"Government" is Not the Problem.

[bripat9643]

I would not be good with that and would loudly object, the constitutionality of it depends on how the rule/laws were made, enacted, and enforced

Yet, like Joe, you think we have no rights and that Tyranny of the Majority would rule the day. So the scenario stands. If enough people in the United States elect Trump and he bans Muslims, you believe that is in keeping with the Constitution. I disagree, but that's what you are saying.

Does the president have the right to ban an entire religion from our country? Or would it take an act of congress

The president can ban immigrants for whatever reason he chooses. He can certainly decline to pay their expenses to get here and decline to wave their visa application expenses, which is exactly what Obama is doing. None of these so-called "refugees" could make it to this country without the U.S. Government paying their way. If you claim he can't ban Muslims, then he can certainly ban immigrants from certain countries, like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a host of others.

Well there you go. If Trump gets elected and bans Muslims then I guess he has the authority to do so. Honestly I have looked into he legality and I take what all posters here say with a grain of salt. Regardless, I imagine it would cause great divide and controversy in this country so I hope we don't find ourselves in that situation

Why would you want to flood this country with Muslims? They do nothing but cause trouble every where they go. Frankly, we should stop immigration altogether. We gain nothing from it.

 

[bripat9643]

Well there you go. If Trump gets elected and bans Muslims then I guess he has the authority to do so. Honestly I have looked into he legality and I take what all posters here say with a grain of salt. Regardless, I imagine it would cause great divide and controversy in this country so I hope we don't find ourselves in that situation

And there we have it, folks! Proof positive that there is no difference between "modern" Liberals and "modern" Conservatives: Both want to shred the Constitution and wipe their asses with it.

I guess the same goes for those that wanted to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote... Damn those constitution haters. At least they have clean asses

Those would be Democrats. The Republican Party was started by the Abolitionists.

Not really. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

 

[bripat9643]

Technically we can by amending the constitution. Same way we enacted those laws and rights in the first place.

That's not what Joe was pushing nor you, earlier. Nice dodge though.

Are you saying Joe's OP is wrong? Yes or no, please. No more dodging.

The OP is correct and falls in line with what I've been saying. Our rights are outlined in our constitution, which can be modified by the will of the people. I've used examples with slavery and women... And wasn't booze once prohibited as well? I don't know why you are arguing so adimantly against this, thought it was pretty basic common knowledge

So if the people passed a Constitutional Amendment legalizing slavery, you wouldn't go running around crying that it violates the rights of the designated slaves?

 

[Divine Wind]

Our Constitution, including, like'em or not, all of our Amendments, stands unless properly amended:

 

[Slade3200]

I never said that, you have my statement right in front of you and you distort it.... I didn't say it was constitutional, but if the government decides to amend the constitution, which they have done and can do, they can make any actions legal or illegal, including all that you listed.

Thanks for backpedaling from your "You all are funny, your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government" statement and recognizing that it takes a Constitutional amendment to do things like Joe's OP. You do know, of course, amendments require state ratification?

Yes I do, but that doesn't negate my point, it proves it. We are all bound by laws... Whether they are local, state, national, or constitutional... And they are all subject to change if it is the will of the majority. I haven't back peddled from anything. You've reinforced my point

 

[Slade3200]

I read and agree with the OP. You seem to be having some comprehension problems

Thanks for the insult. It confirms my assessment of you.

Insult? It's just the truth, I say something then you restate it in a distorted way. You either don't understand or are intentionally trying to deceive

 

[Slade3200]

Technically we can by amending the constitution. Same way we enacted those laws and rights in the first place.

That's not what Joe was pushing nor you, earlier. Nice dodge though.

Are you saying Joe's OP is wrong? Yes or no, please. No more dodging.

The OP is correct and falls in line with what I've been saying. Our rights are outlined in our constitution, which can be modified by the will of the people. I've used examples with slavery and women... And wasn't booze once prohibited as well? I don't know why you are arguing so adimantly against this, thought it was pretty basic common knowledge

So if the people passed a Constitutional Amendment legalizing slavery, you wouldn't go running around crying that it violates the rights of the designated slaves?

I would do everything I can to oppose it, which is my right. But as we've seen through history, laws don't always fall In Line with what we feel should be our rights

 

[Divine Wind]

Insult? It's just the truth, I say something then you restate it in a distorted way. You either don't understand or are intentionally trying to deceive

You're the one who backpedaled from "your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government" to saying the Constitution can be amended, as straw man which everyone certainly agrees with from the OP onward.

Call it what you like. People are free to read our posts and decide which of us is being the most honest and which are try to deceive.

 

[Slade3200]

Insult? It's just the truth, I say something then you restate it in a distorted way. You either don't understand or are intentionally trying to deceive

You're the one who backpedaled from "your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government" to saying the Constitution can be amended, as straw man which everyone certainly agrees with from the OP onward.

Call it what you like. People are free to read our posts and decide which of us is being the most honest and which are try to deceive.

I know the intension behind my words. Just because you are free to interpret as you wish doesn't make your interpretation correct. In fact the only person that knows the true intent behind MY words is me.

My quote "your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government..." stands to be true. Freedom is constrained within the laws of the land, and in the laws written in the constitution and by our government. The local, state, and national laws... All of which can be amended. Your "freedom" can be taken away at any time by the government if you break their rules. You pay the government for the land you live on, you pay for the goods you buy and sell, it is all taxed which is your fee to be "free". It's your "Membership" to be an American.

There used to be a constitutional right to own another human being. There used to be no rights for women to vote. There are plenty of other examples which you all refer to as your "God given rights" that were not true in the past. They now exist because our law makers, our people, our government made it so. This will continue to evolve through out time. You feel that it is your right to bear arms. That is true. But if you don't think the government can regulate that, or amend that in the future, then you are dead wrong. There are no absolutes...

 

[bripat9643]

Technically we can by amending the constitution. Same way we enacted those laws and rights in the first place.

That's not what Joe was pushing nor you, earlier. Nice dodge though.

Are you saying Joe's OP is wrong? Yes or no, please. No more dodging.

The OP is correct and falls in line with what I've been saying. Our rights are outlined in our constitution, which can be modified by the will of the people. I've used examples with slavery and women... And wasn't booze once prohibited as well? I don't know why you are arguing so adimantly against this, thought it was pretty basic common knowledge

So if the people passed a Constitutional Amendment legalizing slavery, you wouldn't go running around crying that it violates the rights of the designated slaves?

I would do everything I can to oppose it, which is my right. But as we've seen through history, laws don't always fall In Line with what we feel should be our rights

Why would you oppose it? If the government or the majority determine what rights are, then it's perfectly moral and ethical to enslave 15% of the population. You can't argue on the one hand that slavery is moral and ethical, and on the other argue that it's a crime against humanity.

 

[bripat9643]

Insult? It's just the truth, I say something then you restate it in a distorted way. You either don't understand or are intentionally trying to deceive

You're the one who backpedaled from "your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government" to saying the Constitution can be amended, as straw man which everyone certainly agrees with from the OP onward.

Call it what you like. People are free to read our posts and decide which of us is being the most honest and which are try to deceive.

I know the intension behind my words. Just because you are free to interpret as you wish doesn't make your interpretation correct. In fact the only person that knows the true intent behind MY words is me.

My quote "your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government..." stands to be true. Freedom is constrained within the laws of the land, and in the laws written in the constitution and by our government. The local, state, and national laws... All of which can be amended. Your "freedom" can be taken away at any time by the government if you break their rules. You pay the government for the land you live on, you pay for the goods you buy and sell, it is all taxed which is your fee to be "free". It's your "Membership" to be an American.

There used to be a constitutional right to own another human being. There used to be no rights for women to vote. There are plenty of other examples which you all refer to as your "God given rights" that were not true in the past. They now exist because our law makers, our people, our government made it so. This will continue to evolve through out time. You feel that it is your right to bear arms. That is true. But if you don't think the government can regulate that, or amend that in the future, then you are dead wrong. There are no absolutes...

So what if there was a Constitutional right to own slaves? According to you, that was perfectly ethical and just. Whatever the majority decides is just. That's what you've been saying.

 

[Slade3200]

Technically we can by amending the constitution. Same way we enacted those laws and rights in the first place.

That's not what Joe was pushing nor you, earlier. Nice dodge though.

Are you saying Joe's OP is wrong? Yes or no, please. No more dodging.

The OP is correct and falls in line with what I've been saying. Our rights are outlined in our constitution, which can be modified by the will of the people. I've used examples with slavery and women... And wasn't booze once prohibited as well? I don't know why you are arguing so adimantly against this, thought it was pretty basic common knowledge

So if the people passed a Constitutional Amendment legalizing slavery, you wouldn't go running around crying that it violates the rights of the designated slaves?

I would do everything I can to oppose it, which is my right. But as we've seen through history, laws don't always fall In Line with what we feel should be our rights

Why would you oppose it? If the government or the majority determine what rights are, then it's perfectly moral and ethical to enslave 15% of the population. You can't argue on the one hand that slavery is moral and ethical, and on the other argue that it's a crime against humanity.

The government determines what our laws are. That doesn't always fall in line with what people feel their rights are. We've seen it through history and in modern times... Blacks, women, gays, now transsexuals...

I would oppose it simply because I don't agree and I have every right to voice that objection. Just as you do for pretty much everything the left does... As annoying as it is

 

[Divine Wind]

Why would you oppose it? If the government or the majority determine what rights are, then it's perfectly moral and ethical to enslave 15% of the population. You can't argue on the one hand that slavery is moral and ethical, and on the other argue that it's a crime against humanity.

Agreed. That's the corner the "Government gives us our rights" aka Democrats/Liberals have painted themselves into.

 

[bripat9643]

That's not what Joe was pushing nor you, earlier. Nice dodge though.

Are you saying Joe's OP is wrong? Yes or no, please. No more dodging.

The OP is correct and falls in line with what I've been saying. Our rights are outlined in our constitution, which can be modified by the will of the people. I've used examples with slavery and women... And wasn't booze once prohibited as well? I don't know why you are arguing so adimantly against this, thought it was pretty basic common knowledge

So if the people passed a Constitutional Amendment legalizing slavery, you wouldn't go running around crying that it violates the rights of the designated slaves?

I would do everything I can to oppose it, which is my right. But as we've seen through history, laws don't always fall In Line with what we feel should be our rights

Why would you oppose it? If the government or the majority determine what rights are, then it's perfectly moral and ethical to enslave 15% of the population. You can't argue on the one hand that slavery is moral and ethical, and on the other argue that it's a crime against humanity.

The government determines what our laws are. That doesn't always fall in line with what people feel their rights are. We've seen it through history and in modern times... Blacks, women, gays, now transsexuals...

I would oppose it simply because I don't agree and I have every right to voice that objection. Just as you do for pretty much everything the left does... As annoying as it is

If the people FEEL that slavery is OK, then who are you to say it isn't? If society determines that homosexuals should be thrown off the top of tall buildings, who are you to say they shouldn't? What makes your feelings any better than theirs?

Yeah, you can voice your opinion, but you haven't even given a good reason for having a different opinion. In your view, just is purely a social construct. It can change from one day to the next. If you feel Muslims should not be discriminated against in our immigration policy, that's just your opinion. If you were honest, you would have to admit that no one has any reason to listen to your opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would you oppose it? If the government or the majority determine what rights are, then it's perfectly moral and ethical to enslave 15% of the population. You can't argue on the one hand that slavery is moral and ethical, and on the other argue that it's a crime against humanity.

Agreed. That's the corner the "Government gives us our rights" aka Democrats/Liberals have painted themselves into.

Most of them are too stupid to even understand why that's a contradiction.

 

[Divine Wind]

Most of them are too stupid to even understand why that's a contradiction.

They're not too stupid to dance around the questions.

 

[Slade3200]

Insult? It's just the truth, I say something then you restate it in a distorted way. You either don't understand or are intentionally trying to deceive

You're the one who backpedaled from "your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government" to saying the Constitution can be amended, as straw man which everyone certainly agrees with from the OP onward.

Call it what you like. People are free to read our posts and decide which of us is being the most honest and which are try to deceive.

I know the intension behind my words. Just because you are free to interpret as you wish doesn't make your interpretation correct. In fact the only person that knows the true intent behind MY words is me.

My quote "your freedom is an illusion only permissible by the government..." stands to be true. Freedom is constrained within the laws of the land, and in the laws written in the constitution and by our government. The local, state, and national laws... All of which can be amended. Your "freedom" can be taken away at any time by the government if you break their rules. You pay the government for the land you live on, you pay for the goods you buy and sell, it is all taxed which is your fee to be "free". It's your "Membership" to be an American.

There used to be a constitutional right to own another human being. There used to be no rights for women to vote. There are plenty of other examples which you all refer to as your "God given rights" that were not true in the past. They now exist because our law makers, our people, our government made it so. This will continue to evolve through out time. You feel that it is your right to bear arms. That is true. But if you don't think the government can regulate that, or amend that in the future, then you are dead wrong. There are no absolutes...

So what if there was a Constitutional right to own slaves? According to you, that was perfectly ethical and just. Whatever the majority decides is just. That's what you've been saying.

No thats not what i'm saying, you are a little slow so i'll try and make it real simple... If slavery was still around I would voice my opinion about what i feel is right. If a law or movement or amendment was presented that was in line with my views I would support it. Back then people had the right to own slaves, an amendment was made and that is no longer a right. Back then a women did not have the right to vote, an amendment was made and women now have that right.

In todays age you have the right to bare arms, which you do, but that is not an absolute... Just like the previous examples, an amendment can be made and that can change. It is not a "God given right" it is not an absolute, the right exist because it is in the constitution and is supported by the people and the law makers. If they people and the law makers feel they need to regulate, restrict, or abolish that right, they can do so...

 

[Slade3200]

The OP is correct and falls in line with what I've been saying. Our rights are outlined in our constitution, which can be modified by the will of the people. I've used examples with slavery and women... And wasn't booze once prohibited as well? I don't know why you are arguing so adimantly against this, thought it was pretty basic common knowledge

So if the people passed a Constitutional Amendment legalizing slavery, you wouldn't go running around crying that it violates the rights of the designated slaves?

I would do everything I can to oppose it, which is my right. But as we've seen through history, laws don't always fall In Line with what we feel should be our rights

Why would you oppose it? If the government or the majority determine what rights are, then it's perfectly moral and ethical to enslave 15% of the population. You can't argue on the one hand that slavery is moral and ethical, and on the other argue that it's a crime against humanity.

The government determines what our laws are. That doesn't always fall in line with what people feel their rights are. We've seen it through history and in modern times... Blacks, women, gays, now transsexuals...

I would oppose it simply because I don't agree and I have every right to voice that objection. Just as you do for pretty much everything the left does... As annoying as it is

If the people FEEL that slavery is OK, then who are you to say it isn't? If society determines that homosexuals should be thrown off the top of tall buildings, who are you to say they shouldn't? What makes your feelings any better than theirs?

Yeah, you can voice your opinion, but you haven't even given a good reason for having a different opinion. In your view, just is purely a social construct. It can change from one day to the next. If you feel Muslims should not be discriminated against in our immigration policy, that's just your opinion. If you were honest, you would have to admit that no one has any reason to listen to your opinion.

Social construct is exactly what it is... This is why people do throw homosexuals off buildings in other countries where their leaders deem it ok.

We are lucky enough to have a government run by a brilliant system that is not a monarchy or a dictatorship but made up of representatives that are elected by the people, and it has a system of checks and balances. This limits power of one branch and provides a voice to the people. It is the same government that controls our military which ultimately holds the power and enforces the laws of the land. In the end, it is about power and who controls the power. Whomever does that dictates the rules. Those rules are made by the voice and leaders elected by the majority.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

If anyone is interested in a quick lesson on moderating, this is what we call a "no relevant content troll post" 'cause there's no relevant content and he's trolling for a flame-fest.



Shame the devil and tell the truth the same could be said for this post that is pointing it out.

Fuck you!

Dude, you posted a 100% troll and got called on it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh wow... this is an even better example!

Kudos, Dude.

You're not very good at this.

You laid claim that all "rights" are sprung from the benevolence of our glorious rulers. You made the absurd (and trolling) claim that if we were not ruled by others, we would not have a right to have weapons. I suppose you think that the ether, or Gaea would stop us?

Regardless, my post directly speaks to your trolling.