Remembering why the Bill of Rights was not part of Constitution and why the income...

[regent]

Rights are entirely a manmade concept.

That said, they are obviously one of our best inventions.

Of course, now you are into reality, but we needed to make it into some kind of higher cause. Imagine if Jefferson had just written: We hold these truths to be self evident, the guys with the biggest armies decide why we have governments, why we exist and who owns all the stuff. But as I mentioned the Declaration was great propaganda and its purpose was to gain followers--and it worked.
A good history project is analyzing the constitution to find the snippets of the Declaration.

too stupid!! Take a stuffed animal away from a 2 month old and you'll see that he wants his property back. Try to kick a dog off a piece of property that he has circled and trampled for his own place and you'll see he wants his property back. If one Koala bear invades the territory of another you'll see a fight to the death over property rights.

Locke and Jefferson realized individual property rights were natural rights and so had to at the heart of government if peace was desired. Liberal swine want to be human tyrants who ignore human nature and impose their own Nazi like agenda.

This is why our liberals spied for Stalin.

So why did Jefferson remove Locke's word "property" and replace it with "pursuit of happiness"?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of course, now you are into reality, but we needed to make it into some kind of higher cause. Imagine if Jefferson had just written: We hold these truths to be self evident, the guys with the biggest armies decide why we have governments, why we exist and who owns all the stuff. But as I mentioned the Declaration was great propaganda and its purpose was to gain followers--and it worked.
A good history project is analyzing the constitution to find the snippets of the Declaration.

too stupid!! Take a stuffed animal away from a 2 month old and you'll see that he wants his property back. Try to kick a dog off a piece of property that he has circled and trampled for his own place and you'll see he wants his property back. If one Koala bear invades the territory of another you'll see a fight to the death over property rights.

Locke and Jefferson realized individual property rights were natural rights and so had to at the heart of government if peace was desired. Liberal swine want to be human tyrants who ignore human nature and impose their own Nazi like agenda.

This is why our liberals spied for Stalin.

So why did Jefferson remove Locke's word "property" and replace it with "pursuit of happiness"?

too stupid!! there is no evidence that it was Locke's word. In any case Jefferson was very clear about private property as President and in writing.

the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.



See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[regent]

too stupid!! Take a stuffed animal away from a 2 month old and you'll see that he wants his property back. Try to kick a dog off a piece of property that he has circled and trampled for his own place and you'll see he wants his property back. If one Koala bear invades the territory of another you'll see a fight to the death over property rights.

Locke and Jefferson realized individual property rights were natural rights and so had to at the heart of government if peace was desired. Liberal swine want to be human tyrants who ignore human nature and impose their own Nazi like agenda.

This is why our liberals spied for Stalin.

So why did Jefferson remove Locke's word "property" and replace it with "pursuit of happiness"?

too stupid!! there is no evidence that it was Locke's word. In any case Jefferson was very clear about private property as President and in writing.

the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.



See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??

Tell us again about the koala bears, it made more sense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So why did Jefferson remove Locke's word "property" and replace it with "pursuit of happiness"?

too stupid!! there is no evidence that it was Locke's word. In any case Jefferson was very clear about private property as President and in writing.

the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.



See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??

Tell us again about the koala bears, it made more sense.

as if its not obvious that the illiterate needs to change the subject!!

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

 

[regent]

too stupid!! there is no evidence that it was Locke's word. In any case Jefferson was very clear about private property as President and in writing.

the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.



See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??

Tell us again about the koala bears, it made more sense.

as if its not obvious that the illiterate needs to change the subject!!

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

The question was, why did Jefferson replace Locke's "property" with "pursuit of happiness"?
It is not an unusual question and asked in some history classes. If you can't answer, don't bother, but leave out the koala bear analogy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tell us again about the koala bears, it made more sense.

as if its not obvious that the illiterate needs to change the subject!!

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

The question was, why did Jefferson replace Locke's "property" with "pursuit of happiness"?
.

too stupid!! there is no evidence he replaced Locke!!!!!!

is that really over your head, liberal??????????????????

 

[JoeB131]

Rights are entirely a manmade concept.

If that's the case, then why all the gnashing of teeth when the voters decline to make homosexual marriage a right?

Same reason your side gnashes teeth when a city decides to ban private gun ownership...

 

[editec]

Rights are entirely a manmade concept.

That said, they are obviously one of our best inventions.

Of course, now you are into reality, but we needed to make it into some kind of higher cause. Imagine if Jefferson had just written: We hold these truths to be self evident, the guys with the biggest armies decide why we have governments, why we exist and who owns all the stuff. But as I mentioned the Declaration was great propaganda and its purpose was to gain followers--and it worked.
A good history project is analyzing the constitution to find the snippets of the Declaration.

I'm just trying to point out what ought to be obvious, but clearly is NOT obvious to many folks here.

The idea that people have RIGHTS that are "inalienable" is preposterous.

Any idiot with a gun can strip us of every so-called right we have.

Rights are entirely a MAN MADE concept.

They exist so long as MEN agree to that concept.

Free speech, life liberty, gun ownership, right to fair trial, etc...they are entirely social contracts "rights" dependent on that society to maintain them.

Philosophically, of course, one might make the argument that we all deserve these rights, or theologically one might posit that GOD gives us those rights at birth, but REALITY continues to strip people of their rights, so the argument that they are of a supernatural origin or that they are Inalienable" is just silly to the extreme.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

or that they are Inalienable" is just silly to the extreme.

dear, Locke and Jefferson were not silly men, except of course to a libturd without the IQ to understand them. They created civilization on earth with the idea that rights came from God or nature, not liberals who had been the genocidal maniacs throughout history against whom our founders tried to built a bulwark so we would no longer be subjected to their man made rights.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[regent]

or that they are Inalienable" is just silly to the extreme.

dear, Locke and Jefferson were not silly men, except of course to a libturd without the IQ to understand them. They created civilization on earth with the idea that rights came from God or nature, not liberals who had been the genocidal maniacs throughout history against whom our founders tried to built a bulwark so we would no longer be subjected to their man made rights.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

If rights came from God why doesn't everyone have them?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

or that they are Inalienable" is just silly to the extreme.

dear, Locke and Jefferson were not silly men, except of course to a libturd without the IQ to understand them. They created civilization on earth with the idea that rights came from God or nature, not liberals who had been the genocidal maniacs throughout history against whom our founders tried to built a bulwark so we would no longer be subjected to their man made rights.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

If rights came from God why doesn't everyone have them?

did someone say God or nature must grant them instantly?? As time goes by though there are fewer liberals and more people with rights all over the world.

 

[regent]

dear, Locke and Jefferson were not silly men, except of course to a libturd without the IQ to understand them. They created civilization on earth with the idea that rights came from God or nature, not liberals who had been the genocidal maniacs throughout history against whom our founders tried to built a bulwark so we would no longer be subjected to their man made rights.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

If rights came from God why doesn't everyone have them?

did someone say God or nature must grant them instantly?? As time goes by though there are fewer liberals and more people with rights all over the world.

So did nature's God say that all people would have those rights or just nonliberals? Sounds like God likes nonliberals more than liberals, is that true? Do you speak with God?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So did nature's God say that all people would have those rights or just nonliberals?

obviously liberals live under our Constitution too. Slow???

Sounds like God likes nonliberals more than liberals, is that true?

too stupid!! of course its true. Liberals spied for Stalin because they want to create or invent their own rights on earth. Conservatives claim Aristotle or Jesus as the first conservative because they placed God off this earth to say that mere men don't create rights, they don't over rule nature.

That was the conservative intellectual Christian realization that started human progress, that was then embodied in the Constitution, that then enabled the greatest country in human history!!

Do you speak with God?

too stupid of course, if we didn't speak with God, there would be no purpose and no God. Any religious teachings are the result of communication with God.

See why we are 1000% positve a liberal will be slow and perfectly illiterate.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

Spoken like a true Nazi liberal. If government creates property rights then they can create all rights. This is what Hitler Stalin and Mao did and what our Founders did not do!! Our Founding Republican geniuses believed in God and natural rights that mob rule or dictatorial rule could not subvert.

Interestingly, Douglas, of Lincoln/Douglas debates fame, tried to justify slavery on the basis of majority or mob rule, while Lincoln, the second Republican after Jefferson, believed slavery was against natural law.

This is so far past the liberal IQ I don't know why I'm writing it.

 

[regent]

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

Spoken like a true Nazi liberal. If government creates property rights then they can create all rights. This is what Hitler Stalin and Mao did and what our Founders did not do!! Our Founding Republican geniuses believed in God and natural rights that mob rule or dictatorial rule could not subvert.

Interestingly, Douglas, of Lincoln/Douglas debates fame, tried to justify slavery on the basis of majority or mob rule, while Lincoln, the second Republican after Jefferson, believed slavery was against natural law.

This is so far past the liberal IQ I don't know why I'm writing it.

If Lincoln believed slavery was against natural law why did he try to reassure the South that he had no intention of touching slavery as it existed?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

Spoken like a true Nazi liberal. If government creates property rights then they can create all rights. This is what Hitler Stalin and Mao did and what our Founders did not do!! Our Founding Republican geniuses believed in God and natural rights that mob rule or dictatorial rule could not subvert.

Interestingly, Douglas, of Lincoln/Douglas debates fame, tried to justify slavery on the basis of majority or mob rule, while Lincoln, the second Republican after Jefferson, believed slavery was against natural law.

This is so far past the liberal IQ I don't know why I'm writing it.

If Lincoln believed slavery was against natural law why did he try to reassure the South that he had no intention of touching slavery as it existed?

your questions take about a half second to answer. Politics. Sorry

 

[regent]

Spoken like a true Nazi liberal. If government creates property rights then they can create all rights. This is what Hitler Stalin and Mao did and what our Founders did not do!! Our Founding Republican geniuses believed in God and natural rights that mob rule or dictatorial rule could not subvert.

Interestingly, Douglas, of Lincoln/Douglas debates fame, tried to justify slavery on the basis of majority or mob rule, while Lincoln, the second Republican after Jefferson, believed slavery was against natural law.

This is so far past the liberal IQ I don't know why I'm writing it.

If Lincoln believed slavery was against natural law why did he try to reassure the South that he had no intention of touching slavery as it existed?

your questions take about a half second to answer. Politics. Sorry

So are you saying that politics takes precedence over natural law?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If Lincoln believed slavery was against natural law why did he try to reassure the South that he had no intention of touching slavery as it existed?

your questions take about a half second to answer. Politics. Sorry

So are you saying that politics takes precedence over natural law?

dear, it did for about 5 million years until Aristotle Christ Locke Jefferson Buckley Friedman and Reagan came along.

 

[regent]

your questions take about a half second to answer. Politics. Sorry

So are you saying that politics takes precedence over natural law?

dear, it did for about 5 million years until Aristotle Christ Locke Jefferson Buckley Friedman and Reagan came along.

But Lincoln came after Aristototle, Christ, Locke, and Jefferson so why didn't Lincoln have to follow natural law? When did natural law begin?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But Lincoln came after Aristotle, Christ, Locke, and Jefferson so why didn't Lincoln have to follow natural law?

OMG!! Dear, the idea of democracy was established 1000's of years ago but that does not mean it was instantly accepted everywhere and forever. Evolution science etc etc take time to take root. Over your head still??

When did natural law begin?

with Aristotle, most significantly, but why do you ask?????????????? Do you have any idea why you ask???????????