Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And since the fees for the services have been determined by the state they must ration out quality and care.We already have the money, already spend the money, we just don't get a good bang for our buck. Works like this, when you see the doc you hand him your national healthcare card and we'll send him a check. Simple and don't be clogging up the ER unless it's an emergency. Common fucking sense.Everyone who can. Pretty simple. It sure works for the Armed Services. They are always well-funded.Would it make you feel better if people said not that it's a right (it isn't), it's just a really really really good and decent thing for a society to do? It's also very cost-effective. A well nation is a productive and even a secure nation. Sick people don't work or fight well.I think I'll quit working and demand my rights to food, housing, healthcare. Is sex on the list yet or should I hold out?
but that begs the real question-----------who pays for it?
who decides "who can" ? Do we disband the military in order to give everyone free medical care? There is only so much govt income and we annually overspend and are currently 20 trillion in debt because of it.
promote the general welfare does not mean "provide" the general welfare. Words have meanings.
Damn. Nothing grates more than an imbecile who heard something on the radio and takes it as his own...and thinks it makes him less of an imbecile.
those words happen to be correct. The constitution does not guarantee that the government will give you medical care, food, housing, success, a car, a girlfriend, or happiness. It only guarantees that you have the right to pursue happiness.
the imbecile here is you, my libtardian friend.
I don't think 'pursuit of happiness' is in the Constitution is it?
Neither is health care, food, housing, a car, girlfriend, etc.
The Press is - one who owns one. With the Internet we are all reporters now.Correct. Still wasn't a right granted by the government.
All rights are granted by the government because the government decides what will or will not BE a right.
Wrong and stupid. But right along your mental abilities.
Did the government not decide that freedom of the press was a right?
We are talking individuals here, the press isn't an individual. It's apples and oranges
Just a Q for ya, are all these other nations with national healthcare wrong? The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Canada, they're all just - stupid?If those of you on the left believe that "health is a right", please give us some quotation from the constitution, declaration or independence, bill of rights, or any statute that confirms that belief.
Either that, or admit that you are wrong.
Wrong and stupid. But right along your mental abilities.
The government granted you the right to bear arms didn't it?
No idiot. that was already a right, the British tried to take it away. That's why it's there.
It is there because without the government recognizing it as a right, and therefore taking government action to secure it as a right,
it wouldn't be your right, except perhaps in your imagination.
You never get smarter.
You never substantively refute anything I say.
Correct. Still wasn't a right granted by the government.
All rights are granted by the government because the government decides what will or will not BE a right.
Wrong and stupid. But right along your mental abilities.
Did the government not decide that freedom of the press was a right?
We are talking individuals here, the press isn't an individual. It's apples and oranges
A religion isn't an individual either. Are you saying that freedom of religion is not a right?
What kind of right is it?
promote the general welfare does not mean "provide" the general welfare. Words have meanings.
Damn. Nothing grates more than an imbecile who heard something on the radio and takes it as his own...and thinks it makes him less of an imbecile.
those words happen to be correct. The constitution does not guarantee that the government will give you medical care, food, housing, success, a car, a girlfriend, or happiness. It only guarantees that you have the right to pursue happiness.
the imbecile here is you, my libtardian friend.
I don't think 'pursuit of happiness' is in the Constitution is it?
Neither is health care, food, housing, a car, girlfriend, etc.
A girlfriend should be a right!
Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?
Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?
Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.
Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?
Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.
Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,
why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?
I have to remember to ask God (or Nature) why they granted Americans the right to vote at 18? Guns I get (God loves guns and violence) but voting at 18? Shoot, they shouldn't even be driving yet.
Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?
Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.
Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,
why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?
They are unalienable rights, not inalienable rights.
Unalienable rights by definition cannot be taken away. "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable"
Good grief.
I have to remember to ask God (or Nature) why they granted Americans the right to vote at 18? Guns I get (God loves guns and violence) but voting at 18? Shoot, they shouldn't even be driving yet.Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?
Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.
Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,
why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?
They are unalienable rights, not inalienable rights.
Unalienable rights by definition cannot be taken away. "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable"
Good grief.
unalienable = inalienable. No difference.
Washington Post:
The final version of the Declaration of Independence declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But these rights weren’t always “unalienable.” In early drafts of the Declaration — in the handwriting of its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, as well as another writer, John Adams — our rights were “inalienable.” The quote as inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital, also says “inalienable.”
What’s the difference in meaning? There isn’t any. Both refer to rights that cannot be taken away or transferred.
If you look up the definition of “unalienable” on dictionary.reference.com, you will find that the first definition, when the word is used as an adjective, is “inalienable.” It also says that British dictionary definitions for unalienable define it was “a variation of inalienable.”
How did inalienable in early drafts turn to unalienable in the final Declaration?
Ushistory.org cites a footnote in “The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas” by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922:
The Rough Draft reads “[inherent &] inalienable.” There is no indication that Congress changed “inalienable” to “unalienable”; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote ” unalienable.” Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. “Unalienable” may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.
NITPICKING.
You are confusing the recognition of a right with gifting it from on high. This is a republic so they work for us. Protecting rights isn't a gift from the state.Let me see if I can help you get the horse before the cart. The Constitution, once ratified, established the nation, the state. The state then wrote the Bill of Rights (12 amendments) and when, two and a half years later ten of those were also ratified, the government had then established your rights, the rights you refer to when you say I have a right to ______. Since the state can and does modify those rights it's pretty damn obvious where your rights come from, the state.The government the Founders founded granted you your rights. This isn't a difficult thing to understand. The reason why they could take away your right to drink (and give it back again later) is because - wait for it, they have the ability ti decide what is and isn't a - right.Did the government not decide that freedom of the press was a right?
No, the Founders who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. NOT the gov't. No President or Congress decided that any of our freedoms was a right.
And all rights have limitations BTW. Also not a hard thing to understand in a nation that can take your "right" to breath.
What nonsense. The CONSTITUTION upon which the gov't was founded SPECIFIES our rights, not the freakin' gov't. It isn't difficult thing to understand, but I'll spell it out in simple terms: THE US GOV'T CANNOT GRANT RIGHTS. ANY RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT POWER IS NOT GRANTED TO THE US GOV'T UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. How much clearer can I be?
Case in point - prohibition. They took a right away and then granted it back. The government in action.
Let me see if I can help you get the horse before the cart. The Constitution, once ratified, established the nation, the state. The state then wrote the Bill of Rights (12 amendments) and when, two and a half years later ten of those were also ratified, the government had then established your rights, the rights you refer to when you say I have a right to ______. Since the state can and does modify those rights it's pretty damn obvious where your rights come from, the state.The government the Founders founded granted you your rights. This isn't a difficult thing to understand. The reason why they could take away your right to drink (and give it back again later) is because - wait for it, they have the ability ti decide what is and isn't a - right.Did the government not decide that freedom of the press was a right?
No, the Founders who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. NOT the gov't. No President or Congress decided that any of our freedoms was a right.
And all rights have limitations BTW. Also not a hard thing to understand in a nation that can take your "right" to breath.
What nonsense. The CONSTITUTION upon which the gov't was founded SPECIFIES our rights, not the freakin' gov't. It isn't difficult thing to understand, but I'll spell it out in simple terms: THE US GOV'T CANNOT GRANT RIGHTS. ANY RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT POWER IS NOT GRANTED TO THE US GOV'T UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. How much clearer can I be?
Case in point - prohibition. They took a right away and then granted it back. The government in action.
Not sure I would classify getting wasted is a right, basically it was a product determined to be unhealthy and unwise to allow it's use. Just because people can take some action doesn't automatically mean they have a right to do it, it only means the gov't at whatever level hasn't yet decided whether it's a safe and healthy thing to allow. In any case it was a misuse of power that got rectified. And modifying a right to limit it's scope is not the same thing as granting a right, nor does ratifying the BoR for mean that the gov't granted those rights because they already existed. All they did was codify them.
Protecting isn't giving.You are confusing the recognition of a right with gifting it from on high. This is a republic so they work for us. Protecting rights isn't a gift from the state.Let me see if I can help you get the horse before the cart. The Constitution, once ratified, established the nation, the state. The state then wrote the Bill of Rights (12 amendments) and when, two and a half years later ten of those were also ratified, the government had then established your rights, the rights you refer to when you say I have a right to ______. Since the state can and does modify those rights it's pretty damn obvious where your rights come from, the state.The government the Founders founded granted you your rights. This isn't a difficult thing to understand. The reason why they could take away your right to drink (and give it back again later) is because - wait for it, they have the ability ti decide what is and isn't a - right.No, the Founders who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. NOT the gov't. No President or Congress decided that any of our freedoms was a right.
And all rights have limitations BTW. Also not a hard thing to understand in a nation that can take your "right" to breath.
What nonsense. The CONSTITUTION upon which the gov't was founded SPECIFIES our rights, not the freakin' gov't. It isn't difficult thing to understand, but I'll spell it out in simple terms: THE US GOV'T CANNOT GRANT RIGHTS. ANY RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT POWER IS NOT GRANTED TO THE US GOV'T UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. How much clearer can I be?
Case in point - prohibition. They took a right away and then granted it back. The government in action.
Protecting rights is part of their job, as is granting them and revoking them. You seem to believe there are Natural rights and there are none, just the living and the dead.
They did that right after they created gravity and puppy dogs.Let me see if I can help you get the horse before the cart. The Constitution, once ratified, established the nation, the state. The state then wrote the Bill of Rights (12 amendments) and when, two and a half years later ten of those were also ratified, the government had then established your rights, the rights you refer to when you say I have a right to ______. Since the state can and does modify those rights it's pretty damn obvious where your rights come from, the state.The government the Founders founded granted you your rights. This isn't a difficult thing to understand. The reason why they could take away your right to drink (and give it back again later) is because - wait for it, they have the ability ti decide what is and isn't a - right.No, the Founders who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. NOT the gov't. No President or Congress decided that any of our freedoms was a right.
And all rights have limitations BTW. Also not a hard thing to understand in a nation that can take your "right" to breath.
What nonsense. The CONSTITUTION upon which the gov't was founded SPECIFIES our rights, not the freakin' gov't. It isn't difficult thing to understand, but I'll spell it out in simple terms: THE US GOV'T CANNOT GRANT RIGHTS. ANY RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT POWER IS NOT GRANTED TO THE US GOV'T UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. How much clearer can I be?
Case in point - prohibition. They took a right away and then granted it back. The government in action.
Not sure I would classify getting wasted is a right, basically it was a product determined to be unhealthy and unwise to allow it's use. Just because people can take some action doesn't automatically mean they have a right to do it, it only means the gov't at whatever level hasn't yet decided whether it's a safe and healthy thing to allow. In any case it was a misuse of power that got rectified. And modifying a right to limit it's scope is not the same thing as granting a right, nor does ratifying the BoR for mean that the gov't granted those rights because they already existed. All they did was codify them.
There is a natural right to a firearm, a fair and speedy trial? Ah, no. But you have those rights here because liberals granted them to you. Next time think a bit don't just repeat what you've been told and can't understand.
