country.  It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction.  It's _because_ this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery.  It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence.  People are discontent in a state of bondage.  They will struggle for freedom.  Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a _natural_ consequence of bondage.
> 
> Sure.  The founders kicked the can down the road.   And that was a mistake.  They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood.  But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter.  And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people.  It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.
Click to expand...


When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed.  It presupposes a creator.  And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
The better question is, "are people free?"  And the answer is no.  Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865.  It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day.  It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.


----------



## beowolfe

The Rabbi said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi.
> Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free?  Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people?
> 
> If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.
> 
> Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country.  It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction.  It's _because_ this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery.  It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence.  People are discontent in a state of bondage.  They will struggle for freedom.  Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a _natural_ consequence of bondage.
> 
> Sure.  The founders kicked the can down the road.   And that was a mistake.  They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood.  But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter.  And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people.  It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed.  It presupposes a creator.  And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
> The better question is, "are people free?"  And the answer is no.  Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865.  It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day.  It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.
Click to expand...


That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'.  Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid.  And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.


----------



## G.T.

beowolfe said:


> That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'.  Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid.  And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.



Umm, yea you're basically wrong. What would "meant" imply? *Meant* in the question implies Humans having a purpose, i.e. not here by random chance, i.e. a creator.


----------



## Murf76

The Rabbi said:


> When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed.  It presupposes a creator.  And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
> The better question is, "are people free?"  And the answer is no.  Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865.  It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day.  It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.



C'mon, Rabbi.  Hang in there, bud.  I'm asking you for better thinking than what we can expect of G.T., with his Lions and Antelopes and food chain and whatnot.  

What is the _natural_ consequence of thrusting human beings into bondage?  What is their _natural_ response to that particular stimuli?  What will they invariable do?

The key is predictability, behaving in a way that's natural to humans.  If there wasn't a  _natural_, predictable, human response to slavery... then it wouldn't be WRONG to enslave people.  It would be nothing more outside the norm than eating, sleeping, and shitting.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed.  It presupposes a creator.  And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
> The better question is, "are people free?"  And the answer is no.  Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865.  It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day.  It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, Rabbi.  Hang in there, bud.  I'm asking you for better thinking than what we can expect of G.T., with his Lions and Antelopes and food chain and whatnot.
> 
> What is the _natural_ consequence of thrusting human beings into bondage?  What is their _natural_ response to that particular stimuli?  What will they invariable do?
> 
> The key is predictability, behaving in a way that's natural to humans.  If there wasn't a  _natural_, predictable, human response to slavery... then it wouldn't be WRONG to enslave people.  It would be nothing more outside the norm than eating, sleeping, and shitting.
Click to expand...


You can keep poking sticks like a fucking 5 year old, it doesn't make you any more right. Your arguments are all fallable, and I've actually been giving you the benefit of the doubt. 

You keep adding new elements into your theory because it has errors. Here, you added "predictable." The human response obviously wasn't "Natural" because slavery occured* to begin with*, dimwit. It was the *Civilized* that deemed it inappropriate. 

You casually dismiss evidence and attempt to smear, but that doesn't work in adult world. Humans were savages. Cannibals. Murderers. Slave Owners. Rapists. If these unalienable rights were granted by God or Nature, what happened to the first part of human history where, you know, they didn't fucking exist?


----------



## antagon

G.T. said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.
> 
> 
> 
> The rights do need to be enumerated
Click to expand...


its only _natural_ that conceiving and documenting _every_ freedom possible would be a task for fools.

life expectancy is a natural suggestion as to why eternal tasks shouldnt be undertaken, perhaps.

by the 17th century, some thinkers settled upon the idea of housing the realm of possible freedoms inside some constraints mostly limited to encroaching on the freedoms of others in society.  documents like the constitution would only need to enumerate some of the less obvious or 'extranatural' ones like bearing arms, which they were pretty pissed about at the time.  that the governments had little rights to encroach on those of their constituents was the main idea, rather than trying to iterate what the citizens were free to do.  to each his own, within the law, there.


----------



## G.T.

antagon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.
> 
> 
> 
> The rights do need to be enumerated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its only _natural_ that conceiving and documenting _every_ freedom possible would be a task for fools.
> 
> life expectancy is a natural suggestion as to why eternal tasks shouldnt be undertaken, perhaps.
> 
> by the 17th century, some thinkers settled upon the idea of housing the realm of possible freedoms inside some constraints mostly limited to encroaching on the freedoms of others in society.  documents like the constitution would only need to enumerate some of the less obvious or 'extranatural' ones like bearing arms, which they were pretty pissed about at the time.  that the governments had little rights to encroach on those of their constituents was the main idea, rather than trying to iterate what the citizens were free to do.  to each his own, within the law, there.
Click to expand...


That thinkers concluded anything does not provide a shred of credibility to Nature or God being the source. The source is because thinking Men said so. That is the source for all Rights, Freedoms, etc....etc.....etc.........


----------



## beowolfe

G.T. said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'.  Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid.  And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, yea you're basically wrong. What would "meant" imply? *Meant* in the question implies Humans having a purpose, i.e. not here by random chance, i.e. a creator.
Click to expand...


You can interpret it that way if you wish; but that doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct.


----------



## G.T.

Murf can giggle like a seven year old, but the Lion Gazelle analogy stands. *THAT* is Natural Law. 

Civilization requires restraint from Nature's intent. We're hunters and gatherers for fuck's sakes.


----------



## G.T.

beowolfe said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'.  Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid.  And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, yea you're basically wrong. What would "meant" imply? *Meant* in the question implies Humans having a purpose, i.e. not here by random chance, i.e. a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can interpret it that way if you wish; but that doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct.
Click to expand...


And I agree with that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually this stupid?  Where is slavery limited to black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In pre-emancipation America.  The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America.  The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,
> 
> but not if you're black.
> 
> And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.
> 
> In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they did.
> Please post any evidence that Blacks did not have inalienable rights as whites did.
Click to expand...


How about the evidence that if you were a black person born in South Carolina in, say, 1820, the child of slaves, you would not have the unalienable right of LIBERTY, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which as I recall are the explicitly stated unalienable rights in the D of I.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.
> 
> Would that be an unalienable right?  A natural right?  A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?
> 
> eh??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Emigrate to Iraq then.  They can put whatever they want in _their_ Constitution.  It's _their_ country.   Drop  us a postcard when you get there, why don't you?  I'm sure we'll all be waiting on tenterhooks to see how you've adjusted to your new country.
Click to expand...


Aha, the white flag of well just leave then!!!!  A classic internet capitulation.

So you agree that there are no God-given rights.  That all rights are arbitrary based on who's in charge.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.
> 
> If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided.  What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it.   Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand.  Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career.  We can't pay enough.   We can't import enough.  What then???
> 
> Yeah.  It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that.  But in exploring it  out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications.   In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.
Click to expand...



Education is a right in New York State.  I've already posted it.  The NYS constitution says it must be provided.  I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.

Case closed.


----------



## DE3

Care4all said:


> Yes, I see it is an inalienable right....one that is not writen down, or forbidden by the constitution.
> 
> There are more inalienable rights than one could ever imagine or numerate....we are not limited to the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> AND just because it is one of our rights, does NOT MEAN that the government HAS TO provide it for us, they just do not have the power given to them, to PREVENT us or to stop us...from becoming educated.





I whole-heartedly agree.  

The question is does the nation pay for that right?  And thankfully we have had leaders smart enough to recognize the vital national interest in doing so.


----------



## The Rabbi

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed.  It presupposes a creator.  And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
> The better question is, "are people free?"  And the answer is no.  Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865.  It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day.  It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, Rabbi.  Hang in there, bud.  I'm asking you for better thinking than what we can expect of G.T., with his Lions and Antelopes and food chain and whatnot.
> 
> What is the _natural_ consequence of thrusting human beings into bondage?  What is their _natural_ response to that particular stimuli?  What will they invariable do?
> 
> The key is predictability, behaving in a way that's natural to humans.  If there wasn't a  _natural_, predictable, human response to slavery... then it wouldn't be WRONG to enslave people.  It would be nothing more outside the norm than eating, sleeping, and shitting.
Click to expand...


So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery.  Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it.  BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump?  Will you include that in the Rights Of Man?  A satisfying bowel movement?


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In pre-emancipation America.  The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America.  The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,
> 
> but not if you're black.
> 
> And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.
> 
> In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they did.
> Please post any evidence that Blacks did not have inalienable rights as whites did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the evidence that if you were a black person born in South Carolina in, say, 1820, the child of slaves, you would not have the unalienable right of LIBERTY, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which as I recall are the explicitly stated unalienable rights in the D of I.
Click to expand...


How about answering the question, fucktard? Slaves obviously lacked liberty.  That is a tautology.
But your claim was that only whites enjoyed rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.  I am challenging you for proof of that statement.  And you are failing.


----------



## Murf76

G.T. said:


> You keep adding new elements into your theory because it has errors. Here, you added "predictable." The human response obviously wasn't "Natural" because slavery occured* to begin with*, dimwit. It was the *Civilized* that deemed it inappropriate.
> 
> You casually dismiss evidence and attempt to smear, but that doesn't work in adult world. Humans were savages. Cannibals. Murderers. Slave Owners. Rapists. If these unalienable rights were granted by God or Nature, what happened to the first part of human history where, you know, they didn't fucking exist?



Your assumption is that people are naturally evil.  But that's not true.  Sure, a dog will bite if frightened or provoked... but that doesn't mean that all dogs bite.  The provocation for abhorrent human behavior is more complex, more nuanced.  We are capable of both good and evil.  Greed is as natural to us as compassion.  But there is nearly always _purpose_ outside the bounds of instinctive behavior to explain it.  If one man chooses to enslave another, he has a complex purpose for doing so.  And, from your point of view... it's not even wrong, because the man he enslaved has no right to be free, save what some arbitrary association of men deem prudent.   By your math, slavery can be right on Tuesday and wrong on Thursday, depending upon who's in charge. 

What I'm saying, is that it is a purposeful set of circumstances that causes enslavement of human beings, no matter that it is historically commonplace; that without a purpose for the action, it will not naturally occur.  People might be enslaved for the sake of avarice, utility, hostility, revenge... but not just because it's as natural as taking a daily shit.  It requires effort and forethought that we will not naturally engage in without some reward.

  But the outcome of _being_ enslaved is naturally predictable.  Your dog doesn't mind that you're his master.  He's a dog.  He's just happy you're sharing your food with him.  Not so a human being, who is naturally disinclined to cooperate with enslavement and will, with small exception, strive for freedom.  He will sacrifice nearly anything for it, forgo his comfort for it, simply to fulfill the yearning to be his own man.

Historically, one people will often enslave another to serve some socio-economic goal...but the enslaved will invariably struggle for freedom.   This too is history. 
One behavior is purposeful.  The other is latent, a simple part of being human.


----------



## Murf76

NYcarbineer said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.
> 
> If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided.  What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it.   Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand.  Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career.  We can't pay enough.   We can't import enough.  What then???
> 
> Yeah.  It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that.  But in exploring it  out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications.   In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Education is a right in New York State.  I've already posted it.  The NYS constitution says it must be provided.  I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.
> 
> Case closed.
Click to expand...


You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens.  In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.


----------



## slackjawed

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.
> 
> If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided.  What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it.   Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand.  Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career.  We can't pay enough.   We can't import enough.  What then???
> 
> Yeah.  It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that.  But in exploring it  out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications.   In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education is a right in New York State.  I've already posted it.  The NYS constitution says it must be provided. * I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well*.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens.  In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.
Click to expand...


In the Arizona state constitution, public education is defined as a "responsibility" and further states that *if* public education is offered in any community, it must be open to all citizens without regard to race, creed or color. In another portion of the constitution, english is declared to be the 'official' language in all dealings of the state government including public education.
Our state defines education as a "responsibility", and further states that it will be conducted in english.
So, your guess about it being a "right" in every other state is wrong.


----------



## Murf76

The Rabbi said:


> So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
> For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery.  Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it.  BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
> But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump?  Will you include that in the Rights Of Man?  A satisfying bowel movement?



No.  Historically, slaves have sought freedom from bondage.  Sometimes, it has taken a long time to accomplish, but they eventually get there.


----------



## Contumacious

G.T. said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDUCATION isn't a right...its a responsibility though.
> 
> Each generation is RESPONSIBLE for teaching the next.
> 
> This debate couldn't exist if we could agree on the meaning of the world "Right".
> 
> Sadly we cannot.
> 
> Some of you think rights are something that comes from GOD.
> 
> Some of us think that rights are something that exist only as a manifestation of society.
> 
> Do any of us have *the right* to exist?
> 
> Perhaps...but is that right unalienable?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Anyone of us can deny anyone every RIGHT most of us think we have.
> 
> *Dead people have no rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Basically what I meant by my post. Rights (per our Documents) given by a creator? Because "Men" said so?.....doesn't fly with me*.
Click to expand...


And I take that you are a ............dog?

.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Murf76 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.
> 
> If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided.  What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it.   Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand.  Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career.  We can't pay enough.   We can't import enough.  What then???
> 
> Yeah.  It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that.  But in exploring it  out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications.   In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education is a right in New York State.  I've already posted it.  The NYS constitution says it must be provided.  I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens.  In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.
Click to expand...


I didn't outline a worst case scenario.  I stated a simple fact.  Children in NYS possess the right to an education.


----------



## The Rabbi

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
> For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery.  Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it.  BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
> But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump?  Will you include that in the Rights Of Man?  A satisfying bowel movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Historically, slaves have sought freedom from bondage.  Sometimes, it has taken a long time to accomplish, but they eventually get there.
Click to expand...


No.  Historically slaves have not sought that.  There have been perhaps a dozen slave uprisings in history.  Slavery ended here because of the Civil War, not because of anything slaves did.  This is similar to virtually every other time and place where slavery was abolished.  It did not come about because of anything slaves did.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education is a right in New York State.  I've already posted it.  The NYS constitution says it must be provided.  I'm guessing it's a right in every other state as well.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand don't you... that in "the worst case scenario" above, you're supporting the conscription of citizens.  In effect, you'd be MAKING slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't outline a worst case scenario.  I stated a simple fact.  Children in NYS possess the right to an education.
Click to expand...


But only because state law says so.  In NJ it may not be so.  So there is no natural right to education.  Unless you want to say that people are more human in NYS than in NJ.  Which might be the case, I dunno.
Are you planning on supporting your claim that only white males had rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness prior to the Civil War?  Or should I just mark that down as diarrhea of the keyboard on your part?


----------



## manifold

I have to agree with Ribeye on this one.

Yeah I know, I'm pretty surprised too. *shrug*


----------



## PatekPhilippe

G.T. said:


> I mean, even the Legal definition is flawed. Take a look: _a body of law or a specific principle of law that is held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law _
> 
> If it were derived from Nature, it would be Survival of the Fittest. It is not, it's derived from a species becoming Sentient and Civilized.



Whether you realize it or not it IS survival of the fittest.  You cannot legislate out genetic instinct that's present in every single living organism.  It can only change through evolution.  Where some lack the instinct for "survival", aka the weaker members of the species, the law now affords them an "equal footing" in civilized society.

Education isn't a right in our country but it's a necessity in order to function as a productive member of society.  Should it be a right?  No.  It isn't a right now and it would make no difference if it was.  Your still going to have the strong and the weak in the species.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yes no?



The right to education is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but it is outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the United States is a party to. Thus, the United States has declared to the world that :



> Article 26
> 
> 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
> 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
> 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.



Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## xsited1

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yes no?



I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right.  But Obama, Pelosi and Reid are running the country now, so I don't guess I should be too surprised.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

xsited1 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right.
Click to expand...


I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?
Click to expand...


Just smart and educated, I guess.


----------



## G.T.

Contumacious said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDUCATION isn't a right...its a responsibility though.
> 
> Each generation is RESPONSIBLE for teaching the next.
> 
> This debate couldn't exist if we could agree on the meaning of the world "Right".
> 
> Sadly we cannot.
> 
> Some of you think rights are something that comes from GOD.
> 
> Some of us think that rights are something that exist only as a manifestation of society.
> 
> Do any of us have *the right* to exist?
> 
> Perhaps...but is that right unalienable?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Anyone of us can deny anyone every RIGHT most of us think we have.
> 
> *Dead people have no rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Basically what I meant by my post. Rights (per our Documents) given by a creator? Because "Men" said so?.....doesn't fly with me*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I take that you are a ............dog?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You missed the point. My point is, our Rights, which I agree are necessary to enhance a Civilized way of life for all, show no signs of being endowed by a creator. I see no evidence of this, except Men saying so. Since Human Beings have demonstrated a precedent of lying, then taking them at face value without some sort of proof or substanciation, to me, is not logical. But that's just me. 

People find this opinion to mean that I think we don't deserve said rights. I couldn't disagree more. I'm just disagreeing on their origin.


----------



## xsited1

SpidermanTuba said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?
Click to expand...


I realize it's difficult for foreigners to believe that, but America is a bit different.  There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education.  True Americans believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Forcing someone to pay for another's education is anti-American.


----------



## G.T.

xsited1 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize it's difficult for foreigners to believe that, but America is a bit different.  There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education.  True Americans believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Forcing someone to pay for another's education is anti-American.
Click to expand...


Stoppit with your "true" Americans rhetoric. Anyone with 3 brain cells can correlate all three of those man-granted-rights of life, liberty and pursuit.......... with Education. Education is required to make all three possible. 

*Life:* Edumucate yourself how to X a damn street. Or not. Die. Edumucate yourself that certain toxins underneath the kitchen sink, when mixed, can and will kill you. Or not. Die. 
Liberty: Edumucate yourself on current law, or just, ya know, guess what you're at "liberty" to do. 
Pursuit of happiness: debatable. But I could do it if you press me.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that there are people in America that believe education is a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just smart and educated, I guess.
Click to expand...




Wow.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

> I realize it's difficult for foreigners to believe that, but America is a bit different.



Human rights are absolute, they do not depend on where you live.



xsited1 said:


> There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education. .



Doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
*
9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*


> Forcing someone to pay for another's education is anti-American.



Ok. So just about every local government in the entire nation is anti-American. You really are fucked in the head.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

G.T. said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize it's difficult for foreigners to believe that, but America is a bit different.  There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education.  True Americans believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Forcing someone to pay for another's education is anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stoppit with your "true" Americans rhetoric. Anyone with 3 brain cells can correlate all three of those man-granted-rights of life, liberty and pursuit.......... with Education. Education is required to make all three possible.
> 
> *Life:* Edumucate yourself how to X a damn street. Or not. Die. Edumucate yourself that certain toxins underneath the kitchen sink, when mixed, can and will kill you. Or not. Die.
> Liberty: Edumucate yourself on current law, or just, ya know, guess what you're at "liberty" to do.
> Pursuit of happiness: debatable. But I could do it if you press me.
Click to expand...


I don't recall anything about the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...*with education*" being in the Declaration of Independence....or the Constitution.  The reason was that back then many people didn't even go to school...they were taught to read and write by their parents, homeschooled if you will.  The current laws regarding education of our children weren't designed to make them a right...they were designed to educate the populace so they could perform in society well enough to generate some sort of income for the government through taxes and not be a total freeloader.  Compulsory education is only required until the 10th grade...at which time the student can quit school if they CHOOSE.  They have the right to freedom of choice...not the right to an education.


----------



## G.T.

PatekPhilippe said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize it's difficult for foreigners to believe that, but America is a bit different.  There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education.  True Americans believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Forcing someone to pay for another's education is anti-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stoppit with your "true" Americans rhetoric. Anyone with 3 brain cells can correlate all three of those man-granted-rights of life, liberty and pursuit.......... with Education. Education is required to make all three possible.
> 
> *Life:* Edumucate yourself how to X a damn street. Or not. Die. Edumucate yourself that certain toxins underneath the kitchen sink, when mixed, can and will kill you. Or not. Die.
> Liberty: Edumucate yourself on current law, or just, ya know, guess what you're at "liberty" to do.
> Pursuit of happiness: debatable. But I could do it if you press me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall anything about the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...*with education*" being in the Declaration of Independence....or the Constitution.  The reason was that back then many people didn't even go to school...they were taught to read and write by their parents, homeschooled if you will.  The current laws regarding education of our children weren't designed to make them a right...they were designed to educate the populace so they could perform in society well enough to generate some sort of income for the government through taxes and not be a total freeloader.  Compulsory education is only required until the 10th grade...at which time the student can quit school if they CHOOSE.  They have the right to freedom of choice...not the right to an education.
Click to expand...


Your whole premise is that America grants all Rights that should exist. I disagree.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

G.T. said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stoppit with your "true" Americans rhetoric. Anyone with 3 brain cells can correlate all three of those man-granted-rights of life, liberty and pursuit.......... with Education. Education is required to make all three possible.
> 
> *Life:* Edumucate yourself how to X a damn street. Or not. Die. Edumucate yourself that certain toxins underneath the kitchen sink, when mixed, can and will kill you. Or not. Die.
> Liberty: Edumucate yourself on current law, or just, ya know, guess what you're at "liberty" to do.
> Pursuit of happiness: debatable. But I could do it if you press me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anything about the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...*with education*" being in the Declaration of Independence....or the Constitution.  The reason was that back then many people didn't even go to school...they were taught to read and write by their parents, homeschooled if you will.  The current laws regarding education of our children weren't designed to make them a right...they were designed to educate the populace so they could perform in society well enough to generate some sort of income for the government through taxes and not be a total freeloader.  Compulsory education is only required until the 10th grade...at which time the student can quit school if they CHOOSE.  They have the right to freedom of choice...not the right to an education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your whole premise is that America grants all Rights that should exist. I disagree.
Click to expand...


Incorrect...my premise is that we have the freedom to learn or not to learn....making it a right only forces me to pay for some douchebag to get a Liberal Arts degreee and then tell me I need to pay more taxes because his tuition went up.


----------



## rikules

slackjawed said:


> Education is not a right. Access to an education is a privalage that one should take advantage of, and most don't.



seems to me......

in order for America to maintain (or reachieve) a standard  of greatness as a nation we must excell at many things;

we must be productive
we must have initiative
we must be creative
we must be stay apace in the sciences

education is the key

in order for America to be great a highly educated citizenry is paramount

therefore, 
education should be cheap and easy to get


----------



## SpidermanTuba

PatekPhilippe said:


> I don't recall anything about the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...*with education*" being in the Declaration of Independence....or the Constitution.


I guess you don't remember the 9th amendment then.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

PatekPhilippe said:


> Incorrect...my premise is that we have the freedom to learn or not to learn....making it a right only forces me to pay for some douchebag to get a Liberal Arts degreee and then tell me I need to pay more taxes because his tuition went up.





I don't think you understand what the argument is over.


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anything about the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...*with education*" being in the Declaration of Independence....or the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't remember the 9th amendment then.
Click to expand...


Where is education mentioned in the 9th amendment?


----------



## editec

Most of us have the LEGAL RIGHT to an education as outlined by our STATE CONSTITUTIONS, or by laws written by our states for _compulsory education._

_Per usual, I'll note that until we agee on what the meaning of the word RIGHTS really is, we cannot truly have a rational discussion about them._


----------



## sparky

we have the right to_ remain_ stupid?

just as an aside, would anyone care to opine on a populace that endures a marked decline in it's acedemics comprable to the rest of the world it trades with?

(gee, i hope i spelt all that rigth!)


----------



## The Rabbi

sparky said:


> we have the right to_ remain_ stupid?
> 
> just as an aside, would anyone care to opine on a populace that endures a marked decline in it's acedemics comprable to the rest of the world it trades with?
> 
> (gee, i hope i spelt all that rigth!)



Gee that has zero to do with making education a "right."  You understand that, right?


----------



## ScreamingEagle

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe there are people that don't. What's wrong with you people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just smart and educated, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


Say.....you progressive liberal socialists just might have something going on there.....

If edsmuckation is a "right"....meaning the govt. must provide me with one.....then I'm sure other basic "human rights" in that UN bleeding heart document must ALSO be in existence....

like a "right" to free food, a "right" to free housing, a "right" to free healthcare, a "right" to free utilities, a "right" to free trans, a "right" to free clothes, etc, etc....


....I think I'll just take all those "rights" I'm _entitled _to and just kick back and go fishing...


----------



## xsited1

SpidermanTuba said:


> I realize it's difficult for foreigners to believe that, but America is a bit different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights are absolute, they do not depend on where you live.
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no enumerated constitutional right to an education. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
> *
> 9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing someone to pay for another's education is anti-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. So just about every local government in the entire nation is anti-American. You really are fucked in the head.
Click to expand...


  Major stretch there little tuba-man.  You're comparing apples to oranges by talking about the Constitution of the United States and local government.  Seriously, are people in America really this stupid?  Yes.  Yes, they are.  I blame Public Education.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

SpidermanTuba said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anything about the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...*with education*" being in the Declaration of Independence....or the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't remember the 9th amendment then.
Click to expand...


Apparently your having trouble reading it...or are you just interpreting what you think you see based on your views....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

SpidermanTuba said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect...my premise is that we have the freedom to learn or not to learn....making it a right only forces me to pay for some douchebag to get a Liberal Arts degreee and then tell me I need to pay more taxes because his tuition went up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand what the argument is over.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand what an opposing view is.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anything about the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...*with education*" being in the Declaration of Independence....or the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't remember the 9th amendment then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is education mentioned in the 9th amendment?
Click to expand...



You don't even get the point of the 9th amendment, do you?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

editec said:


> Most of us have the LEGAL RIGHT to an education as outlined by our STATE CONSTITUTIONS, or by laws written by our states for _compulsory education._
> 
> _Per usual, I'll note that until we agee on what the meaning of the word RIGHTS really is, we cannot truly have a rational discussion about them._







Here here! A correct answer!

The fact that a right is not particularly enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it doesn't exist, in fact, the 9th amendment says just as much. Some rights are left to the States to protect - education is one of them.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

ScreamingEagle said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just smart and educated, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say.....you progressive liberal socialists just might have something going on there.....
> 
> If edsmuckation is a "right"....meaning the govt. must provide me with one.....then I'm sure other basic "human rights" in that UN bleeding heart document must ALSO be in existence....
> 
> like a "right" to free food, a "right" to free housing, a "right" to free healthcare, a "right" to free utilities, a "right" to free trans, a "right" to free clothes, etc, etc....
> 
> 
> ....I think I'll just take all those "rights" I'm _entitled _to and just kick back and go fishing...
Click to expand...




Indeed.



> Article 25.
> 
> * (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in *circumstances beyond his control.*
> * (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't remember the 9th amendment then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is education mentioned in the 9th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even get the point of the 9th amendment, do you?
Click to expand...


The question is whether you do.
Please point out where education is mentioned in the 9A.  If you can do that then I'll concede you are right.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is education mentioned in the 9th amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even get the point of the 9th amendment, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is whether you do.
> Please point out where education is mentioned in the 9A.  If you can do that then I'll concede you are right.
Click to expand...


I believe he's saying that State Governments have _ALL_ granted Education as being a right, and the 9th protects rights not enumerated in 1-8 and so by proxy #9 protects Education as a Right already. I think that's what he means, but I dunno........I don't follow 100%.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even get the point of the 9th amendment, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is whether you do.
> Please point out where education is mentioned in the 9A.  If you can do that then I'll concede you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he's saying that State Governments have _ALL_ granted Education as being a right, and the 9th protects rights not enumerated in 1-8 and so by proxy #9 protects Education as a Right already. I think that's what he means, but I dunno........I don't follow 100%.
Click to expand...


If he's saying that then he's wrong.  My home state's constitution says no such thing.
But even if it did, that is an enacted right, not a natural right.

I thought he was saying that education is a right and the 9th speaks about other rights.  So education must be one of them.
But on that view there is nothing that could be construed as a right that would not be covered under the 9th.  So maybe the 9th guarantees me the right to a cold beer when it gets hot.


----------



## Nonelitist

Not a right.


----------



## chikenwing

editec said:


> Most of us have the LEGAL RIGHT to an education as outlined by our STATE CONSTITUTIONS, or by laws written by our states for _compulsory education._
> 
> _Per usual, I'll note that until we agee on what the meaning of the word RIGHTS really is, we cannot truly have a rational discussion about them._





Must be a real quandary for the truant officer.

Right and compulsory in the same sentence,very interesting.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they did.
> Please post any evidence that Blacks did not have inalienable rights as whites did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the evidence that if you were a black person born in South Carolina in, say, 1820, the child of slaves, you would not have the unalienable right of LIBERTY, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which as I recall are the explicitly stated unalienable rights in the D of I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about answering the question, fucktard? Slaves obviously lacked liberty.  That is a tautology.
> But your claim was that only whites enjoyed rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.  I am challenging you for proof of that statement.  And you are failing.
Click to expand...


If slaves didn't have the right to liberty they didn't have the right to liberty.  What more needs to be said?  Whites could not be enslaved in pre-emancipation USA.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is whether you do.
> Please point out where education is mentioned in the 9A.  If you can do that then I'll concede you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he's saying that State Governments have _ALL_ granted Education as being a right, and the 9th protects rights not enumerated in 1-8 and so by proxy #9 protects Education as a Right already. I think that's what he means, but I dunno........I don't follow 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he's saying that then he's wrong.  My home state's constitution says no such thing.
> But even if it did, that is an enacted right, not a natural right.
> 
> I thought he was saying that education is a right and the 9th speaks about other rights.  So education must be one of them.
> But on that view there is nothing that could be construed as a right that would not be covered under the 9th.  So maybe the 9th guarantees me the right to a cold beer when it gets hot.
Click to expand...


Section 12. The state of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education
and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance,
support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools.

...and I'm guessing that no child who's a legal resident of TN can be legally denied access to that free public school system, therefore, education is a right in Tennessee.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the evidence that if you were a black person born in South Carolina in, say, 1820, the child of slaves, you would not have the unalienable right of LIBERTY, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which as I recall are the explicitly stated unalienable rights in the D of I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about answering the question, fucktard? Slaves obviously lacked liberty.  That is a tautology.
> But your claim was that only whites enjoyed rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.  I am challenging you for proof of that statement.  And you are failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If slaves didn't have the right to liberty they didn't have the right to liberty.  What more needs to be said?  Whites could not be enslaved in pre-emancipation USA.
Click to expand...


Where is the right to liberty in the U.S. Constitution?
ANd you are completely wrong about white not being slaves. Ever hear of indentured servants?  How about freed Blacks?


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he's saying that State Governments have _ALL_ granted Education as being a right, and the 9th protects rights not enumerated in 1-8 and so by proxy #9 protects Education as a Right already. I think that's what he means, but I dunno........I don't follow 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he's saying that then he's wrong.  My home state's constitution says no such thing.
> But even if it did, that is an enacted right, not a natural right.
> 
> I thought he was saying that education is a right and the 9th speaks about other rights.  So education must be one of them.
> But on that view there is nothing that could be construed as a right that would not be covered under the 9th.  So maybe the 9th guarantees me the right to a cold beer when it gets hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Section 12. The state of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education
> and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance,
> support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools.
> 
> ...and I'm guessing that no child who's a legal resident of TN can be legally denied access to that free public school system, therefore, education is a right in Tennessee.
Click to expand...


I recognize the inherent value of beer.  That doesnt make it a right.  There is no language in the TN state constitution that says education is a right.
And children are suspended from school or expelled all the time.  In any case their ability to attend school originates in state law.  Change the law and they would not be able to.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about answering the question, fucktard? Slaves obviously lacked liberty.  That is a tautology.
> But your claim was that only whites enjoyed rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.  I am challenging you for proof of that statement.  And you are failing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If slaves didn't have the right to liberty they didn't have the right to liberty.  What more needs to be said?  Whites could not be enslaved in pre-emancipation USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the right to liberty in the U.S. Constitution?
> ANd you are completely wrong about white not being slaves. Ever hear of indentured servants?  How about freed Blacks?
Click to expand...


You've lost track of the conversation.  I was talking about founders who signed/wrote the Declaration of Independence proclaiming inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness subsequently denying the right of liberty to black slaves.

Ironically, the Declaration of Independence is a moral justification for the bloody Nat Turner rebellion and what would have been the very bloody John Brown plan.

Brown gets hanged for treason in the ultimate irony.


----------



## The Rabbi

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If slaves didn't have the right to liberty they didn't have the right to liberty.  What more needs to be said?  Whites could not be enslaved in pre-emancipation USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the right to liberty in the U.S. Constitution?
> ANd you are completely wrong about white not being slaves. Ever hear of indentured servants?  How about freed Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've lost track of the conversation.  I was talking about founders who signed/wrote the Declaration of Independence proclaiming inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness subsequently denying the right of liberty to black slaves.
> 
> Ironically, the Declaration of Independence is a moral justification for the bloody Nat Turner rebellion and what would have been the very bloody John Brown plan.
> 
> Brown gets hanged for treason in the ultimate irony.
Click to expand...


Some did.  SOme didnt.  Many freed their slaves either during their lives or in their wills.  They were aware of the contradiction.


----------



## antagon

recognizing black people as humans for the purposes of rights was a deal-breaker at the convention. id agree with rabbi that there was a great deal of awareness of the contradiction, but it was either seen as justified or a necessary evil to get the union off the ground.

i dont think any of those men were ready for black men expressing their freedom of assembly and right to bear arms.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> recognizing black people as humans for the purposes of rights was a deal-breaker at the convention. id agree with rabbi that there was a great deal of awareness of the contradiction, but it was either seen as justified or a necessary evil to get the union off the ground.
> 
> i dont think any of those men were ready for black men expressing their freedom of assembly and right to bear arms.



The over-riding fear in those days was a black rebellion.  And there was some foundation to it.  This is the original impetus for gun control, btw.


----------



## rikules

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he's saying that then he's wrong.  My home state's constitution says no such thing.
> But even if it did, that is an enacted right, not a natural right.
> 
> I thought he was saying that education is a right and the 9th speaks about other rights.  So education must be one of them.
> But on that view there is nothing that could be construed as a right that would not be covered under the 9th.  So maybe the 9th guarantees me the right to a cold beer when it gets hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 12. The state of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education
> and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance,
> support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools.
> 
> ...and I'm guessing that no child who's a legal resident of TN can be legally denied access to that free public school system, therefore, education is a right in Tennessee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize the inherent value of beer.  That doesnt make it a right.  There is no language in the TN state constitution that says education is a right.
> And children are suspended from school or expelled all the time.  In any case their ability to attend school originates in state law.  Change the law and they would not be able to.
Click to expand...


I get confused

sometimes cons get all hyped up about America, declaring "America is GREAT because WE HAVE RIGHTS!"

but here they are telling us that other than guns and voting....we have NO rights at all!

and they seem happy about it....

seems to me that the greatness of a country should be measured by how many rights and privileges the people have

and not by how many they DON'T have

 I find the fact that cons delight in our lack of rights to be disturbing

and makes me wonder....

if, other than guns and voting, we don't actually have any rights......
why do cons whine so much about "our rights are being taken away from us"?


----------



## The Rabbi

rikules said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Section 12. The state of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education
> and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance,
> support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools.
> 
> ...and I'm guessing that no child who's a legal resident of TN can be legally denied access to that free public school system, therefore, education is a right in Tennessee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize the inherent value of beer.  That doesnt make it a right.  There is no language in the TN state constitution that says education is a right.
> And children are suspended from school or expelled all the time.  In any case their ability to attend school originates in state law.  Change the law and they would not be able to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get confused
> 
> sometimes cons get all hyped up about America, declaring "America is GREAT because WE HAVE RIGHTS!"
> 
> but here they are telling us that other than guns and voting....we have NO rights at all!
> 
> and they seem happy about it....
> 
> seems to me that the greatness of a country should be measured by how many rights and privileges the people have
> 
> and not by how many they DON'T have
> 
> I find the fact that cons delight in our lack of rights to be disturbing
> 
> and makes me wonder....
> 
> if, other than guns and voting, we don't actually have any rights......
> why do cons whine so much about "our rights are being taken away from us"?
Click to expand...


Not surprisingly you misunderstand the entire conversation.
My position is not that we don't have rights.  We obviously do.  And it does make America great that we do.
My position is the origin of those rights.  Some people want to say that these rights are "inherent" and "inalienable", like they came from the Tooth Fairy or something. I say that is nonsense, and obviously so.  Rights come from the society around them and originate in a country's history and outlook.
The corollary of what I think is that rights are constantly under attack, chiefly by the government that finds them inconvenient in promoting its agenda--whatever that agenda is.  So if we do not fight for our rights we will find them gone.  No amount of bleating about inherent and inalienable will salvage them.


----------



## Murf76

rikules said:


> I get confused
> 
> sometimes cons get all hyped up about America, declaring "America is GREAT because WE HAVE RIGHTS!"
> 
> but here they are telling us that other than guns and voting....we have NO rights at all!
> 
> and they seem happy about it....
> 
> seems to me that the greatness of a country should be measured by how many rights and privileges the people have
> 
> and not by how many they DON'T have
> 
> I find the fact that cons delight in our lack of rights to be disturbing
> 
> and makes me wonder....
> 
> if, other than guns and voting, we don't actually have any rights......
> why do cons whine so much about "our rights are being taken away from us"?



There's nothing complicated about it.   You don't have a "right" to the labor or property (money) of your fellow citizens.  It's just that simple.   
If you are not self-fruitful in the matter of education or healthcare, if you can't provide it to yourself without robbing your neighbor... then they aren't "unalienable rights".

What would make you think for even a minute that the rest of us are born owing you something?


----------



## Murf76

The Rabbi said:


> Not surprisingly you misunderstand the entire conversation.
> My position is not that we don't have rights.  We obviously do.  And it does make America great that we do.
> My position is the origin of those rights.  Some people want to say that these rights are "inherent" and "inalienable", like they came from the Tooth Fairy or something. I say that is nonsense, and obviously so.  Rights come from the society around them and originate in a country's history and outlook.
> The corollary of what I think is that rights are constantly under attack, chiefly by the government that finds them inconvenient in promoting its agenda--whatever that agenda is.  So if we do not fight for our rights we will find them gone.  No amount of bleating about inherent and inalienable will salvage them.



Well, that's your opinion.  And you have an "unalienable right" to it, since you were able to think it up all by yourself without impeding the rights of others.  

But bear in mind, that your "fight" would be just as arbitrary as your man-given "rights" are.  What can be given to you by another man, can be taken away just as easily and with the same righteousness of authority.  It's not wrong for the government to take your freedom or your property, if these things already belonged first to the government.  And clearly, if they can _give_ these things to you, then they are theirs first to give and not yours inherently.

For my part, I recognize no prior claim to my own humanity.  Even God has graced me with Free Will over it, to succeed or fail as I will.


----------



## editec

The Rabbi said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now rights are based on what people naturally do?
> For starters there is no "natural" response to slavery. Actually the "natural" response if there is one would be to sit there and take it. BEcause historically that is what slaves have done.
> But since you mention it, does that mean that there is a natural right to take a dump? Will you include that in the Rights Of Man? A satisfying bowel movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Historically, slaves have sought freedom from bondage. Sometimes, it has taken a long time to accomplish, but they eventually get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Historically slaves have not sought that. *There have been perhaps a dozen slave uprisings in history.* Slavery ended here because of the Civil War, not because of anything slaves did. This is similar to virtually every other time and place where slavery was abolished. It did not come about because of anything slaves did.
Click to expand...

 

There have been thousands of slave uprisings.  They're as common as dust in history.

There have been few* successful* slave uprisings, and perhaps that's what you meant to say.

Just correcting the record here, I have no dog in this fight.


----------



## The Rabbi

Care to document a few hundred?


----------



## Murf76

The Rabbi said:


> Care to document a few hundred?



It's just Wiki... but you can follow the links out for yourself.
Slave rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why is it that you believe that acceptance of slavery is a natural state of being for humans?  I just don't see it.  What I see is a natural human aversion to captivity.  

Again, if there is no inherent "right" to be free... there's nothing WRONG with making another man your slave.  Morality is entirely subjective when there is no authority higher than one man's word against another's.


----------



## manifold

Aversion to captivity is a natural state for virtually all animals, including man.

One walk through a zoo should satisfy anyone's need for proof.

But simply understanding that all humans prefer freedom to captivity does not make freedom itself a "natural" right.  I believe Ribeye's point on slavery is that clearly freedom has been taken away in the past, therefore there is nothing extra special about freedom that precludes it being taken away.  Bottom line is that rights are what we say they are, and that means it's a subjective determination.  Trying to claim that the determination of what is or is not a right can somehow be completely objective is a logical fail.


----------



## The Rabbi

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to document a few hundred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Wiki... but you can follow the links out for yourself.
> Slave rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Why is it that you believe that acceptance of slavery is a natural state of being for humans?  I just don't see it.  What I see is a natural human aversion to captivity.
> 
> Again, if there is no inherent "right" to be free... there's nothing WRONG with making another man your slave.  Morality is entirely subjective when there is no authority higher than one man's word against another's.
Click to expand...


Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition.  It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
That doesn't make it right.  But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Dr Grump said:


> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...


Yeah...like we should take advice from someone in a country full of sheep.


----------



## Murf76

The Rabbi said:


> Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
> Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition.  It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
> That doesn't make it right.  But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
> In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.



Like I said, you can follow the Wiki links out if you want to verify the information.  It's up to you.

But I'm curious... if you don't think slavery is right, what is it exactly that makes it WRONG? 
Again, morality is entirely subjective when there's no higher authority than one man's word against another's.  So, why is it wrong for one man to enslave another?


----------



## manifold

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
> Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition.  It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
> That doesn't make it right.  But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
> In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you can follow the Wiki links out if you want to verify the information.  It's up to you.
> 
> But I'm curious... if you don't think slavery is right, what is it exactly that makes it WRONG?
> Again, morality is entirely subjective when there's no higher authority than one man's word against another's.  So, why is it wrong for one man to enslave another?
Click to expand...


Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.

And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

chikenwing said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have the LEGAL RIGHT to an education as outlined by our STATE CONSTITUTIONS, or by laws written by our states for _compulsory education._
> 
> _Per usual, I'll note that until we agee on what the meaning of the word RIGHTS really is, we cannot truly have a rational discussion about them._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a real quandary for the truant officer.
> 
> Right and compulsory in the same sentence,very interesting.
Click to expand...


Not really....the truant officer is just enforcing the law....unless you are insinuating that a law automatically gives a right to the beneficiaries of that law.


----------



## Murf76

manifold said:


> Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.
> 
> And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.



So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay  to enslave you.  Is that what you're saying?


----------



## manifold

Murf76 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.
> 
> And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay  to enslave you.  Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...


I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.


----------



## Murf76

manifold said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because my subjective determination is that freedom should be a basic human right.
> 
> And I'm damn glad most of the world agrees with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay  to enslave you.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.
Click to expand...


What makes your "subjective determination" more righteous than mine? 

If I say you should be a slave, and if I can get the tyranny of a Democratic Majority to agree with me... then you become a slave.  Right is might... according to you.  
You have no innate human value with which to defend yourself.  Your life is not sacred, in and of itself.  There is nothing of YOU which cannot be owned by another.


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay  to enslave you.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes your "subjective determination" more righteous than mine?
> 
> If I say you should be a slave, and if I can get the tyranny of a Democratic Majority to agree with me... then you become a slave.  Right is might... according to you.
> You have no innate human value with which to defend yourself.  Your life is not sacred, in and of itself.  There is nothing of YOU which cannot be owned by another.
Click to expand...


Luckily, the Humans who outlined your Rights in the Constitution agreed with him also.

You can feel that these rights came from some secret force or fairy, and that's fine. But in reality, they were not enforced until they were put to law, by man, here on Earth. 

Don't knock people because they seek observable proof before they make their determinations. "Faith," probably shouldn't determine law.


----------



## Murf76

G.T. said:


> Luckily, the Humans who outlined your Rights in the Constitution agreed with him also.
> 
> You can feel that these rights came from some secret force or fairy, and that's fine. But in reality, they were not enforced until they were put to law, by man, here on Earth.
> 
> Don't knock people because they seek observable proof before they make their determinations. "Faith," probably shouldn't determine law.



You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS.  It exists _because_ we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way.  We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.


----------



## The Rabbi

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki link fails to substantiate claim.
> Anyway, it is not acceptance of slavery that is the natural condition.  It is that it is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people.  That has been the pattern in human history right up until today, when slavery is still practiced in some areas of the world.
> That doesn't make it right.  But it doesn't make owning slaves a right either.
> In all, arguing from what usually occurs to deduce a "right" to something is a fool's errand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you can follow the Wiki links out if you want to verify the information.  It's up to you.
> 
> But I'm curious... if you don't think slavery is right, what is it exactly that makes it WRONG?
> Again, morality is entirely subjective when there's no higher authority than one man's word against another's.  So, why is it wrong for one man to enslave another?
Click to expand...


I did.  The link did not support the contention.  Sorry.

I dont think slavery is necessarily wrong.  Neither do most people, depending on how you phrase the question.
Should prisoners be made to work during their sentence?  Many people say yes.  But this is a form of slavery.
What about military conscription?  Again, yes.
What about criminals working off their restitution to their victims?  I think you'd find a lot of support for this.  But it's slavery.


----------



## The Rabbi

Murf76 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily, the Humans who outlined your Rights in the Constitution agreed with him also.
> 
> You can feel that these rights came from some secret force or fairy, and that's fine. But in reality, they were not enforced until they were put to law, by man, here on Earth.
> 
> Don't knock people because they seek observable proof before they make their determinations. "Faith," probably shouldn't determine law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS.  It exists _because_ we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way.  We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.
Click to expand...


What is the "innate value" of human life?  Are they all equal?  Can they be traded on a futures exchange?  How do you know such a thing exists?


----------



## G.T.

Murf76 said:


> You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS.  It exists _because_ we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way.  We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.



That's what the Philosophy of thinking *MEN* has gotten us, sure. But it's still because they concluded that, not because of anything else, and that's the point. What makes something "unalienable" besides calling it that? If MEN didn't decide those rights were "unalienable," THEY'D BE ALIENABLE! God wouldn't stop us from alienating them. Nature wouldn't stop us from Alienating them.  AND THEY WERE ALIENATED! FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS of HUMAN HISTORY!! 

So MEN decided we have inherent Rights, and most Humans like that idea, but the idea of having inherent rights still came from Men but was not "actually" "inherent upon our being." That's whimsical speak. They're not from Nature. Not from "simply being Human," not from God. They're from Man enacted Law. The rights were Alienable before, and we have thousands of years of proof of their alienation.


----------



## manifold

Murf76 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... if MY subjective determination is that you should be a slave, then all I have to do is to get a bigger bunch of people to agree with me and then it'll be A-okay  to enslave you.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said that my subjective determination is that it's not ok silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes your "subjective determination" more righteous than mine?
> 
> If I say you should be a slave, and if I can get the tyranny of a Democratic Majority to agree with me... then you become a slave.  Right is might... according to you.
> You have no innate human value with which to defend yourself.  Your life is not sacred, in and of itself.  There is nothing of YOU which cannot be owned by another.
Click to expand...


You'd still never take my spirit.

But yes, that might makes right is a fundamental truism of humanity.

That is so regardless of how you or I might feel about it.


----------



## Murf76

manifold said:


> You'd still never take my spirit.



EXACTLY.  FINALLY. YES!  



> But yes, that might makes right is a fundamental truism of humanity.
> 
> That is so regardless of how you or I might feel about it.



Even "might" can't take from us that which cannot be truly taken, that which is OURS alone by virtue of our humanity, no matter how inhumanely we might be treated.   We might be gagged, for example, deprived of our ability to speak.  But if we are, we are violated of our "right" to speak.  The fact that someone is capable of gagging you doesn't make it less of a violation if they do.


----------



## manifold

Murf76 said:


> But yes, that might makes right is a fundamental truism of humanity.
> 
> That is so regardless of how you or I might feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even "might" can't take from us that which cannot be truly taken, that which is OURS alone by virtue of our humanity, no matter how inhumanely we might be treated.   We might be gagged, for example, deprived of our ability to speak.  But if we are, we are violated of our "right" to speak.  The fact that someone is capable of gagging you doesn't make it less of a violation if they do.
Click to expand...


I agree.  I simply understand that we share the same opinion, you just happen to believe it as fact.

The things that have thus far been enumerated as lawfully protected rights CAN truly be taken.  And that's all that really matters at the end of the day, no?


----------



## rikules

Murf76 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get confused
> 
> sometimes cons get all hyped up about America, declaring "America is GREAT because WE HAVE RIGHTS!"
> 
> but here they are telling us that other than guns and voting....we have NO rights at all!
> 
> and they seem happy about it....
> 
> seems to me that the greatness of a country should be measured by how many rights and privileges the people have
> 
> and not by how many they DON'T have
> 
> I find the fact that cons delight in our lack of rights to be disturbing
> 
> and makes me wonder....
> 
> if, other than guns and voting, we don't actually have any rights......
> why do cons whine so much about "our rights are being taken away from us"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing complicated about it.   You don't have a "right" to the labor or property (money) of your fellow citizens.  It's just that simple.
> If you are not self-fruitful in the matter of education or healthcare, if you can't provide it to yourself without robbing your neighbor... then they aren't "unalienable rights".
> 
> What would make you think for even a minute that the rest of us are born owing you something?
Click to expand...


"What would make you think for even a minute that the rest of us are born owing you something? "

don't be daft, man.

I wish you cons were capable of intelligent conversation and not just real good at making up lies and insulting people.

I do not think "the rest of you" owe me anything

the discussion here  is about RIGHTS

and it seems to me that a truly GREAT America would be less stingy about "RIGHTS"

instead of hearing (from cons) "you do NOT have THAT right " and "you do NOT have THIS right"  and "no such RIGHT exists in the constitution"  it would be really nice if Americans had a lot of actual RIGHTS and not just a bunch of cons telling us we have VERY FEW rights.

examples;

the right for gays to marry
the right for gays to join the military
the right to smoke pot
the right to engage in prostitution

and whether education is a right or not there can be no doubt that a GREAT education, readily available for ALL citizens, is a good way to keep/make America GREAT

you guys can argue about whether it is a right or not for the rest of eternity (for all I care  about what you do to waste your time)

my point:  America and Americans NEED highly educated and skilled people to KEEP it GREAT. Consequently we should ALL want GOOD education easily available for ALL Americans.  As opposed to the conservative way.....telling everyone they don't have a "RIGHT" to education and them making it hard (and expensive) to get.

I find it disturbing (and a little treasonous) that cons would want to destroy America by denying Americans good education and making education HARD to get and VERY EXPENSIVE.

q: do cons have a RIGHT to destroy America by making education difficult to get?

is that RIGHT somewhere in the constitution?


----------



## manifold

rikules said:
			
		

> ...and whether education is a right or not there can be no doubt that a GREAT education, readily available for ALL citizens, is a good way to keep/make America GREAT



I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.  It's the particulars that people disagree on.

Nice rant tho!


----------



## SpidermanTuba

rikules said:


> (and expensive) to get.
> 
> I find it disturbing (and a little treasonous) that cons would want to destroy America by denying Americans good education and making education HARD to get and VERY EXPENSIVE.



Disturbing, yes. Surprising, no. Neocons detest the poor and will stop at nothing to help ensure they remain poor.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

G.T. said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS.  It exists _because_ we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way.  We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Philosophy of thinking *MEN* has gotten us, sure. But it's still because they concluded that, not because of anything else, and that's the point. What makes something "unalienable" besides calling it that? If MEN didn't decide those rights were "unalienable," THEY'D BE ALIENABLE! God wouldn't stop us from alienating them. Nature wouldn't stop us from Alienating them.  AND THEY WERE ALIENATED! FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS of HUMAN HISTORY!!
> 
> So MEN decided we have inherent Rights, and most Humans like that idea, but the idea of having inherent rights still came from Men but was not "actually" "inherent upon our being." That's whimsical speak. They're not from Nature. Not from "simply being Human," not from God. They're from Man enacted Law. The rights were Alienable before, and we have thousands of years of proof of their alienation.
Click to expand...




They weren't alienable before, they just were not protected.


----------



## manifold

SpidermanTuba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> (and expensive) to get.
> 
> I find it disturbing (and a little treasonous) that cons would want to destroy America by denying Americans good education and making education HARD to get and VERY EXPENSIVE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disturbing, yes. Surprising, no. Neocons detest the poor and will stop at nothing to help ensure they remain poor.
Click to expand...




Spoken like a true kool-aid drinking, partisan hack. 

As if cons have a monopoly on shitting on the poor.


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> (and expensive) to get.
> 
> I find it disturbing (and a little treasonous) that cons would want to destroy America by denying Americans good education and making education HARD to get and VERY EXPENSIVE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disturbing, yes. Surprising, no. Neocons detest the poor and will stop at nothing to help ensure they remain poor.
Click to expand...


No, that's Dems you're thinking of.
Of the major cities with the biggest most blighted slums, all of them have been controlled by Democrats for 30+ years.  Every failing school district has been controlled by Democrats.  Every state about to go bankrupt has been controlled by Democrats.  Every gov't measure that has insured the poor are kept dependent on the gov't has been sponsored and promoted by Democrats.
Please tell me something Democrats have done to help poor people stop being poor.  Just one thing.


----------



## manifold

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> (and expensive) to get.
> 
> I find it disturbing (and a little treasonous) that cons would want to destroy America by denying Americans good education and making education HARD to get and VERY EXPENSIVE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disturbing, yes. Surprising, no. Neocons detest the poor and will stop at nothing to help ensure they remain poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's Dems you're thinking of.
> Of the major cities with the biggest most blighted slums, all of them have been controlled by Democrats for 30+ years.  Every failing school district has been controlled by Democrats.  Every state about to go bankrupt has been controlled by Democrats.  Every gov't measure that has insured the poor are kept dependent on the gov't has been sponsored and promoted by Democrats.
> Please tell me something Democrats have done to help poor people stop being poor.  Just one thing.
Click to expand...


They try to make it easier to be poor.

On the whole, I'm not convinced that is all bad.  But I fully concede that it comes at cost.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> Every state about to go bankrupt has been controlled by Democrats.




Hey do you intend to argue using real facts or just the ones you made up? The Michigan state Senate is controlled by REPUBLICANS. Both of South Carolina's and Florida's,  houses are Republican.


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every state about to go bankrupt has been controlled by Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey do you intend to argue using real facts or just the ones you made up? The Michigan state Senate is controlled by REPUBLICANS. Both of South Carolina's and Florida's,  houses are Republican.
Click to expand...


MI has been controlled by Democrats for years.  Your comment is a red herring.
SoCarolina is one of the few states doing well.
How about CA?  Or NY?

How about using facts that actually matter rather than cherry picking to make your pitiful case?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> MI has been controlled by Democrats for years.



*That's not even true the Michigan Senate has been controlled by Republicans for over 20 years, and the house only turned Democratic in 2006, but hey, don't let FACTS get in your way!
*



> SoCarolina is one of the few states doing well.



They have the 4th highest unemployment in the nation.




> How about using facts that actually matter rather than cherry picking to make your pitiful case?



LOL! You're too much man! YOU are the idiot who claimed ALL states doing poorly were controlled by Democrats! When I point out the states that doesn't apply to, that's not "cherry picking"  - ITS PROVING YOU WRONG DILDOHEAD


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> MI has been controlled by Democrats for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not even true the Michigan Senate has been controlled by Republicans for over 20 years, but hey, don't let FACTS get in your way!
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SoCarolina is one of the few states doing well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the 4th highest unemployment in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about using facts that actually matter rather than cherry picking to make your pitiful case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! You're too much man! YOU are the idiot who claimed ALL states doing poorly were controlled by Democrats! When I point out the states that doesn't apply to, that's not "cherry picking"  - ITS PROVING YOU WRONG DILDOHEAD
Click to expand...


Dumbshit.
How about the MI House of Representatives?  How about the governor?
And we aren't speaking about unemployment but about state budgets.  And SoCal is one of the better ones, thanks in part to their GOP governor.
And you've cleverly omitted the basket cases of CA, NJ, NY--all Democratic states.
What a dimwit.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> Dumbshit.
> How about the MI House of Representatives?


*Controlled by Republicans until 2006.
*


> How about the governor?



Michigan had a Republican governor from 1991 until 2003.




> And we aren't speaking about unemployment but about state budgets.



OK. Connecticut has the highest per capita deficit and Republican governor.
California is next with a Republican governor.
New Jersey at #4 Minnesota at #7 and Hawaii at #10 also have Republican governors.

Many Eyes: Per Capita State Budget Deficits (2010 Estimates)






> And SoCal is one of the better ones, thanks in part to their GOP governor.



Huh? They have the 2nd highest budget deficit per capita in the nation.



> And you've cleverly omitted the basket cases of CA, NJ, NY--all Democratic states.



CA and NJ both have Republican governors.


----------



## antagon

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> MI has been controlled by Democrats for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's not even true the Michigan Senate has been controlled by Republicans for over 20 years, but hey, don't let FACTS get in your way!
> *
> 
> 
> 
> They have the 4th highest unemployment in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about using facts that actually matter rather than cherry picking to make your pitiful case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! You're too much man! YOU are the idiot who claimed ALL states doing poorly were controlled by Democrats! When I point out the states that doesn't apply to, that's not "cherry picking"  - ITS PROVING YOU WRONG DILDOHEAD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbshit.
> How about the MI House of Representatives?  How about the governor?
> And we aren't speaking about unemployment but about state budgets.  And SoCal is one of the better ones, thanks in part to their GOP governor.
> And you've cleverly omitted the basket cases of CA, NJ, NY--all Democratic states.
> What a dimwit.
Click to expand...


youll always be wrong, rabbi, if you want to make republicans out to be economic angels.  dont forget, as you let them prod the back of your throat, that republican is a modifier of politician.


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbshit.
> How about the MI House of Representatives?
> 
> 
> 
> *Controlled by Republicans until 2006.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> How about the governor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michigan had a Republican governor from 1991 until 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Connecticut has the highest per capita deficit and Republican governor.
> California is next with a Republican governor.
> New Jersey at #4 Minnesota at #7 and Hawaii at #10 also have Republican governors.
> 
> Many Eyes: Per Capita State Budget Deficits (2010 Estimates)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And SoCal is one of the better ones, thanks in part to their GOP governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? They have the 2nd highest budget deficit per capita in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you've cleverly omitted the basket cases of CA, NJ, NY--all Democratic states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CA and NJ both have Republican governors.
Click to expand...


The GOP governor took office what?  Two months ago?  The Dums have controlled the Ca legislature for years.
And "per capita" is a shitty metric.  But not surprising you would use it since you have nothing else.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbshit.
> How about the MI House of Representatives?
> 
> 
> 
> *Controlled by Republicans until 2006.
> *
> 
> 
> Michigan had a Republican governor from 1991 until 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Connecticut has the highest per capita deficit and Republican governor.
> California is next with a Republican governor.
> New Jersey at #4 Minnesota at #7 and Hawaii at #10 also have Republican governors.
> 
> Many Eyes: Per Capita State Budget Deficits (2010 Estimates)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? They have the 2nd highest budget deficit per capita in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you've cleverly omitted the basket cases of CA, NJ, NY--all Democratic states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CA and NJ both have Republican governors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP governor took office what?  Two months ago?  The Dums have controlled the Ca legislature for years.
Click to expand...





California has had a Republican governor for 16 out of the last 20 years.

Massachusetts, another top 10 state in the list of per capita deficits, has had a Republican governor for 17 out of the last 20 years.





> And "per capita" is a shitty metric.  But not surprising you would use it since you have nothing else.





You're the one trying to make a claim here. By all means, please describe the metrics that would be acceptable to you, then I will show you that not all states which are bad according to that metric have been controlled by Democrats.


----------



## Contumacious

G.T. said:


> . Not from "simply being Human," not from God. They're from Man enacted Law. The rights were Alienable before, and we have thousands of years of proof of their alienation.



Of course.

You idol Adolf Hitler found that out and concluded that the Jews did not have a right to life. He also agreed with you that there is no such thing as  unalienable rights. Individuals have no rights that can not be taken away by the majority, the gang, the tribe, the Obama administration.........


----------



## G.T.

Contumacious said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Not from "simply being Human," not from God. They're from Man enacted Law. The rights were Alienable before, and we have thousands of years of proof of their alienation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> You idol Adolf Hitler found that out and concluded that the Jews did not have a right to life. He also agreed with you that there is no such thing as  unalienable rights. Individuals have no rights that can not be taken away by the majority, the gang, the tribe, the Obama administration.........
Click to expand...


Adolf Hitler can burn in eternity, and you can just fuck yourself.


----------



## G.T.

Contumacious said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Not from "simply being Human," not from God. They're from Man enacted Law. The rights were Alienable before, and we have thousands of years of proof of their alienation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> You idol Adolf Hitler found that out and concluded that the Jews did not have a right to life. He also agreed with you that there is no such thing as  unalienable rights. Individuals have no rights that can not be taken away by the majority, the gang, the tribe, the Obama administration.........
Click to expand...


BTW, it would help in carrying a conversation if you could act like a grown assed man and stop addressing non-points. 

I didn't say we don't have unalienable rights, I simply said that they became unalienable when man declared them as such. I've also said several times in the thread that they should remain and I agree with them. 

So #1. Your post saying that I declared there's no such thing as unalienable rights is dumb, sorry. We don't disagree that we have them, we simply disagree with their source. 

#2. Invoking Hitler is a pussy assed way out of having a conversation........kinda like admitting you don't have a pot to piss in.


----------



## rikules

G.T. said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to believe in God to understand that human life has innate value which simply IS.  It exists _because_ we're human, regardless of whether one believes we were created that way or evolved that way.  We have an "unalienable right" to be human, and not somebody else's beast of burden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Philosophy of thinking *MEN* has gotten us, sure. But it's still because they concluded that, not because of anything else, and that's the point. What makes something "unalienable" besides calling it that? If MEN didn't decide those rights were "unalienable," THEY'D BE ALIENABLE! God wouldn't stop us from alienating them. Nature wouldn't stop us from Alienating them.  AND THEY WERE ALIENATED! FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS of HUMAN HISTORY!!
> 
> So MEN decided we have inherent Rights, and most Humans like that idea, but the idea of having inherent rights still came from Men but was not "actually" "inherent upon our being." That's whimsical speak. They're not from Nature. Not from "simply being Human," not from God. They're from Man enacted Law. The rights were Alienable before, and we have thousands of years of proof of their alienation.
Click to expand...





you have the rights you can defend


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Why do Republicans want to have an uneducated workforce?


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> Why do Republicans want to have an uneducated workforce?



Same reason Democrats want an uneducated electorate.  They can foist their stupid ideas on them and get them to vote for them for eternity while robbing their pockets.
The difference is that Republicans want an educated work force.  Democrats want dependents.


----------



## The T

The Rabbi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Republicans want to have an uneducated workforce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason Democrats want an uneducated electorate. They can foist their stupid ideas on them and get them to vote for them for eternity while robbing their pockets.
> The difference is that Republicans want an educated work force. Democrats want dependents.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. See Also _Slavery_ (As in to the State and their Power over the people)...


----------



## Wicked Jester

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Controlled by Republicans until 2006.
> *
> 
> 
> Michigan had a Republican governor from 1991 until 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Connecticut has the highest per capita deficit and Republican governor.
> California is next with a Republican governor.
> New Jersey at #4 Minnesota at #7 and Hawaii at #10 also have Republican governors.
> 
> Many Eyes: Per Capita State Budget Deficits (2010 Estimates)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? They have the 2nd highest budget deficit per capita in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> CA and NJ both have Republican governors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP governor took office what?  Two months ago?  The Dums have controlled the Ca legislature for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has had a Republican governor for 16 out of the last 20 years.
> 
> Massachusetts, another top 10 state in the list of per capita deficits, has had a Republican governor for 17 out of the last 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And "per capita" is a shitty metric.  But not surprising you would use it since you have nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one trying to make a claim here. By all means, please describe the metrics that would be acceptable to you, then I will show you that not all states which are bad according to that metric have been controlled by Democrats.
Click to expand...

We don't have a republican governor. We have a liberal moron masquerading as a repub!


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> Same reason Democrats want an uneducated electorate.




That's not true. Obama and the Democrats increased tax credits for educational expenses, making it easier to send your kid to college. 




> The difference is that Republicans want an educated work force.



If that's true why are they against free education for children?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Controlled by Republicans until 2006.
> *
> 
> 
> Michigan had a Republican governor from 1991 until 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Connecticut has the highest per capita deficit and Republican governor.
> California is next with a Republican governor.
> New Jersey at #4 Minnesota at #7 and Hawaii at #10 also have Republican governors.
> 
> Many Eyes: Per Capita State Budget Deficits (2010 Estimates)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? They have the 2nd highest budget deficit per capita in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> CA and NJ both have Republican governors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP governor took office what?  Two months ago?  The Dums have controlled the Ca legislature for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has had a Republican governor for 16 out of the last 20 years.
> 
> Massachusetts, another top 10 state in the list of per capita deficits, has had a Republican governor for 17 out of the last 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And "per capita" is a shitty metric.  But not surprising you would use it since you have nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one trying to make a claim here. By all means, please describe the metrics that would be acceptable to you, then I will show you that not all states which are bad according to that metric have been controlled by Democrats.
Click to expand...




Rabbi - please respond.


----------



## Cecilie1200

slackjawed said:


> Education is not a right. Access to an education is a privalage that one should take advantage of, and most don't.



Sort of.  While I don't necessarily believe anyone is entitled to have an education, or access to it, provided to them at someone else's expense, I do think there's a basic right not to have access denied on an arbitrary basis, as in "we don't like your kind, so you can't go to our school".

That being said, I think a successful society will do its best to make education available to those who truly want to make use of it, even if they don't have the means to provide it for themselves.  We don't want to deny ourselves the services and benefits of someone bright and talented simply because he was born into a poor family.


----------



## Cecilie1200

boedicca said:


> Rather than education being a Right - education is a parental responsibility.
> 
> It is in society's interest for children to be educated, but the effect of politicizing education has resulted in indoctrination, not real education.



I'd say a child has a right to expect his parents to provide for basic education in the same way that he has a right to expect them to provide him with food, shelter, and clothing.  Claims upon one's parents are rather different from claims upon others.  And by the same token, a child who is a ward of the state DOES have a right to expect the state to provide the same basic education.


----------



## Cecilie1200

DiamondDave said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in America - having guns is a right, but education is a privilege...talk about having it arse backwards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 1 is for self protection and defense... I think we can agree self defense is a right
> 
> The other is for the betterment of one's self or someone in one's care... and we have the right to pursue that, but not have it just handed to you... just as the 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to have one provided to you
Click to expand...


And besides, no one has ever suggested that one has a right to have a gun provided for one.  We still have to go out and actually ACQUIRE the gun ourselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200

DiamondDave said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.. used some of that employment benefit I agreed to
> 
> Does not make education a right... just as any other employer's tuition reimbursement does not make it a right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't make it a right, but because of your rhetoric it makes you look like an ass.
> 
> A $1200 investment for a guaranteed 36k return.  Pretty effing sweet deal.  I should know.
> 
> Plus the enormous amount of other benefits you receive from being in the service.  Again, I should know.
> 
> All on the taxpayers dime.
> 
> The military, in many ways, is the pinnacle of entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a return for EMPLOYMENT and complete and total service... with very little pay
> 
> You are confusing entitlements with job benefits again
> 
> Support job benefits as compensation for labors given does not nullify the stance against redistribution and entitlements
Click to expand...


AND in return for the risk of perhaps losing your life in service to your country.  THAT is why the US does things like the GI bill and hiring preferences for federal jobs for its military personnel.  And well it should.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Echeaux Zulu said:


> Education is the the best way to get out of poverty. The parents who realize  this in my 'economically challenged' neighborhood I teach in realize this.   They are the ones who make sure their children are in school, and that they (the parents) show up for every parent meeting, and make sure that their kids and themselves are held accountable for their actions, instead of laying the blame on the schools or the teachers.
> 
> 
> If we didn't have public education for these children, what would happen to them?



None of which makes it a right, just a good idea.


----------



## Cecilie1200

rdean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to prove that there is a right to education specifically.  No amount of spinning will produce it because it is not there.
> Sorry.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is education necessary?  Or are you against education in general?
Click to expand...


Why is it that leftists are incapable of distinguishing between "good idea" and "civil right"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

sparky said:


> we have the right to_ remain_ stupid?
> 
> just as an aside, would anyone care to opine on a populace that endures a marked decline in it's acedemics comprable to the rest of the world it trades with?
> 
> (gee, i hope i spelt all that rigth!)



Not only do people have a right to be stupid, it is impossible to alienate that particular right, and it seems to be the one they exercise the most vigorously.


----------



## Care4all

the 10th amendment could allow education to be a right....

it certainly is not something our government could prevent us from getting.

Rights do not mean the gvt has to pay for it....the gvt does not have to buy me a gun, just because I have the right to own one.

I have the right to educate myself, as I have the right to defend myself.


----------



## Dr Grump

Heard you the first time...;O)


----------



## Cecilie1200

Murf76 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to document a few hundred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Wiki... but you can follow the links out for yourself.
> Slave rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Why is it that you believe that acceptance of slavery is a natural state of being for humans?  I just don't see it.  What I see is a natural human aversion to captivity.
> 
> Again, if there is no inherent "right" to be free... there's nothing WRONG with making another man your slave.  Morality is entirely subjective when there is no authority higher than one man's word against another's.
Click to expand...


As it happens, humanity thought for millennia that there was nothing wrong with slavery.  Oh, sure, everyone had an aversion to BEING a slave, but that's not the same as an aversion to the INSTITUTION of slavery.  It took concentrated philosophical thought - based on Christian beliefs, by the way - to get Western civilization thinking that slavery as an institution was a bad thing, and concentrated military might to make everyone else conform to that idea.  Some people still don't.


----------



## The great dane

I cant be bothered to read all those pages, so I will just give my point of view.

Being a dane, I think education is a right and I would even say that I dont like the american education system.

In my country education is free and I will never have to worry about being able to afford going to college as I can imagine many americans are and will. 
When we turn 18, we will get paid around 1000 euro each month for as long as we are students. I have no idea what that is in dollars, but my guess is around 1500 dollars.

This is a major difference between Denmark and the US.

This makes sure that everyone who wants an education, can get one no matter their economical status. 
The phrase _be all you can be_ really comes into play here.

All men are equal the declaration of independence says, but how can they be equal if not everyone can get something as basic as an education.


----------



## goldcatt

The great dane said:


> I cant be bothered to read all those pages, so I will just give my point of view.
> 
> Being a dane, I think education is a right and I would even say that I dont like the american education system.
> 
> In my country education is free and I will never have to worry about being able to afford going to college as I can imagine many americans are and will.
> When we turn 18, we will get paid around 1000 euro each month for as long as we are students. I have no idea what that is in dollars, but my guess is around 1500 dollars.
> 
> This is a major difference between Denmark and the US.
> 
> This makes sure that everyone who wants an education, can get one no matter their economical status.
> The phrase _be all you can be_ really comes into play here.
> 
> All men are equal the declaration of independence says, but how can they be equal if not everyone can get something as basic as an education.



You're right, this is a major difference between our countries.

Our Constitution is written with certain rights spelled out that the government must protect for its citizens. There is a part of it, the Ninth Amendment, that states there are rights not spelled out that are also reserved for the citizens - but that is largely ignored, nor have our courts ever in 200+ years made a determination of what precisely it means. So under our law as it stands, no, education is not a "right". 

Here we also have what I suspect you do not, which is a large contingent of our citizens pushing for freedom from all things government, some to the point of complete self-sufficiency at any price. Government is inherently evil to them, at least at the national level. Others believe there are things government is simply best suited to do, or has too much of an interest in doing, which justifies its involvement regardless of whether the law states it is a "right".  To them, government is benign or even beneficial. Many, actually I should say most, folks are in the middle and want some sort of balance between government control and self-sufficiency - we just tend to bicker over where the balance lies. That's a bit of a simplification, but it's the basic premise at the core of the debates around here on a lot of issues, public education being one of them.


----------



## mdn2000

Education in the USA is a right, that said our rights are not given to us by the government. 

Should advanced education be a right, do I have a right to stay in school and be paid to stay in school my entire life. Seems crazy if you put it in that perspective.

As far as which system is better I guess the Danish system is better, all our technological advancements are coming from Danish engineers, all our medicine is coming from the Danish, I know a bit harsh.

I dont know much about the Danish other than that giant piece of shit Vesta's wind mill comes from the Danes.

So who is getting a better education and at what cost.

Further Denmark is a tiny country, this is like comparing apples and oranges.

One University in California graduates more people in one year than all of Denmark's universities.


----------



## The Rabbi

The great dane said:


> I cant be bothered to read all those pages, so I will just give my point of view.
> 
> Being a dane, I think education is a right and I would even say that I dont like the american education system.
> 
> In my country education is free and I will never have to worry about being able to afford going to college as I can imagine many americans are and will.
> When we turn 18, we will get paid around 1000 euro each month for as long as we are students. I have no idea what that is in dollars, but my guess is around 1500 dollars.
> 
> This is a major difference between Denmark and the US.
> 
> This makes sure that everyone who wants an education, can get one no matter their economical status.
> The phrase _be all you can be_ really comes into play here.
> 
> All men are equal the declaration of independence says, but how can they be equal if not everyone can get something as basic as an education.



Education is not "free."  This is a fallacy.
Probably explains why Denmark is a third rate Euro-socialist failed state.


----------



## Samson

The Rabbi said:


> The great dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cant be bothered to read all those pages, so I will just give my point of view.
> 
> Being a dane, I think education is a right and I would even say that I dont like the american education system.
> 
> In my country education is free and I will never have to worry about being able to afford going to college as I can imagine many americans are and will.
> When we turn 18, we will get paid around 1000 euro each month for as long as we are students. I have no idea what that is in dollars, but my guess is around 1500 dollars.
> 
> This is a major difference between Denmark and the US.
> 
> This makes sure that everyone who wants an education, can get one no matter their economical status.
> The phrase _be all you can be_ really comes into play here.
> 
> All men are equal the declaration of independence says, but how can they be equal if not everyone can get something as basic as an education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education is not "free."  This is a fallacy.
> Probably explains why Denmark is a third rate Euro-socialist failed state.
Click to expand...


Let's not be in such a rush to judgement.

Imagine the USA reducing the size of our military to the size of Denmark's Tuba Playing Army?

Maybe we could pay every 18 year old $1000/mo (INDEFINATELY!) to sleep until noon, take a class, "Benefits of Socialism 101," and then smoke legal dope in a coffee shop the rest of the day.

Of course, we'd need to dupe some super-power into protecting our freedoms, but if the Dutch can do it, Why Can't We?


----------



## The Rabbi

While I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the Danes for their actions in WW2, esp for saving my wife's great uncle, who settled in Randers after the war, their present state is atrocious.  50 years of socialism have ruined the country.


----------



## Samson

The Rabbi said:


> While I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the Danes for their actions in WW2, esp for saving my wife's great uncle, who settled in Randers after the war, their present state is atrocious.  50 years of socialism have ruined the country.




You're jealous. So am I.

Hell, I'd still be in school right now if I was a Dane.

Instead, I gotta work 1/3 the year to pay taxes to help support a Military to protect Dope Smoking Danes from The Evul Communists.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> While I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the Danes for their actions in WW2, esp for saving my wife's great uncle, who settled in Randers after the war, their present state is atrocious.  50 years of socialism have ruined the country.




Their 2009 unemployment rate was 4.3%, and only 12.1% live in poverty.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html

And I remind you these statistics were compiled by the CIA, an entity which Samson is currently paying taxes to support when he could be in school in Denmark.


----------



## mdn2000

Samson said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The great dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cant be bothered to read all those pages, so I will just give my point of view.
> 
> Being a dane, I think education is a right and I would even say that I dont like the american education system.
> 
> In my country education is free and I will never have to worry about being able to afford going to college as I can imagine many americans are and will.
> When we turn 18, we will get paid around 1000 euro each month for as long as we are students. I have no idea what that is in dollars, but my guess is around 1500 dollars.
> 
> This is a major difference between Denmark and the US.
> 
> This makes sure that everyone who wants an education, can get one no matter their economical status.
> The phrase _be all you can be_ really comes into play here.
> 
> All men are equal the declaration of independence says, but how can they be equal if not everyone can get something as basic as an education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education is not "free."  This is a fallacy.
> Probably explains why Denmark is a third rate Euro-socialist failed state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not be in such a rush to judgement.
> 
> Imagine the USA reducing the size of our military to the size of Denmark's Tuba Playing Army?
> 
> Maybe we could pay every 18 year old $1000/mo (INDEFINATELY!) to sleep until noon, take a class, "Benefits of Socialism 101," and then smoke legal dope in a coffee shop the rest of the day.
> 
> Of course, we'd need to dupe some super-power into protecting our freedoms, but if the Dutch can do it, Why Can't We?
Click to expand...


I wish you would not make posts like this, it goes against what I want to think of you.


----------



## mdn2000

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the Danes for their actions in WW2, esp for saving my wife's great uncle, who settled in Randers after the war, their present state is atrocious.  50 years of socialism have ruined the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their 2009 unemployment rate was 4.3%, and only 12.1% live in poverty.
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html
> 
> And I remind you these statistics were compiled by the CIA, an entity which Samson is currently paying taxes to support when he could be in school in Denmark.
Click to expand...


How much of that economy is from Vesta, I am curious what the Danes do with all the pollution from the materials that go into building a windmill, seriously, do they have a very educated plan, because as it is now Vesta is one of the largest polluters on earth. Sure the Vesta manufacturing facility in Denmark is clean but that is where the assembly takes place, what about all those factories in China they import materials from, what do the Danes do about that pollution.

Of course we cannot expect a Dane making a thousand bucks a year as a student to take the time to read all our posts so we are just talking to ourselves but its still a good question even if The Dane cannot be troubled to read our responses.


----------



## mdn2000

The great dane said:


> I cant be bothered to read all those pages, so I will just give my point of view.
> 
> Being a dane, I think education is a right and I would even say that I dont like the american education system.
> 
> In my country education is free and I will never have to worry about being able to afford going to college as I can imagine many americans are and will.
> When we turn 18, we will get paid around 1000 euro each month for as long as we are students. I have no idea what that is in dollars, but my guess is around 1500 dollars.
> 
> This is a major difference between Denmark and the US.
> 
> This makes sure that everyone who wants an education, can get one no matter their economical status.
> The phrase _be all you can be_ really comes into play here.
> 
> All men are equal the declaration of independence says, but how can they be equal if not everyone can get something as basic as an education.



This person cannot be from Denmark.

this arrogant, the great dane

In the USA a great dane is a dog, pretty funny.

I can't be bothered, please, this is a set up, this is a user with multiple accounts having fun like good liberal/marxist always have.

Seriously, I see through this, I work with enough europeans to recognize a liberal/marxist disguised as or impersonating someone else.

This is another liberal/marxist talking shit and stirring the pot.

This is not a man or woman from Denmark.


----------



## The great dane

First of all.
Dope isnt legal in Denmark and we dont have coffee shops, that would be the Netherlands.

Yes, one University in California graduates more people in one year than all of Denmark's universities. However  there is a lot more people living in the US than in Denmark, so of course that may be true. 
The question here is, how many graduates would you have if you were as many as us? I guess we will never find out.
Yes, the US have invented a lot of things, but with a larger population comes a larger chance of someone doing something like that.
Just because something was invented in the US, donsnt mean it was only americans inventing it.
Lets look at the A-bomb, one of the things that have had a major impact on our history. 
It was made in the US, but the famous Albert Einstein was a part of the Manhattan Project and he was no american. Same thing can be said about Niels Bohr who also was a part of the Manhattan Project, he was actually danish. Both of them contributed a lot to making it.

Someone said that if your army was a small as ours you would be able to pay your students too. Once again you have to remember that the population is way bigger than that of Denmark. We may have a small army compared to that of the US, but we also have a small population.

I can see that some of you think socialism is bad and ruining my country, how is it ruining my country?

I just returned from school, so thats why I havent answered and I am really from Denmark.


----------



## Samson

The great dane said:


> Someone said that if your army was a small as ours you would be able to pay your students too. Once again you have to remember that the population is way bigger than that of Denmark. We may have a small army compared to that of the US, but we also have a small population..



Wow.

The USA must have half the population of the planet living within its borders to = per capita Military Spending of Denmark:


----------



## The great dane

Wow! 

Talk about using the money where it matters


----------



## mdn2000

The great dane said:


> Wow!
> 
> Talk about using the money where it matters



Fake poster, not from Denmark


----------



## Samson

The great dane said:


> Wow!
> 
> Talk about using the money where it matters



That's my point: The USA spends WAY more than necessary on Defence.

But, as far as European Nations are concerned, Norway does more than its share:



> *Norway amongst the top 15 military spenders *
> [17.06.2009, 03:31pm, Wed. GMT]
> 
> *Norway spends more on military per capita than any other European nation*, according to the latest figures from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Norway spent USD 5,9 billion on its military in 2008, and that is far down on the list of the worlds different nations spending on military. In comparison, Russia spent USD 38 billion on its military in 2008. But if you divide the military spending by population, the figures are somewhat different.
> 
> Based on the figures from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) the Economist.com made the list of the world`s top 15 military spenders per population. Russia is not even on the list, while *Norway is number six*, after Saudi Arabia. The lists No. 1 is Israel.
> 
> Norway spends USD 1,250 per person on its military.
> 
> Looking into the total global defence spending, Norway is far down on the list, while Russia is No. 5 with an estimated 4 percent share of the global military expenditure in 2008. Russia is after Great Britain, but before Germany, according to the figures presented in Economist.com. The United States is No. 1 on that list, with an enormous 41,4 percent share of the worlds total military expenditure.
> 
> In percentage of gross domestic product, Russia spent 3,5 percent in 2007, while Norway spent 1,5 percent. The 2008 figures is not available yet.


----------



## The great dane

Seriously, why is it so hard to believe im from Denmark?


----------



## mdn2000

The great dane said:


> Seriously, why is it so hard to believe im from Denmark?



Because after using perfect spelling and punctuation you intentionally misspell im. 

The Great Dane, that is too funny, arrogant, unlike many Europeans.

You cannot be bothered, this statement was meant to incite my bigotry, only a Liberal/Marxist is stupid enough and arrogant enough to think conservatives will automatically get racially hateful over such comments.

It was a good attempt and tricked me briefly but I caught on immediately. Next time try posting under different topics, build up a bit of credibility, than you can attack the USA with a bit more ease as if you have the insight of someone from Denmark.

My friends from Spain would of been all over me had I baited them like I did you, to denigrate windmills to a  Dane would of been like calling American Apple pie no better than Cow pies.

If your going to play the part you have to take the bait when one baits you.


----------



## Samson

The great dane said:


> Seriously, why is it so hard to believe im from Denmark?



Why do you care?

If it makes you feel any better, I don't.

mdn2000 is from Finland, don't pay attention to his Foolish Finnishness!


----------



## mdn2000

Samson said:


> The great dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, why is it so hard to believe im from Denmark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care?
> 
> If it makes you feel any better, I don't.
> 
> mdn2000 is from Finland, don't pay attention to his Foolish Finnishness!
Click to expand...


You bastard, after I tickled you pink you said you were not going to tell anyone. 

I let that one go and this is what I get.


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the Danes for their actions in WW2, esp for saving my wife's great uncle, who settled in Randers after the war, their present state is atrocious.  50 years of socialism have ruined the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their 2009 unemployment rate was 4.3%, and only 12.1% live in poverty.
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html
> 
> And I remind you these statistics were compiled by the CIA, an entity which Samson is currently paying taxes to support when he could be in school in Denmark.
Click to expand...




> Denmark is currently the most taxed country in the OECD and the world with an income tax of up to 59%[1]


Denmark: Budget slipping into the red
I hadnt realized Denmark is an oil producer.  I wonder what their budget would look like without oil r evenue.


----------



## Murf76

Samson said:


> You're jealous. So am I.
> 
> Hell, I'd still be in school right now if I was a Dane.
> 
> Instead, I gotta work 1/3 the year to pay taxes to help support a Military to protect Dope Smoking Danes from The Evul Communists.



Mark Steyn makes a great point this week about how the United States makes it possible for all these Euro-socialist countries to spend on social welfare, but that there's no such backstop for us if _we_ go the same route.  Excellent piece.  Don't miss a word.
Tattered Liberty - Mark Steyn - National Review Online


----------



## SpidermanTuba

The Rabbi said:


> Denmark is currently the most taxed country in the OECD and the world with an income tax of up to 59%[1]
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark: Budget slipping into the red
> I hadnt realized Denmark is an oil producer.  I wonder what their budget would look like without oil r evenue.
Click to expand...


They get a lot more for their tax dollars than we do. But please feel free to ignore that fact.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Murf76 said:


> Mark Steyn makes a great point this week about how the United States makes it possible for all these Euro-socialist countries to spend on social welfare, but that there's no such backstop for us if _we_ go the same route.  Excellent piece.  Don't miss a word.
> Tattered Liberty - Mark Steyn - National Review Online


Mark Stein sounds like a self righteous piece of shit. I'm pretty sure Europeans pay for their social welfare with their own money and under their own laws.


----------



## Murf76

SpidermanTuba said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Steyn makes a great point this week about how the United States makes it possible for all these Euro-socialist countries to spend on social welfare, but that there's no such backstop for us if _we_ go the same route.  Excellent piece.  Don't miss a word.
> Tattered Liberty - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Stein sounds like a self righteous piece of shit. I'm pretty sure Europeans pay for their social welfare with their own money and under their own laws.
Click to expand...


Europeans can do whatever the fuck they want in their own countries.  That doesn't mean you're going to find the majority of Americans willing to live on 41 cents of their dollar, all the while crossing their fingers and hoping someone ELSE will bail them out if they have a national defense problem.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Murf76 said:


> Europeans can do whatever the fuck they want in their own countries.



That's exactly my point



> That doesn't mean you're going to find the majority of Americans willing to live on 41 cents of their dollar, all the while crossing their fingers and hoping someone ELSE will bail them out if they have a national defense problem.



I wasn't aware the entire European content lived in a state of perpetual fear.


----------



## The Rabbi

SpidermanTuba said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark is currently the most taxed country in the OECD and the world with an income tax of up to 59%[1]
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark: Budget slipping into the red
> I hadnt realized Denmark is an oil producer.  I wonder what their budget would look like without oil r evenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get a lot more for their tax dollars than we do. But please feel free to ignore that fact.
Click to expand...


Huh?
Do you even know what kind of point you're trying to make?
Of course they get more.  They aren't taking responsibility for their own defense, relying on the American umbrella.  That saves a bunch that can be used to subsidize needy Muslims who aren't interested in working.


----------



## antagon

SpidermanTuba said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Steyn makes a great point this week about how the United States makes it possible for all these Euro-socialist countries to spend on social welfare, but that there's no such backstop for us if _we_ go the same route.  Excellent piece.  Don't miss a word.
> Tattered Liberty - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Stein sounds like a self righteous piece of shit. I'm pretty sure Europeans pay for their social welfare with their own money and under their own laws.
Click to expand...

europeans started all that social welfare with marshall plan DOLLARS to start with.


----------



## The Rabbi

antagon said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Steyn makes a great point this week about how the United States makes it possible for all these Euro-socialist countries to spend on social welfare, but that there's no such backstop for us if _we_ go the same route.  Excellent piece.  Don't miss a word.
> Tattered Liberty - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Stein sounds like a self righteous piece of shit. I'm pretty sure Europeans pay for their social welfare with their own money and under their own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> europeans started all that social welfare with marshall plan DOLLARS to start with.
Click to expand...


Not really.
Actually it came in the German Empire under Bismark.


----------



## mdn2000

spidermantuba said:


> murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> mark steyn makes a great point this week about how the united states makes it possible for all these euro-socialist countries to spend on social welfare, but that there's no such backstop for us if _we_ go the same route.  Excellent piece.  Don't miss a word.
> tattered liberty - mark steyn - national review online
> 
> 
> 
> mark stein sounds like a self righteous piece of shit. I'm pretty sure europeans pay for their social welfare with their own money and under their own laws.
Click to expand...


he is canadian


----------



## editec

antagon said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Steyn makes a great point this week about how the United States makes it possible for all these Euro-socialist countries to spend on social welfare, but that there's no such backstop for us if _we_ go the same route. Excellent piece. Don't miss a word.
> Tattered Liberty - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Stein sounds like a self righteous piece of shit. I'm pretty sure Europeans pay for their social welfare with their own money and under their own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> europeans started all that social welfare with marshall plan DOLLARS to start with.
Click to expand...

 
Go read some history, you ignoramous.


----------



## The great dane

Sigh...

We pay an average of around 42% in tax, the richer you are the more you pay. 
The idea here is that the more fortunate helps the less fortunate.

No our education and healthcare isnt "free" because we pay for it through our taxes. 
However I havent paid a single dollar to go at my school, so it is free for me.

Then someone writes _Denmark: Budget slipping into the red
I hadnt realized Denmark is an oil producer. I wonder what their budget would look like without oil r evenue. 
_

Whats the point of that? I can play along if you wish.
How is the US budget? 
_The total debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY  2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008 and $1.9 trillion in FY2009.[4]_
Huh, not doing so great it seems, but I guess China is loving it.

Why do you think we need the US military to protect us?
The EU got enough military to protect Europe against anyone.


----------



## The Rabbi

The great dane said:


> Why do you think we need the US military to protect us?
> The EU got enough military to protect Europe against anyone.



You're kidding, right?
The Euro's armies are so rotted through, so unprepared to do anything other than stage a band concert that they are a joke.  When Serbs were committing genocide the Euros' response was to sit around and talk about it.  When that failed they resolved to talk more.  Finally it took U.S. resolve and military power to put a stop to it.
The Europeans are so politically correct they are allowing muslims to undermine their way of life and destroy their culture.
You guys couldn't protect yourselves from a third rate tin pot dictator, much less a determined enemy like Putin.


----------



## The great dane

If you can back that up in some way, I would believe it.

EU active military count: 1,536,274
US active military count: 1,445,000

EU combat aircraft: 3,523
EU tanks: 11,452

I have no idea what the US has


----------



## The Rabbi

Sure thing.
Fraters Libertas


> Interesting piece in today?s WSJ about the combat readiness of the various European armies. Shockingly enough, they aint.
> 
> The article says that the European armies spend most of their meager budgets on benees and pay for their soldiers, as opposed to gear or weapons. To wit: the US spends about 36% of its budget on personnel expenditures. Germany is at 61%. Italy 72% and Portugal a whopping 80%. It makes it somewhat hard to update your weapons systems when your budget is going down the gullet of the soldiers like so many weinerschnitzel.
> 
> It was also somewhat (only somewhat--this IS Europe after all and there was a reason our ancestors ditched the place) surprising to learn that the average age of a Belgian soldier is 40, compared with 28 for US forces. The thought of pretty much any Belgian army hardly strikes fear into it?s enemies, but an OLD Belgian army is even more of a joke.
> 
> The armies of Europe have become an extension of the generous welfare state most of the governments have already wrapped their citizens in.


more at the source.


----------



## mdn2000

The great dane said:


> Sigh...
> 
> We pay an average of around 42% in tax, the richer you are the more you pay.
> The idea here is that the more fortunate helps the less fortunate.
> 
> No our education and healthcare isnt "free" because we pay for it through our taxes.
> However I havent paid a single dollar to go at my school, so it is free for me.
> 
> Then someone writes _Denmark: Budget slipping into the red
> I hadnt realized Denmark is an oil producer. I wonder what their budget would look like without oil r evenue.
> _
> 
> Whats the point of that? I can play along if you wish.
> How is the US budget?
> _The total debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY  2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008 and $1.9 trillion in FY2009.[4]_
> Huh, not doing so great it seems, but I guess China is loving it.
> 
> Why do you think we need the US military to protect us?
> The EU got enough military to protect Europe against anyone.



This poster is an impostor, not from Denmark.


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn2000 said:


> The great dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh...
> 
> We pay an average of around 42% in tax, the richer you are the more you pay.
> The idea here is that the more fortunate helps the less fortunate.
> 
> No our education and healthcare isnt "free" because we pay for it through our taxes.
> However I havent paid a single dollar to go at my school, so it is free for me.
> 
> Then someone writes _Denmark: Budget slipping into the red
> I hadnt realized Denmark is an oil producer. I wonder what their budget would look like without oil r evenue.
> _
> 
> Whats the point of that? I can play along if you wish.
> How is the US budget?
> _The total debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY  2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008 and $1.9 trillion in FY2009.[4]_
> Huh, not doing so great it seems, but I guess China is loving it.
> 
> Why do you think we need the US military to protect us?
> The EU got enough military to protect Europe against anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This poster is an impostor, not from Denmark.
Click to expand...


Your proof of which is? 


Living in Denmark

Living in Denmark
The Danish welfare system is characterized by economic growth and a high standard of living due to the relatively equal distribution of income. This means that citizens enjoy extensive financial security. They are supported in times of sickness, unemployment and old age. Supplementary services include help with rent payment and with expenses on children. Furthermore, citizens are offered services such as day-care centres, health care and home care. 

Contrary to most other EU member states, social benefits in Denmark only to a very limited degree depend on employer contributions and direct contributions, and peoples right to benefits depends only to a limited extent on their former activity on the labour market. The principle behind the Danish welfare society, often known as the Scandinavian welfare model, is that all citizens have access to social benefits regardless of their social or ethnic background. This means that foreigners living in Denmark benefit from the Danish welfare system on an equally with Danes and may benefit from the public (partly self financed) childcare system, the public educational system and the free public health service.

Foreigners living in Denmark describe it as a safe and peaceful country for their children to grow up in. Many emphasize the high quality of life and the opportunities for families with children. Many also appreciate the unpolluted and easily accessible natural environment they find in Denmark.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

I wonder  how much  money Denmark gets from the USA ?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

The great dane said:


> Why do you think we need the US military to protect us?
> The EU got enough military to protect Europe against anyone.


Sigh , you cant even identify  your enemies.


----------



## frazzledgear

AvgGuyIA said:


> I saw that "education is a right" poster on Glenn Beck yesterday.  It looked like something they would have drawn up in the old Soviet Socialist Republic - right down to the red color and a "workers" hand pressed down on an open book.




Real rights only involve actions taken by an individual, actions considered necessary for the proper and full protection of an individual's personal thoughts, opinions and beliefs.  And that is what real rights are -protecting those actions we believe are absolutely necessary in order to best protect what is in our HEADS.   Having rights places NO obligation either on other people or government to help you exercise them.  NOT EVER.  Real rights only places restrictions on government about any actions it may NOT take to punish someone for how they chose to exercise their rights.   True rights NEVER places obligations on anyone else or government to help you exercise them.   

You have the right of free speech but I, as a fellow citizen, am NOT obligated to pay for a stadium either directly or in the form of taxes so you can use it to exercise your free speech.  It is a right because it means government cannot arrest you for what you said while exercising that right.  You have the right of assembly but I do not have to pay for that same stadium so you can assemble -it means government cannot arrest you for assembling.  You have the right to worship as you want but I am under no obligation to build you a church so you can -it means government cannot arrest you because of your religious or lack of religious beliefs.  Your RIGHTS place zero obligation on ME as a fellow citizen.  I lose none of my own rights just because someone else exercises their own.  And no one has a right to the fruits of my own labor but ME.  In THIS country, the amount that is turned over to government is decided by WE THE PEOPLE through our elected representatives -who we can and will remove from office if they refuse to carry out the will of the people and replace with them with someone who will.    


The left just cannot grasp this one -but if your fellow citizens are expected to cough up the money for it either directly or indirectly in the form of taxes, or it requires individuals to perform some service on your behalf - then it isn't a "right".  PERIOD.   Real rights never place any such obligations on others.  Anything that is paid for by taxpayers -which is NOT all citizens -is never a right.  Whatever is provided by taxpayer money and made available to others is an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM only.  Not a right.   Our public school system is an entitlement program -one that does not extend to college.  And even though we have created greater access to a higher education with a variety of measures -education can never be a "right" because there is no such thing as a "right" to the knowledge possessed by another person.  Individuals are either provided access to those willing to impart that knowledge in the form of a freebie or they may pay for it.  But if it were a true right, it would mean a right to FORCE others to fork over their knowledge to you whether they wanted to or not.  No such right.


----------



## The great dane

I dont get it, why is it so hard to believe im from Denmark 
All you say is "imposter!", but you never tell me why you dont think im from Denmark.

How much money the US gives Denmark? Are you serious?
Denmark produces oil, natural gas, wind- and bio-energy. Its principal exports are machinery, instruments and food products. The U.S. is Denmark's largest non-European trading partner, accounting for around 5% of total Danish merchandise trade. Aircraft, computers, machinery, and instruments are among the major U.S. exports to Denmark.
Among major Danish exports to the U.S. are industrial machinery, chemical products, furniture, pharmaceuticals, and canned ham and pork.

Some of you people act like the US doesnt need the rest of the world and your country is the best in world. I can understand why you think like that, I think the same about my country.
However saying _"I wonder how much money Denmark gets from the USA"_ just indicates that you have no clue whats going on.
No, the US doesnt give us money, they trade with us and fight with us.

When Iraq was invaded, there was only 4 contries who joined you, Denmark being one of them. Yeah we didnt send as many soldiers as you, but then again we arent as many as you.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I wonder  how much  money Denmark gets from the USA ?



Why don't you look  it up and let us know

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary


----------



## konradv

_They are the natural rights of an individual that preexist and are independent of the form of government. We are born with them.  Education and Health Care are things we acquire with some effort, i.e., services we earn. Calling them rights confuses them with a natural condition_
------------------------------

I'm sorry, but you're not born with any natural rights.  Rights as we know them are a gift we've given ourselves by banding together and calling it government.  Natural rights, on the other hand, involve things like, if we're of different species and I'm stronger, I have the right to kill you and eat you.  If we're of the same species and I'm stronger, I'll take your kill, leave you the left overs and from then on you'll be subservient to me.  THAT'S Natural Law.  I have no idea where you get your rose-colored scenario.  It doesn'r seem to have much to do with realitry, however.


----------

