Unamerican people need to leave America

reply to post by renegadeloser


Exactly. Inalienable rights cannot be taken by anyone. Name a single right that everyone in every country around the world has that has not been taken or diluted in any way. Just one. You can't because it doesn't exist. There isn't a single right out there that every single human being alive has. Not even the right to be alive qualifies because in many places around the world the government can take someone's life just because they feel like it.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Jenna]

reply to post by Jenna

t's not that difficult to grasp what I'm saying here so the only option I have left to consider is that you are intentionally misunderstanding me.

Right, if only I would stop intentionally misunderstanding you just to keep seeing Rights as inalienable and self evident, then I could finally see the light and be as enlightened as you presume to be. No thank you.

Says all the countries around the world where people are tortured and killed for trying to speak their minds or walk around uncovered while being female.

Now you're arguing The Bill of Rights are not inalienable rights because other countries whom act in atrocious and unacceptable ways have said so. Wow!

How can I explain this so that you'll understand..

If you are speaking truth you don't have to hunt for magic words that will make your falsehoods easier to understand.

What you and I see as a tyrant, may not seem so to the people living under said tyrant's rule.

Until the day they do.

Laws that do not exist in other countries cannot be broken there.

You are attempting to equate legislation with law. Laws are broken every day, here and abroad, regardless of what legislation is in place.

Free speech does not exist in places where there is no constitutional or legal safeguard to guarantee it to the people living there.

There is no Constitutional Right to free speech in this site, and yet it seems to thrive, even with strict controls placed upon decorum.

Tell that to the people living in North Korea. Your belief that they naturally have a right does not mean they have it. I believe everyone naturally has the right to their own unicorn. Does that mean everyone has a unicorn? No it doesn't.

Your defense of the North Korean government as a legitimate and valid government says more about you than I ever cared to know.

Yes, knowing that human beings are tortured and killed for disagreeing with their government really just tickles me pink. I'm as pleased as punch over here just thinking about it.

And yet, you keep pointing to this atrocious behavior in order to refute the argument of inalienable and Natural Rights. Tyrants can not find legitimacy based upon the arguments the O.P., myself and others in this thread have made, and must necessarily rely upon People like you in order to maintain any authority. Your argument that North Korea does not acknowledge Rights and therefore they do not exist, does nothing to further the cause for freedom for the North Korean People, but goes a long way in furthering the cause of that current regime.

I'll ask you what I asked the other poster. Natural rights according to whom?

According to Nature.

All people everywhere are subject to their own laws, not the laws of the US unless within our borders. The more of your posts I read the more convinced I'm becoming that you intentionally avoid what is actually said and intentionally misunderstand it when you can't avoid it.

People can only be subject to legislation if that legislation is actually rooted in law, or the people agree to go along with that legislation, hence consent of the governed, but when legislation makes the mistake of disobeying the Natural Laws it is subject to, the consequences are no less dire than when people do. As evidence of these dire consequences, I will offer your own words:

Yes, knowing that human beings are tortured and killed for disagreeing with their government really just tickles me pink. I'm as pleased as punch over here just thinking about it.

You seem to want to have it both ways, pretending to be some sort of benign intellectual who understands the nature of rights are not at all natural, but laments that these rights not natural by your view are not granted others as fortunate as we. You hope to dismiss the presence of Natural and inalienable rights by feigning belief in unicorns, as if there is some huge movement of unicorn believers across the globe, blind to their own delusions, but if there is such a movement of unicorn believers, they do not nearly number the size of the movement of people who recognize Natural Rights as self evident. Further, it is irrelevant what your beliefs are, if you want to believe unicorns are real, this if fine, but if you hope to use the nonexistence of unicorns to equate that with my rights, I could care less what you believe in that regard, and only that you wish to take my rights away.

You ask a disingenuous question when responding to my assertion that 9th Amendment makes perfectly clear that the rights enumerated by The Bill of Rights or any subsequent Amendment should not be construed as granted rights. You play this game after asserting I am willfully attempting to misunderstand you. I assure you, I understand you perfectly.

Yes, I'm being arrogant because I realize that rights granted by our Constitution only apply to those subject to our Constitution. How very arrogant of me.

It is the height of arrogance to presume you or someone else has the authority to grant me or anyone else Rights. There is no greater arrogance I know.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ahh, I see. You've no interest in an actual rational discussion. You'd rather resort to twisting my words in a blatantly obvious manner whilst attempting to maintain your false sense of superiority by belittling me in whatever manner you think might work.

Example A:

Tell that to the people living in North Korea. Your belief that they naturally have a right does not mean they have it.

Your defense of the North Korean government as a legitimate and valid government says more about you than I ever cared to know.

Nowhere in that quote did I defend the government of North Korea. Nowhere in any quote you can find on this entire site have I ever defended the government of North Korea. That you would make such a failed and blatant attempt to twist my words shows how little you care about discussion and how much you care about being right above all else.

Should you become capable of holding a civil discussion in the future without all the intentional misunderstanding and blatant word-twisting you've shown here, I'd be happy to continue this discussion. As it stands I've no desire to play your game, and will play it no longer.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Jenna]

Originally posted by SpectreDC
............
Because none of you understand our principles. None of you understand the ideologies that founded this country. All you do is parrot the talk of those who are trying to destroy our liberties we inherently have as HUMANS. And if you think these rights shouldn't be given to others that aren't American, you are a hypocrite. You are not an American. You don't understand what this country stands for, or at the very least once stood for. But unlike you, just because you don't understand these things, I don't believe these rights should be taken from you. THAT is the attitude of a true American.

Wow, well I guess we should be sending more troops to liberate other coutries since according to you "being human is American".... Everyone in the world is human, and many people are in some form of dictatorship, so I guess you are a "warmonger" since you believe that "all humans are Americans" hence should be allowed the freedoms and rights enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights within it.....

Perhaps it is best if you make an argument when you are not drunk, or high.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Jenna

Ahh, I see. You've no interest in an actual rational discussion. You'd rather resort to twisting my words in a blatantly obvious manner whilst attempting to maintain your false sense of superiority by belittling me in whatever manner you think might work.

There is nothing at all irrational about my arguments. In fact, let's take a good long look at what you offered up as an irrational argument:

Your defense of the North Korean government as a legitimate and valid government says more about you than I ever cared to know.

You hope to use this as an excuse to now backpedal and appear to be less tyrannical yourself, and you should backpedal, you have used the North Korean government as evidence that rights are not Natural and belonging to all people. Surely Kim Jong Il likes the way you think. Even so, you hope to defend your use of North Korea as a refutation of Natural Rights by playing semantics:

Nowhere in that quote did I defend the government of North Korea.

If you were not defending the legitimacy of that government then what exactly was your point?

That you would make such a failed and blatant attempt to twist my words shows how little you care about discussion and how much you care about being right above all else.

I am not twisting your words, merely pointing to the folly of your argument. If you hold no respect or admiration for tyranny, then why are you so desperate to declare inalienable rights as non existent?

Should you become capable of holding a civil discussion in the future without all the intentional misunderstanding and blatant word-twisting you've shown here, I'd be happy to continue this discussion. As it stands I've no desire to play your game, and will play it no longer.

I have found nothing at all civil about your discourse and you have deigned to belittle and pretend that I am either misunderstanding intentionally or am incapable of understanding your words and so you must struggle to explain it in a way I can understand. You are very comfortable with your right to belittle but not so comfortable with another persons right to do the same. This, of course, is the only consistency that you offer, that your rights are more special than others.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jenna


"Hobbes didn't believe unlimited rights was a good thing, he saw it leading only to basically an unending war with everyone trying to impose their will on every one else. He also found the idea of finding natural rights in natural law to be a preposterous notion because as he saw it, according to natural law all men had the right to take everything including things owned by others. Natural law according to Hobbes is anarchy. Complete and utter anarchy. Under his version of natural law, our Constitution would not work and there would be no equal justice unless by that you mean an eye for an eye."

This sounds like exactly where we are, Jenna. And like our political system- that unending war, for how many decades now? The body we have "governing" the US has failed- IS failing, us so utterly. The people just stand by; ignored now as if we're invisible and bearing the brunt of the politicians' battle for dominance & control. We are just literally pawns. That's not what was supposed to happen, according to the Constitution, WAS it? Maybe that's why our Constitution actually isn't working anymore. Each "side" twists things to suit their "party" agendas & then waste all this time bickering over who is "right" & confabulating "evidence" (commissioned "studies"). Our "judges" are also corrupted by party affiliation, so there is no genuine referee there.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

Are you a Native American? If not, then guess what, your family were immigrants here too. And they expected rights, did they not?

You are kidding right?....

Have you even bothered to look at what has been happening to Phoenix Arizona and other southern cities/states because of illegal immigration?....

Crooks, and the Mexican drug cartel has been able to infiltrate southern states because politicians have been thinking like you... Yet you want to allow more illegal immigrants in without checking them?...

Phoenix Arizona is now the second city in the world with the most kidnappings because of the "ILLEGAL Mexican drug cartel THUGS"....

BTW, according to the police in Arizona if they can't contain the increase in kidnappings, and the entry of ILLEGAL drug cartel THUGS the violence will spill into other U.S. cities and states, and the police in Arizona is very stretched because of the increase in violence thanks to "our Mexican-American drug cartel thugs".....



[edit on 5-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


As I said, I've no desire to play your games.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

As I said, I've no desire to play your games.

Nor I yours. I will continue to defend freedom to my dying breath, and no amount of pretense at hurt feelings will change that.

Thing is those people are so not there, they will not leave, nor understand.

It's either we let them vote, and we end up like Idiocracy or 1984... or we put a test for voting and get rid of electronic voting machines.

Otherwise the ignorant will vote and con men will rule like they have been for decades.

Of course the ``big government dictates life`` crowd will say you're a extreme right wing libertarian and say you're a terrorist.

You can't negotiate with those people. You can educate a certain percentage of them, but the other crowd, you'll have to deal with them.... in whatever way.

This whole thing is very complex. The ignorant crowd outnumbers the independent mind crowd, thanks to TV, MSM, public schools, drugs, ect...

This whole thing has been a society problem in the western world since the golden age. America was different because all those who though for themselves moved to America... but now america is like the rest of the world, overrun by sheeple.

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
This sounds like exactly where we are, Jenna.

It does, actually. Hobbes believed that would be the result of unlimited rights. What we have today is a never ending parade of people who believe that everything is a right and that they deserve whatever they can think of just by virtue of being alive. No one wants to work for anything anymore, let alone accept personal responsibility for their actions.

People seem to have developed this belief that they shouldn't have to work for what they want, that it should just be handed to them instead. So we end up with women who have as many children as possible just so they can stay on welfare, people who sue McDonald's because they spilled hot coffee on themselves, etc. But I'm starting to go off topic here. That's a topic for a different thread.

That's not what was supposed to happen, according to the Constitution, WAS it? Maybe that's why our Constitution actually isn't working anymore. Each "side" twists things to suit their "party" agendas & then waste all this time bickering over who is "right" & confabulating "evidence" (commissioned "studies"). Our "judges" are also corrupted by party affiliation, so there is no genuine referee there.

I don't believe it's what was supposed to happen, no. I think people have just grown to complacent. They have begun to mistakenly believe that everything will always be as it was intended to be and the government wouldn't intentionally lie to us to further their own goals. What absolutely kills me is that people seem to forget that the government is made up of people.

It's not some perfect benevolent entity that only wants the best for us. It's made up of a group of people who are going to look out for themselves first, and if that means throwing the needs of the group under the bus to further their own goals and agendas then so be it. The people are supposed to be vigilant against things like that, but they get so caught up in whose side is right and whose side is wrong that they stop paying attention to the big picture. And even worse, they don't care if something happens to the other side so long as they don't think their own rights are being infringed.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux




[edit on 5-5-2010 by Jenna]

Rights shmites - I just want to keep what "I" earn. I dont want to put in 60 hours a week so the gov (or anyone else) can take my money and hand it off to someone who didnt work for it and just thinks they are "entitled' to it. Its late, and I know this comment is vague and maybe not relevant, but I dont remember where in the Declaration or the Constitution it says: "those who are less fortunate (or lazy) are entitled to reap the benefits of those who work their tails off". Essentially that whats illegals get. So do a good chunk of "legal" americans. Captial gains going up to 40%? Seriously? I could go on and on...

Why work? I may as well join the "entitled" club and live off the gov. Obama wants a re-distrubtion of wealth, well he can re-distribute it my way :-p

the only "change" around here is the change left in my pocket.

ok...yeah that was a rant i guess....

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Nor I yours. I will continue to defend freedom to my dying breath, and no amount of pretense at hurt feelings will change that.

So you are also a warmonger I guess since you believe every human being should be given the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?....

Wow, lots of people would be flaming you for being a "warmonger"...

Do I believe that every human being deserves better than what they are enduring in whatever oppression they live in? Yes I do, but that does not mean that I think every people in the world should be given the rights in the "U.S. Constitution", first because not everyone wants those rights and freedoms, and second because we would be in constant wars trying to "liberate" every country in the world...which again makes you a "warmonger"....

[edit on 5-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

So you are also a warmonger I guess since you vbelieve every human being should be given the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?....

It was easy to predict by your initial post that you would choose to engage with me. I never once stated that rights should be given, this is your false dichotomy not mine. You seem to love to use the phrase "rights enumerated" as if you have some understanding of what that means. Perhaps you have never read the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

~9th Amendment, Constitution for the United States of America~

Do you sincerely believe that the Constitution is granting rights they are not sure of with this Amendment?

Wow, lots of people would be flaming you for being a "warmonger"...

Many people flame me for being many things, but flaming is flaming, and means little to me.

Do I believe that every human being deserves better than what they are enduring in whatever oppression they live in? Yes I do, but that does not mean that I think every people in the world should be given the rights in the "U.S. Constitution", first because not everyone wants those rights and freedoms, and second because we would be in constant wars trying to "liberate" every country in the world...which again makes you a "warmonger"....

It matters not to me who wants rights and freedoms, what matters to me is that mine are respected. Clearly mine are not, and thus, I defend the rights of all. I do not impose anything, I speak freely in defense of freedom and I don't equivocate when doing so, this would be the difference between myself and you, and this is enough of a difference to render your flaming moot.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Oh please, you don't have any Natural rights if the government enforces it's own laws and takes away those Natural rights.

I know, this is why that little thing called the American Revolution happened and all of the revolutions like it.

I completely understand what you are trying say, but the fact is natural law doesn't mean jack if the government refuses to recognize those laws. Take countries like Iran, China, North Korea, etc. You do what they tell you to do. If you don't like it off to a camp or they will kill you or something else just as horrible.

Governments don't need to recognize anything. The people who live under the unjust rule of these governments do. If the people are vehemently aware of their situation and have the courage, like America's forefathers, to fight for their rights, they will eventually acquire them.

Let me ask you a question are you for gun control?

Absolutely not. Natural law brings forth personal responsibility. The greatest responsibility given is the responsibility to protect your being.

Absolutely correct. The whole point of natural rights is, regardless of whether you believe in them or not, is that they exist and will end up overthrowing totalitarian regimes in the end, regardless of whether you believe in them or not, and regardless of whether you like them or not.

In fact, every human will always have natural rights, whether or not you want to legislate them away. Because you can't legislate away free will and the value of the individual initiative, even if you want to. You can pretend that human beings don't have free will and natural rights, but it doesn't matter because they do. And if you decide to run a government that ignores this, be prepared to fail eventually and start angrily yelling and blaming other people for your own ignorance.

Why can't you legislate away natural law? Because people who try to do that have the mistaken belief that the government, and their little leaflets of law, mean something and have power over natural law. But they don't. People don't have free will and natural law because it was granted to them by the government, they have it because its how they ARE.

And the government has the power over the people because the people GRANT THEM that power. The government can't just go annihilate everyone who doesn't want to follow them, either, because then they wouldn't have people to govern.

And as for the people in North Korea and other totalitarian regimes, the only reason the government has control over them is because the people let them and are afraid. The government would have no control of them if enough of the people remembered their natural rights and banded together.

However, learn another lesson from this: if you plan on running a government based on suppressing natural law, you will probably have to suppress free speech and freedom of information and freedom of assembly and take away people's guns otherwise people might figure out they are being shafted, and spend a whole lot of resources trying to do it.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by darkbake]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by darkbake]

Just curious, Jean.

What specifically are these rights are you defending?

I'm not trying to take a hit on you, I'm just curious because the words "rights" has been used so loosely on this thread that I feel everyone is getting lost in rhetoric.

BTW, I respect the arguments from both sides as I see the logic in both.

It's just a matter of this assumption that we are or are not born with an initial set of rights.

I know you're going to call me out for saying it's an assumption, but I believe it's merely that. I personally believe the only right we have is the right to survive. Everything gained along the way is a privilege.

reply to post by SpectreDC


What does your country stand for ? It was founded on lies and the murder - of other people. And you feel free if you can "vote" ?
Here:
A people's history of the United States

.
Sixty Pit Indians occupied land they said belonged to them; they defied the Forest Services when ordered to leave. One of them, Darryl B. Wilson, later recalled: "As the flames danced orange making the trees come to life, and the cold creeped out of the darkness to challenge the speaking fire, and our breath came in small clouds, we spoke." They asked the government by what treaty it claimed the land. It could point to none. They cited a federal statute (25 USCA 194) that where there was a land dispute between Indian and white "the burden of proof falls on the white man."

They had built a quonset hut, and the marshals told them it was ugly and ruined the landscape. Wilson wrote later:

The whole world is rotting. The water is poisoned, the air polluted, the politics deformed, the land gutted, the forest pillaged, the shores ruined, the towns burned, the lives of the people destroyed . .. and the federals spent the best part of October trying to tell us the quonset hut was "ugly"!

To us it was beautiful. It was the beginning of our school. The meeting place. Home for our homeless. A sanctuary for those needing rest. Our church. Our headquarters. Our business office. Our symbol of approaching freedom. And it still stands.

It was also the center for the reviving of our stricken, diluted and separated culture. Our beginning. It was our sun rising on a clear spring day when the sky holds no clouds. It was a good and pure thing for our heart to look upon. That small place on earth. Our place.

But 150 marshals came, with machine guns, shotguns, rifles, pistols, riot sticks, Mace, dogs, chains, manacles. "The old people were frightened. The young questioned bravery. The small children were like a deer that has been shot by the thunder stick. Hearts beat fast as though a race was just run in the heat of summer." The marshals began swinging their riot sacks, and blood started flowing. Wilson grabbed one marshal's club, was thrown down, manacled, and while lying face down on the ground was struck behind the head several times. A sixtysix- year-old man was beaten into unconsciousness. A white reporter was arrested, his wife beaten. They were all thrown into trucks and taken away, charged with assaulting state and federal officers and cutting trees - but not with trespassing, which might have brought into question the ownership of the land.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by pai mei]

reply to post by darkbake


I've yet to hear an answer for this, perhaps you have one. Whose version of natural rights and natural law are you speaking of? Hobbes? Aquinas? Locke? Someone else? The definitions of natural rights and natural law vary depending on who's version we're talking about.

reply to post by Ptenjakin

What specifically are these rights are you defending?

Much like the 9th Amendment implies, I can only defend those rights I am aware of. I do not assume that people have the right to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness, or the pursuit of Property, I see this as self evident. We could play the assumption game all night long and you can call what I see as self evident as merely an assumption and I could respond by asserting this is merely your assumption, and just as surely as the Catholic Church branded Galileo a heretic for declaring the Earth a part of a heliocentric system, rather than a geocentric one, and in his acquiescence to Church rule, as legend tells it, muttered after his recantation of a heliocentric system; "And yet it still moves", I will say the same about rights, that they are inalienable and natural.

There have been people in this thread who have deigned to dismiss inalienable rights as being non existent by redefining the word to mean "can't be taken away", but this is not the definition of inalienable, and instead what it means is that it can not be transferred from one to another. You are free, my friend, to see the merit in any argument you want, seeing merit in something I disagree with does not make you any less free to see the merit in it, and here is the consistency I offer in regards to rights. At no point will I ever argue that my rights are different than yours, and at no point will I point to a tyrant to show how malleable rights are.

What rights do I defend? Would you have me enumerate what has, in a large part, all ready been done? There is no Amendment in the federal Constitution acknowledging the right to privacy, I will, on top of what has been enumerated, defend this right. There is no Amendment in the federal Constitution acknowledging the right to the pursuit of property, I will defend this right. There is no enumerated right acknowledged by the federal Constitution to marriage and the right to raise your family as you see fit, I will defend that right. I have no doubt there are rights I am unaware of, and yet, I am aware that if they are rights, then they are worthy of defense.

reply to post by SpectreDC


I believe it is unamerican peoples rights under the unalienable rights you list, to be unamerican if they so choose to.

But .. anyways.. aside from the weird hypocrisy..

People ultimately ARE covered by the US Constitution .. they always have been, even PoW's in WWII were considered covered by the Constitution .. tourist and visitors are protected.. even illegal aliens..

HOWEVER.......................

It is not a God given right to break the laws of the land .. the law states you must enter this land legally.. to do so would of course be illegal... they are protected by due process and so forth, all but the second amendment, but it is not their God given right to bestow citizenship upon themselves.