R.I.P. Charlton Heston
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
it's a piece of dirt for all. there's no reason to feel personally attacked, you did nothing to write or implement the UN Dec of Human Rights, so there's no reason to defend a document with such glaring loopholes for the power structure to run through.
an alternative? the USA is no great paragon of goodness but we have better assurances our rights are off-limits to the government. at least the bill of rights admits that the government has no business messing with our rights even when their principle or purposes are not upheld. all rights not spelled out in the document are still reserved for the people(the actual implementation of the document is often corrupted and criminal, so you can imagine thhe value of promises that give the powers that be loopholes)
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[35]
Amendments
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
no loopholes(so you know that the present situation is criminal).
as opposed to this:
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
these "purposes and priinciples" are always subject to change and since the UN is it's own regulatory body, they can make whatever purposes they wish. a good example is the "agenda for the 21st century", which talks about moving everyone into highly compacted cities and making travel and use of wilderness illegal, the worst dictatorial policy in the history of human kind(see Soylent Green, a movie based on the ideas of Agenda 21.
and this:
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace
which states that your educations primary purpose besides the nice words is to further the "activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace". so miseducation and lies are OK as long as the order is maintained. most people like the sound of the word "peace", so rational thought goes out the window. a simplification of this sentence would properly be, "education shall be directed to further the activities of the UN", intead of "education shall be directed to the furthering of the freedom and knowledge of humanity"...
here's part of the Nazi party's 25 points from before WW2:
20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
all nice sounding words.
as they say, "the devil is in the details".
an alternative? the USA is no great paragon of goodness but we have better assurances our rights are off-limits to the government. at least the bill of rights admits that the government has no business messing with our rights even when their principle or purposes are not upheld. all rights not spelled out in the document are still reserved for the people(the actual implementation of the document is often corrupted and criminal, so you can imagine thhe value of promises that give the powers that be loopholes)
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[35]
Amendments
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
no loopholes(so you know that the present situation is criminal).
as opposed to this:
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
these "purposes and priinciples" are always subject to change and since the UN is it's own regulatory body, they can make whatever purposes they wish. a good example is the "agenda for the 21st century", which talks about moving everyone into highly compacted cities and making travel and use of wilderness illegal, the worst dictatorial policy in the history of human kind(see Soylent Green, a movie based on the ideas of Agenda 21.
and this:
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace
which states that your educations primary purpose besides the nice words is to further the "activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace". so miseducation and lies are OK as long as the order is maintained. most people like the sound of the word "peace", so rational thought goes out the window. a simplification of this sentence would properly be, "education shall be directed to further the activities of the UN", intead of "education shall be directed to the furthering of the freedom and knowledge of humanity"...
here's part of the Nazi party's 25 points from before WW2:
20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
all nice sounding words.
as they say, "the devil is in the details".
Me$$iah wrote:Goddamn it.... America is not a 'christian nation'
It may be populated by mostly christians, but it is not a christian nation.
Damn.
.
Then why does it say "In God We Trust" on our money? Why does every session of congress open with a chaplin giving a prayer? Perhaps you have never heard of the house chaplin? I refer you to this website:
http://chaplain.house.gov/
Please notice the domain .gov. Only official government sites can use that domain.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
It doesnt matter what it says on the money.
The federal reserve bank (they are the ones who design, make and regulate the paper monies) have nothing to do with the government. They are a private company, and not part of the government, any more than FedEx is a part of the government or IHOP is a part of the UN. They could make up Disney dollars and decide to circulate them, if they want. That wouldnt make america a Waltian nation now would it.
The fact that there is a house chaplain is also irrelevant, so what, all a chaplain is is a religious minister, could be a christiian, could be a jew or even a muslim. A chaplain is there to offer spiritual adice to those in need.
There is an establishment clause in the constitution that makes it impossible for the government to favour one religious ideal over another.
Put simply the founding fathers, lots of whom were not christian, were clever and foward thinking enough to have enshrined within the constitution a clear barrier between the state and any religion.
Of course this doent matter now, because after many generations of perfect indoctination most americans think that the country is a christian one, and its always mentioned God in the national pledge...right....I mean its not as if such a thing couldve been inserted in say the 50s...hmmmmm....
Still most Americans want a christian counrty and as its a democracy there, then the majority rule and decide ... right....
Nope Wrong again.... and thats why America isnt a democracy and wasnt founded to be one...
Seriously its like I understand the American system better than most Americans. This is because I value my freedom, I dont take it for granted as the seeming majorty do there.
Im not an American, I live in an almost defunkt counrty, under the opressive rule of an occupying force.... Its been many many years that this regime has controled the land of my fathers, so long in fact that most people in my country accept their servitude. I dont. Neither shoud any american.
Be true to the constitutiona and stand up for your rights as a free sovreign person.
Of course you have to understand your rights first, so braincell, keep reading and studying, and when you can distinguish between a right and a privelidge you will stand up proud and strong and declare to the world
" Its good to be king"
So braincell the qusetion for you to ponder
What is the difference between a right and a privelidge?
The federal reserve bank (they are the ones who design, make and regulate the paper monies) have nothing to do with the government. They are a private company, and not part of the government, any more than FedEx is a part of the government or IHOP is a part of the UN. They could make up Disney dollars and decide to circulate them, if they want. That wouldnt make america a Waltian nation now would it.
The fact that there is a house chaplain is also irrelevant, so what, all a chaplain is is a religious minister, could be a christiian, could be a jew or even a muslim. A chaplain is there to offer spiritual adice to those in need.
There is an establishment clause in the constitution that makes it impossible for the government to favour one religious ideal over another.
Put simply the founding fathers, lots of whom were not christian, were clever and foward thinking enough to have enshrined within the constitution a clear barrier between the state and any religion.
Of course this doent matter now, because after many generations of perfect indoctination most americans think that the country is a christian one, and its always mentioned God in the national pledge...right....I mean its not as if such a thing couldve been inserted in say the 50s...hmmmmm....
Still most Americans want a christian counrty and as its a democracy there, then the majority rule and decide ... right....
Nope Wrong again.... and thats why America isnt a democracy and wasnt founded to be one...
Seriously its like I understand the American system better than most Americans. This is because I value my freedom, I dont take it for granted as the seeming majorty do there.
Im not an American, I live in an almost defunkt counrty, under the opressive rule of an occupying force.... Its been many many years that this regime has controled the land of my fathers, so long in fact that most people in my country accept their servitude. I dont. Neither shoud any american.
Be true to the constitutiona and stand up for your rights as a free sovreign person.
Of course you have to understand your rights first, so braincell, keep reading and studying, and when you can distinguish between a right and a privelidge you will stand up proud and strong and declare to the world
" Its good to be king"
So braincell the qusetion for you to ponder
What is the difference between a right and a privelidge?
Last edited by Me$$iah on Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why do churches not have to pay taxes?
Check out our roots. The government has always been in bed with the Christian churches:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
Check out our roots. The government has always been in bed with the Christian churches:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
Everyone knows the vast majority of religious organizations are Christian and besides, the government shouldn't be supporting any religion. By making them tax free, they are giving them tremendous support.
I live near an historic retreat which was sold to the Episcopal church because the owner could not afford the property taxes. As a part of the deal, the owner gets to live there and they employ her.
The church members are having vacations at our expense, also teaching children at a tender age to love Jesus!
I live near an historic retreat which was sold to the Episcopal church because the owner could not afford the property taxes. As a part of the deal, the owner gets to live there and they employ her.
The church members are having vacations at our expense, also teaching children at a tender age to love Jesus!
I agree that the government shouldnt support any religion, however they do, and not only christian ones.
Tho the constitution doesnt actually prohibit this, it does prohibit the government supporting one religion over another, that is to say establishing a church within the system.
As for property taxes, well they are wrong, plain and simple. They are not constitutional. How can the government charge you tax on somthing thats yours. The answer is sadly simple.The property owner you talk of, unfortunalety, wasnt actaully the property owner. The governmet was, and probably still is. Yes the 'owner' you talk of may have held the title deeds to the property, that doesnt make them the owner.
Please look up allodial title.
And yes from birth american children are indoctinated to believe in Jesus, and that America is a democracy, and that rights are actually privelidges, and many other untruths. This is obviously wrong.
Maybe more people need to educate themselves in the constitution and history of the union and then go out into the world and spread the bad news with all the zeal of a preacher. Maybe things can be changed, is it not now apparently time for a change in america.
A return to the republic, hmm .... i think the current thinking is Yes we can
Tho the constitution doesnt actually prohibit this, it does prohibit the government supporting one religion over another, that is to say establishing a church within the system.
As for property taxes, well they are wrong, plain and simple. They are not constitutional. How can the government charge you tax on somthing thats yours. The answer is sadly simple.The property owner you talk of, unfortunalety, wasnt actaully the property owner. The governmet was, and probably still is. Yes the 'owner' you talk of may have held the title deeds to the property, that doesnt make them the owner.
Please look up allodial title.
And yes from birth american children are indoctinated to believe in Jesus, and that America is a democracy, and that rights are actually privelidges, and many other untruths. This is obviously wrong.
Maybe more people need to educate themselves in the constitution and history of the union and then go out into the world and spread the bad news with all the zeal of a preacher. Maybe things can be changed, is it not now apparently time for a change in america.
A return to the republic, hmm .... i think the current thinking is Yes we can
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
It was not my intention to sound offended, trust me I'm not.
I think i am more precise if i say i am glad to live a place where the wellness of a community is more important than the privileges of the individual. And i also think that is why we will never agree Gary, You focus more on the individuals "right" than i do, and i focus more on the wellbeing of a community than you do.
simple as that.
I think i am more precise if i say i am glad to live a place where the wellness of a community is more important than the privileges of the individual. And i also think that is why we will never agree Gary, You focus more on the individuals "right" than i do, and i focus more on the wellbeing of a community than you do.
simple as that.
guess who created the slogan ...You Are Nothing - Your People Is Everything...
no offence intended, just food for thought
sidenote @bingo
Insects do have a conscience - it's just that we lack the means to picture ourselfs into 'their' world
and no, it's not about the naive modelling of supposed view by insect eyes as we all learned in biology classes - in the end noone can tell to what completeness all those senses (they have some receiptors we lack) are merged and what the individual perceiption may be.
of course this is not intended to drag the thread into a philosophical discussion about what's specifically human and supposed to be superior.
it's an addition (as I understand Gary) to a universal right of being by existence - with all it takes to gain or loose.
it's perfectly ok to disagree about the details of the note above - at least I consider myself a rather skilled watcher of nature with a good scientific background. It's indeed my conviction by observation and not some spiritual bla bla captured in obscure literature
cheers, Tom
no offence intended, just food for thought
sidenote @bingo
Insects do have a conscience - it's just that we lack the means to picture ourselfs into 'their' world
and no, it's not about the naive modelling of supposed view by insect eyes as we all learned in biology classes - in the end noone can tell to what completeness all those senses (they have some receiptors we lack) are merged and what the individual perceiption may be.
of course this is not intended to drag the thread into a philosophical discussion about what's specifically human and supposed to be superior.
it's an addition (as I understand Gary) to a universal right of being by existence - with all it takes to gain or loose.
it's perfectly ok to disagree about the details of the note above - at least I consider myself a rather skilled watcher of nature with a good scientific background. It's indeed my conviction by observation and not some spiritual bla bla captured in obscure literature
cheers, Tom
-
FrancisHarmany
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Haarmania
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Tom, just to exemplify what i am talking about;
A few years ago here in Norway a new law was formed, freely translated to "shore line law". The basic point of this law is to ensure the publics right to freely move along all of Norways coastline, even if this property is owned by private persons/institutions. No fences are allowed to hinder people from accessing these areas, and people are free to use these areas for bathing, hiking etc.
My point is, there are to ways to react to this. One could take the land owners side and find it as a robbing and devaluation of one mans property. On another side you could be happy to have ensured access for everyone on these kind of areas.
i guess me and mr.G would be on opposite sides on this one.
in US people could threatened with guns for trespassing.
A few years ago here in Norway a new law was formed, freely translated to "shore line law". The basic point of this law is to ensure the publics right to freely move along all of Norways coastline, even if this property is owned by private persons/institutions. No fences are allowed to hinder people from accessing these areas, and people are free to use these areas for bathing, hiking etc.
My point is, there are to ways to react to this. One could take the land owners side and find it as a robbing and devaluation of one mans property. On another side you could be happy to have ensured access for everyone on these kind of areas.
i guess me and mr.G would be on opposite sides on this one.
in US people could threatened with guns for trespassing.
Piddi - it's really a problem to call you next-to-nothing btw,
of course I understood what you were talking about - and would have expected no other kind of example
but the same 'community idea' has been (from our current point of view) massively abused in the years of the 3rd Reich in Germany
70 years ago people hailed to the very same idea...
that's what Gary wants to make clear between the lines (imho) and discussing it by the word is close to impossible. As you always get stucked into interpretion arguments.
A good part of politics is exactly about that kind of blurring arguments - the proverbial selling a fridge to an innuit
cheers, Tom
of course I understood what you were talking about - and would have expected no other kind of example
but the same 'community idea' has been (from our current point of view) massively abused in the years of the 3rd Reich in Germany
70 years ago people hailed to the very same idea...
that's what Gary wants to make clear between the lines (imho) and discussing it by the word is close to impossible. As you always get stucked into interpretion arguments.
A good part of politics is exactly about that kind of blurring arguments - the proverbial selling a fridge to an innuit
cheers, Tom
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
-
MikeRaphone
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: slovenia
Gary, the problem is that you are making a confusion between what is relevant and what it is not. The rights you are talking about have the only purpose of helping your conscience to define the boundaries of your action and feel comfortable with them, but they are not relevant in what really matters, that's the fact that they are accepted and observed by the others.garyb wrote:rights are not an invention. they just are. what people think about, say about, regulate and catagorize about rights is the invention and social agreement. .............................................................................................................................................
my rights don't come from society, but from my creation and birth. my right to breathe and drink water and live are mine, no matter what society thinks or does. of course i have no right to violate other's rights! if i do, it's their right to oppose me!
.
What the others can do to you is what defines the rights juridically. If the memory doesn't fail me, in the North American juridical system the difference between the rights and the privileges is that the rights are mainly centered around what the others can or cannot do to you, while the privileges are centered around what you are allowed to do. But I'm graduated in international politics and the comparative juridical studies I've done were not too deep on this subject.
Anyway, what are we talking about? For me it makes sense to compare different "systems" and their implications in the real life of the people. Because, to tell the truth, if tomorrow morning the majority of the Congress make a low that for some reason both dreadlock haired and awesome keyboard players can't bear arms without a deep examination of their THC content in the blood, both you and Jimmy will be submitted to that exam, without shooting the officers or making a revolution, like you didn't when some people has been taken and sent to Guantanamo without a trial or self defence rights and tortured, putting another couple of amendments under the feet or in place of toilet paper.
The reality is made of power. You, as an individual, have only an illusory power. Your power, or, to be technical, your rights only come from a common feeling of your community and an agreement on what these rights are. And the sense of democracy is that you feel deeply touched if someone else is touched. This is the only power that the "elites" will fear and try to contrast.
All this ideology around the "individual" is a double edged knife. A part of it is obvious and good, like the public education or health care principles under the Nazi 3rd Reich, but the other side is unacceptable because it produces the deep feeling that you are basically alone and all is out of your property can go to hell, while in the Nazi system it was that you didn't have any freedom to make other choices.
Why confusing the community feel with the loss of individual freedom? It is absolutely the opposite, if the community is the real one and not the abstract, impersonal principle found in dictatorships that in fact brought common people to sell the life of their dissident neighbor to gain some merits.
At the end, I'm repeating myself, the rights that are relevant are those that can be exercised and publicly accepted and possibly written on paper. In fact you keep mentioning constitutional amendmends and that's absolutely right, if the law says something in your system I might disagree or consider it archaic, but that's the law and only because of that your rights will be recognized and accepted. Then you might think that you also have the right to fly in heaven or to talk with the seagulls and be understood, that's your problem, not mine. It's not relevant for me. If you kill the seagull because he didn't release the fish you asked him, well I won't blame the officer making you a fine. I won't recognize that right of yours, whatever you might think about it.
So, again, what are we talking about?
hey alfonso.
Sorry to tell ya this, but your definition of rights and privelidges is wrong.
Its about permission. A right is somthing you dont need permission for, ie I can walk up and down on my property. A privelidge is something where need to get permission from someone else. Its a privelidge you extend to me that allows me to walk uop and down your property.
Rights are derived from property. Everyone is a property owner, even if it only your body you own. But own it you do. You and I are not the propery of a monarch. We are free sovriegn individuals. I hold this to be an unalienable truth.
Even if I am locked in Gtmo and being tortured, and am made to wipe my ass with copies of the american bill of rights, that doesnt alter the fact that those rights are still mine.
Yes they are being violated, but they are still intact. I still have the right to life, even when that right is violated. I have the right to be secure in my person and property, even if the right is violated. I have the right to free speech, even if that right is violated.
If you pacivly accept this violation of your rights, then you give them away, and seemingly have none. You must fight for, maybe even to the death, your rights, or they will be violated. The only rights that anyone has are those he is willing to fight for.
The second amendment states the right to bare arms, this is obviously from the right of everyone to be secure in their personage and right to defend themselves from attack. It also serves to aid the people in their struggle to fight for and keep their rights. So to prevent the government from violating said rights.
Now everyone that disagrees with me..... SHUT UP
there Im violating everyones right to free speech. Now whom amognst us is going to pacivly accept this and who is going to say NO, you cant tell me to shut up I have the right to free speech.
Sorry to tell ya this, but your definition of rights and privelidges is wrong.
Its about permission. A right is somthing you dont need permission for, ie I can walk up and down on my property. A privelidge is something where need to get permission from someone else. Its a privelidge you extend to me that allows me to walk uop and down your property.
Rights are derived from property. Everyone is a property owner, even if it only your body you own. But own it you do. You and I are not the propery of a monarch. We are free sovriegn individuals. I hold this to be an unalienable truth.
Even if I am locked in Gtmo and being tortured, and am made to wipe my ass with copies of the american bill of rights, that doesnt alter the fact that those rights are still mine.
Yes they are being violated, but they are still intact. I still have the right to life, even when that right is violated. I have the right to be secure in my person and property, even if the right is violated. I have the right to free speech, even if that right is violated.
If you pacivly accept this violation of your rights, then you give them away, and seemingly have none. You must fight for, maybe even to the death, your rights, or they will be violated. The only rights that anyone has are those he is willing to fight for.
The second amendment states the right to bare arms, this is obviously from the right of everyone to be secure in their personage and right to defend themselves from attack. It also serves to aid the people in their struggle to fight for and keep their rights. So to prevent the government from violating said rights.
Now everyone that disagrees with me..... SHUT UP
there Im violating everyones right to free speech. Now whom amognst us is going to pacivly accept this and who is going to say NO, you cant tell me to shut up I have the right to free speech.
You can argue about gun control all you want but the bottom line from those of us who are against guns is that we feel they are barbaric and generally owned so that men can feel more macho. At least tattoos don't harm anyone so if you want to feel like a tough guy and frighten people, why don't you just work out, get some tats, and don't bath for a week?