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.
I didn't expect it to. Your mental lock-down is pretty apparent.
But thanks for sharing all the same.
Yeah, my lock-down on reality is quite firm.
Bullshit has no effect on me.
Neither does reality, it seems. What's wrong with Obama is the "leader" and Alfred the Great "ruled?"
Is that bullshit, or reality? Oh wait; neither have an effect on you.
Scratch that.
Yeah, my lock-down on reality is quite firm.
Bullshit has no effect on me.
Neither does reality, it seems. What's wrong with Obama is the "leader" and Alfred the Great "ruled?"
Is that bullshit, or reality? Oh wait; neither have an effect on you.
Scratch that.
Both Alfred the Great and Obama are/were rulers. They, or the government they administer, can use deadly force to compel people to obey their decisions.
So I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with these two examples.
With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
The only "natural right" I know of is God given free will.
Which we all have and it can not be taken from us.
Tell that to the people in Cuba.
Yeah, my lock-down on reality is quite firm.
Bullshit has no effect on me.
Neither does reality, it seems. What's wrong with Obama is the "leader" and Alfred the Great "ruled?"
Is that bullshit, or reality? Oh wait; neither have an effect on you.
Scratch that.
Both Alfred the Great and Obama are/were rulers. They, or the government they administer, can use deadly force to compel people to obey their decisions.
So I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with these two examples.
Neither does reality, it seems. What's wrong with Obama is the "leader" and Alfred the Great "ruled?"
Is that bullshit, or reality? Oh wait; neither have an effect on you.
Scratch that.
Both Alfred the Great and Obama are/were rulers. They, or the government they administer, can use deadly force to compel people to obey their decisions.
So I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with these two examples.
The point is, all rulers lead and all leaders rule. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FUCKING THING!!! (google, "synonyms") Hell; even rulers rule at the pleasure of their subjects; just ask the Romanovs if any are left alive.
Both Alfred the Great and Obama are/were rulers. They, or the government they administer, can use deadly force to compel people to obey their decisions.
So I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with these two examples.
If you think Obama is thusly empowered in our society, you're more retarded than I thought, which is remarkable.
Both Alfred the Great and Obama are/were rulers. They, or the government they administer, can use deadly force to compel people to obey their decisions.
So I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with these two examples.
Elected leaders, or rulers? What are our government representatives commonly called? Senate Majority Ruler?
Whether we call them rulers or not, they are in fact rulers. If you don't obey the government, you can be killed. The Branch Davidians discovered that irrefutable fact at Waco.
The point is, all rulers lead and all leaders rule. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FUCKING THING!!! (google, "synonyms") Hell; even rulers rule at the pleasure of their subjects; just ask the Romanovs if any are left alive.
Some rulers may be leaders, but not all leaders are rulers. Sitting Bull ruled no one. The two things my overlap, but they are not synonyms.
Both Alfred the Great and Obama are/were rulers. They, or the government they administer, can use deadly force to compel people to obey their decisions.
So I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with these two examples.
If you think Obama is thusly empowered in our society, you're more retarded than I thought, which is remarkable.
So nobody got killed at Waco? Is that what you're trying to tell us? Did Obama order the death of an American citizen by the name of Awlaki?
All laws are backed up with lethal force. If you don't believe that, just try refusing to pay your income taxes and telling the authorities to fuck off when they come to arrest you.
With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
If you think Obama is thusly empowered in our society, you're more retarded than I thought, which is remarkable.
So nobody got killed at Waco? Is that what you're trying to tell us? Did Obama order the death of an American citizen by the name of Awlaki?
All laws are backed up with lethal force. If you don't believe that, just try refusing to pay your income taxes and telling the authorities to fuck off when they come to arrest you.
Use of deadly force at Waco had nothing to do with the rules of GHW Bush nor Clinton, who'd just taken office. The Davidians shot at federal agents and deadly force was used pursuant to the rules of LE using deadly force.
Our laws are BACKED UP BY DUE FUCKING PROCESS, and deadly force is only used when the lives of officers or innocent bystanders is at risk.
Grow a fucking braincell. That'll bring you up to about 3 or so.
So nobody got killed at Waco? Is that what you're trying to tell us? Did Obama order the death of an American citizen by the name of Awlaki?
All laws are backed up with lethal force. If you don't believe that, just try refusing to pay your income taxes and telling the authorities to fuck off when they come to arrest you.
Use of deadly force at Waco had nothing to do with the rules of GHW Bush nor Clinton, who'd just taken office. The Davidians shot at federal agents and deadly force was used pursuant to the rules of LE using deadly force.
Our laws are BACKED UP BY DUE FUCKING PROCESS, and deadly force is only used when the lives of officers or innocent bystanders is at risk.
Grow a fucking braincell. That'll bring you up to about 3 or so.
The assault on the compound was 3 months after the fact and was totally unneeded. No one in the compound was a threat to anyone and no one was capable of leaving.
Ah, see,
now the various opinions of MEN come into deciding what are and aren't natural rights.
How is that dispute settled?
How can rights have come from the Creator, if they come from the decisions of MEN?
1. Men decide that rights came from the Creator
2. Men then decide, via their own invented decision-making process, what those rights are.
3. Thus is born the government of rights
4. Thus government, not the Creator, is the source of the rights.
Natural Law IS science, dummy. Why the fuck are you people incapable of grasping that? Natural rights are based on OBSERVABLE human behavior and the PREDICTABLE trouble that ensues when those rights are oppressed. If you enslave human beings, their natural inclination is to free themselves. Stuff a gag in a man's mouth, he'll attempt to remove it. Steal from him, he'll retaliate if he can.
Again.... the CONTEXT is about governance. How do we create a society where human beings can live together in peace and harmony? Our particular system of government is designed to maximize that by PROTECTING the inherent rights of citizens.
Who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?
If they were endowed by a Creator, why didn't that Creator specify them, so as to eliminate doubt and conflict?
Except most modern day LOLberals have locked themselves right out of the bathroom....baby, bathwater..everything.
I believe in the right to own Sirius ....
Except most modern day LOLberals have locked themselves right out of the bathroom....baby, bathwater..everything.
With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
The idea behind 'natural' rights (aka inalienable, intrinsic, god-given, etc...) as referenced in the US Constitution was to characterize the kind of rights that government is created to protect. As you may have noticed, "rights" is an overloaded term that refers to many different concepts, so it was necessary to clearly define what they were talking about.
Now, nature (or God, or government, for that matter) doesn't "give" us natural rights. They are a simply a by-product of having volition - the ability to think and choose our own actions. In our natural state as thinking creatures we enjoy perfect freedom to do as we wish unimpeded by other people. Natural rights is just another way to refer to the general concept of social freedom. We create government to protect as much of that freedom as possible.
Obviously, the 'natural' state ends as soon as we have to associate with other people. That's where government comes in. We need government to mediate when our respective 'freedoms' come into conflict. In order to avoid the ugliness of violence every time a dispute can't be resolved, we count on government instead.
The point of this concept, re: the Constitution, isn't to specify a list of rights to protect (natural rights are essentially infinite in number), it's to define the purpose of government - to protect our freedom (inalienable rights).
Based on your posting history I suspect you'll have some difficulty with this concept, but I applaud your efforts. It's an important topic and voters need a clear understanding of it to guide our country.
...
Otherwise, no – it’s the natural tendency of government to encroach upon rights, to probe for and exploit weaknesses in the Constitutional edifice. Constitutional case law, therefore, is the bulwark between the excesses of government and the rights of the people.
With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
