Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[there4eyeM]

If America truly believes its precepts, it is obliged to actively propagate them.
That doesn't mean it has to achieve the goal by military operations. The US has extremely efficient methods of communicating and disseminating. Humanitarian efforts advance the cause much better than sheer might.
Everyone is a citizen of the world described by the belief in the social contract.

 

[SniperFire]

God doesn't give us any rights aside from the right of free will.

What the founding fathers meant was that we have rights because we exist. In reality, only we as people can grant rights to the nation as a whole. And these rights have always been unequally applied as our early history shows we didn't grant them to women, blacks, or Indians.

And if we believed that all people had the same rights we wouldn't be beholden to geopolitical boundries, instead we would try to grant these rights to all people of all nations or at the very least accept anyone that wanted to become an American citizen into our country.

While it is idiotic to bring up USA citizenship under unalienable rights, you are in fact making the case for America proactively defending and spreading the cause of freedom throughout the world.

Those days are probably gone, however, as the pendulum seems ready to swing back toward your favored totalitarianism.

Yes, I am making that case and the way the constitution is written that is what we should be doing. Not that I think we can afford to do it, hence my second option.

I will now neg you for being a dick. I have no interest in totalitarianism nor does anything in my post suggest it.

The end result of the collectivsm you support is collapse followed by totalitarianism.

 

[Ravi]

While it is idiotic to bring up USA citizenship under unalienable rights, you are in fact making the case for America proactively defending and spreading the cause of freedom throughout the world.

Those days are probably gone, however, as the pendulum seems ready to swing back toward your favored totalitarianism.

Yes, I am making that case and the way the constitution is written that is what we should be doing. Not that I think we can afford to do it, hence my second option.

I will now neg you for being a dick. I have no interest in totalitarianism nor does anything in my post suggest it.

The end result of the collectivsm you support is collapse followed by totalitarianism.

If you don't like this "collectivism" you should be working to amend the constitution, Jethro.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why are some states called 'commonwealth'?

 

[SniperFire]

Why are some states called 'commonwealth'?

It never meant your desired communism, I assure you.

 

[SniperFire]

Yes, I am making that case and the way the constitution is written that is what we should be doing. Not that I think we can afford to do it, hence my second option.

I will now neg you for being a dick. I have no interest in totalitarianism nor does anything in my post suggest it.

The end result of the collectivsm you support is collapse followed by totalitarianism.

If you don't like this "collectivism" you should be working to amend the constitution, Jethro.

'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.'


Hope that helps.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why are some states called 'commonwealth'?

It never meant your desired communism, I assure you.

Are you capable of understanding your projection? There is absolutely, nowhere, any indication I favor 'communism' (whatever that may mean to you).

Do you think upholding the initial precepts of the US is 'communist'? Do you think co-operative effort is 'communist'? Is social action 'socialist'? What about 'brotherhood?

What does it do for you to immediately categorize others so quickly and inaccurately?

 

[SniperFire]

Why are some states called 'commonwealth'?

It never meant your desired communism, I assure you.

Are you capable of understanding your projection? There is absolutely, nowhere, any indication I favor 'communism' (whatever that may mean to you).

Do you think upholding the initial precepts of the US is 'communist'? Do you think co-operative effort is 'communist'? Is social action 'socialist'? What about 'brotherhood?

What does it do for you to immediately categorize others so quickly and inaccurately?

So you don't know what a commonwealth is, then?


LOL

 

[there4eyeM]

"'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."

So there would be no problem for a state to apply any form of social/political system it liked.

 

[there4eyeM]

Posing a question to someone means the person asking does not know the answer? All your teachers were idiots?

 

[SniperFire]

"'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."

So there would be no problem for a state to apply any form of social/political system it liked.

Not very bright of you.

 

[SniperFire]

...rights are established and secured through social consensus.

That is simply not true. Rights may be restricted through the legislative process, but the rights we're talking about, you're born with. We can debate on what is and what isn't an inherent right, but you are very wrong that rights come through democracy or through social consensus. Just flat out wrong.

I am amazed that there is this much ignorance on this subject. It is the very founding principal that differentiated the USA from all previous societies.

Ah the wonders of public education...

Then why can the right of gays to same sex marriage be so easily ignored, and denied?

Marriage is not a right, idiot. As far as government is concerned, it is a privilege granted by the states.

 

[The T]

"'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."

So there would be no problem for a state to apply any form of social/political system it liked.

It's NOT about party...but LIBERTY. That's the legacy the Founders gave us, and incidently? They too belived that rights came from GOD and not men. Ever read the Declaration?

Washington stated that the parties would destroy the Republic. Looks like he was correct, wasn't he?

 

[Ravi]

The end result of the collectivsm you support is collapse followed by totalitarianism.

If you don't like this "collectivism" you should be working to amend the constitution, Jethro.

'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.'


Hope that helps.

I think you should go back to school and retake civics and American history. Apparently you slept through those classes.

 

[SniperFire]

If you don't like this "collectivism" you should be working to amend the constitution, Jethro.

'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.'


Hope that helps.

I think you should go back to school and retake civics and American history. Apparently you slept through those classes.

Your best is a drool.



LOL

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... says inna Constitution `bout inalienable rights...

... conferred by God...

... or sumpin' like dat."

 

[editec]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government. Actually, they come from "we the people" and we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth. Nature dictates some of our limitiations only. But we have been able to overcome a lot of those. God? If you believe in him, I thought he gave us free will to decide things for ourselves?

In order to continue the canard that rights are INalienable (or UNalienable if you like anachronistic speech) one has to make the concept of RIGHTS supernatural.

Hence the GOD connection.

The fact that any idiot with a gun can ALINATE any of us from every right we have doesn't apparently bother the FAITH BASED morons who weight in on this discussion every time it comes up.

Civil Rights come from a society that believes in them and insures that it grants those rights to its citizens.

Those are the only rights one has as it pertains to this context.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is the problem with people understanding that their perceptions and consciousness are the basis for their knowledge? What is the difficulty in accepting the obvious?
Choice means choosing what one believes. That society does not like us to realize that only shows how important it is.

 

[G.T.]

That is simply not true. Rights may be restricted through the legislative process, but the rights we're talking about, you're born with. We can debate on what is and what isn't an inherent right, but you are very wrong that rights come through democracy or through social consensus. Just flat out wrong.

I am amazed that there is this much ignorance on this subject. It is the very founding principal that differentiated the USA from all previous societies.

Ah the wonders of public education...

Then why can the right of gays to same sex marriage be so easily ignored, and denied?

Marriage is not a right, idiot. As far as government is concerned, it is a privilege granted by the states.

According to the supreme court, it is.

 

[freedombecki]

"'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."

So there would be no problem for a state to apply any form of social/political system it liked.

It's NOT about party...but LIBERTY. That's the legacy the Founders gave us, and incidently? They too belived that rights came from GOD and not men. Ever read the Declaration?

Washington stated that the parties would destroy the Republic. Looks like he was correct, wasn't he?

Yes and no.

Sometimes it feels like we're coming apart at the seams due to a recently proffered thesis of "wealth redistribution" as a right.

Hopefully, people will go back to their roots of trying to get by in life with what comforts they can earn, and save back some of their earnings to live off of when they get old. If you scrimp and save, don't get caught up in too much drugs and alcohol and live positively, you can resist taking assistance and learn to fight back with just your determination with respect to other people who have pursued happiness and won it. Having what other people have is not always that much fun anyway. Life itself is just plain fun. I think America is the best place in the world to have it, too.

Oh, yeah, and I agree with Paul Ryan. I think all good things come from God including nature, but that's just my humble opinion.