Bill of NON-Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Mercnbeth -> Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 9:38:36 AM)

This was sent me over the weekend. I thought it would be an interesting to share. It's attributed to Michell Kaye, State Representative from Georgia. If anyone from Georgia could confirm or disclaim the association I'd appreciated knowing it's accuracy. Who knows I may want to vote for this guy for president some day.


" We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!



cellogrrlMK -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 9:46:42 AM)

This is way cool, I like it!

But am I not supposed to if I"m a liberal? Or do I have to be a liberal bedwetter to not like it? LOLOL



Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 10:09:16 AM)

quote:

But am I not supposed to if I"m a liberal? Or do I have to be a liberal bedwetter to not like it? LOLOL


I don't think liberal or conservative has anything to do with it. If you want you can join the new party I'm forming...the Pragmatic Libertarians.

Just consider what happened today in Washington. Nine senile cloistered assholes, well 6 out of the 9 anyway, decided that it is still a Federal crime for a chemotherapy patient to smoke marijuana. Meanwhile how many of them take daily doses of "legal" drugs, paid for by our tax dollars.

The biggest reason for the continued illegality of marijuana is the fact that it's too easy for anyone to grow. The big corporations and drug companies couldn't prevent people from growing it themselves. If people don't have to buy it, then the government can't tax it. The combination of those two facts will keep marijuana illegal for a long time.

There is nothing you can go about it. No vote any of us has can remove these pompous old fools. Don't think it's Republican or Democrat. The dissenting votes came from Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarance Thomas, both Regan appointees and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Non of the "liberal" Clinton appointees were on the dissenting side.

The case was an appeal by the Bush administration involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.



cellogrrlMK -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 10:28:45 AM)

Hey, I couldn't agree with you more! (amazing, eh? [;)])

My comment was just a tongue-in-cheek response to the comment about liberal bed-wetters. [:)]



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 10:41:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!


I've seen this before and it's only these two which I find ridiculous. I understand the point of forcing people to be responsible and accept the society in which they choose to live, but I think the particular perspective in these two perfectly shows the xenophobia of the USA and is a contributing factor to many of the international issues we are facing today.





Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 10:58:00 AM)

quote:

xenophobia of the USA


Please educate me. Which country accepts people unconditionally to become citizens? I'll even accept any historical reference. With the historical exception of the US. Then rationalize the xenophobic reference as it applies to bi-lingual education, bi-lingual government forms, and the automatic citizenship of any baby born on US soil. Site any comparable example.



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 11:11:09 AM)

I don't think that showing a legal issue of automatic citizenship (which MANY disagree with currently and are trying to change) is the same as the actual attitude of the country.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 11:40:56 AM)

quote:

I don't think that showing a legal issue of automatic citizenship (which MANY disagree with currently and are trying to change) is the same as the actual attitude of the country.


It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the birth right citizen status. I know of no movement or even PAC group working toward this end. I will again defer if you can sight a source. ILLEGAL entry and securing the borders is a totally different subject.

But since you didn't site any examples to educate me regarding the xenophobic exclusivity of the US - "CASE CLOSED!" (Proving that you can borrow an appropriate quote from even the most disreputable of sources!)



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 11:51:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

But since you didn't site any examples to educate me regarding the xenophobic exclusivity of the US - "CASE CLOSED!" (Proving that you can borrow an appropriate quote from even the most disreputable of sources!)

*cite*

Again, I never said xenophobia was exclusively in the US. I simply disagree that saying that our automatic citizenship laws prove that the US in general does not have a xenophobic view of world issues.



Pavel -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 11:54:15 AM)

A very nice list for sure. I still would like to be able to skip the legal process, and be able to redress my grievances with someone in the Thunderdome (really, lawyers are so passe, and a court of law lacks the cool "two man enter, one man leave" chant).




Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 12:05:44 PM)

quote:

*cite*


My prayer...
"God, please invent a grammar check as easy to use as my spell check. You've allowed me to lose 100% of the minimal spelling skills I had beaten into me by the 'Brides of Christ' who oversaw my youthful education, but now I need a similar grammar/usage tool because in my creeping ever faster senility, my grammar and usage editing skills are also abandoning me. Send me a program writing messiah to provide me the 'right click' power necessary to eliminate the opportunities I provide my adversaries and detractors from focusing on these errors, in lieu of addressing the points raised. I ask this as your not so humble servant - EM."



Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 1:39:17 PM)

Too bad it doesn't say anything about the environment, which dwarfs all the other problems it mentions. You want a real program for the future? Check out the Green Party.

Come to think of it, the document doesn't say anything about American foreign policy, either. And what's their agenda for the proliferation of Executive power? Doesn't look like they have one. I think, all in all, this is a well-intentioned but defectively narrow program.

Lam



Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 1:44:02 PM)

quote:

Come to think of it, the document doesn't say anything about American foreign policy, either. And what's their agenda for the proliferation of Executive power? Doesn't look like they have one. I think, all in all, this is a well-intentioned but defectively narrow program.


L & M,
I think the reason for omitting those items in this treatise was that they weren't addressed in the original First 10 amendments or Bill of Rights either. I believe the author meant to parallel that document. I don't believe it was the basis for a broad ranging political platform.



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 3:05:40 PM)

Since you asked for specifics:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

For just one example:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109QZIOL2::

I don't believe legal legislation is a fully accurate measure of a country's general attitude and I do believe the US has a general attitude of xenophobia.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 3:17:09 PM)

quote:

For just one example:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109QZIOL2::



THANKS! I appreciate the reference as well as the legislative link. Very interesting that the sponsors are based from not only from CA and TX, border states, but from NJ, NC, MD, VA, and even landlocked IN. Now you've given me the work of finding out their political affiliation and the determination if this was a window dressing bill or if it has any prospect of passage. With only 17 sponsor's from the House I don't think it will get out of committee.

Thanks again!



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/6/2005 8:23:42 PM)

Cloud of Unknowing, cute!



UtopianRanger -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/7/2005 12:57:29 AM)

quote:


I don't think liberal or conservative has anything to do with it. If you want you can join the new party I'm forming...the Pragmatic Libertarians.

As a disgruntled fiscal Republican, you can sign me up for the job of party treasurer and make Cello the party secretary.


quote:

The case was an appeal by the Bush administration involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

Isn't it ironic that for a party that's been so historically adamant about protecting states rights, they seem equally adamant about trying to squash those rights when it doesn't suit their purpose.

At almost ever step of the way, the current administration is trying to reduce states rights. Think about it, almost all the new legislation that is being passed right now that would restrict our rights and freedoms, is keying on states rights. These are federal rules and regulations that completely usurp the rights of states. Can you say hypocrite!


As far as article X : I don't find it xenophobic one bit! As matter of fact, I think it was the great Teddy Roosevelt that once said that the one absolutely certain way to bring this great country to ruin, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities and languages.




- The Ranger




Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/7/2005 9:32:14 AM)

One thing that has interested me is the widening schism between traditional conservatives (the kind that are now disparaginginly called paleocons) and the neocon administration. Of course the Bush administration has been trampling all over states' rights. "States' rights" is one of those phrases--like "family values"--that they cynically trot out as needed while furthering an agenda that has nothing to do with states' rights or family values.

But then WHY DO THESE DISGRUNTLED REPUBLICANS KEEP VOTING FOR BUSH?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

At almost ever step of the way, the current administration is trying to reduce states rights. Think about it, almost all the new legislation that is being passed right now that would restrict our rights and freedoms, is keying on states rights. These are federal rules and regulations that completely usurp the rights of states. Can you say hypocrite!



Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/7/2005 10:48:22 AM)

quote:

But then WHY DO THESE DISGRUNTLED REPUBLICANS KEEP VOTING FOR BUSH?


L&M,
Simple - The alternative presented by the Democratic party is far worse. When the acknowledged and appointed head of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, makes a public speech saying many Republicans have “never made an honest living in their lives,"; it indicates how out of touch they are with the majority of people. That statement just insulted the 51% of the voting population who voted for Bush last time. Does that statement represent you? Do you need a national holiday to vote? If you have ever been involved in local politics you know that local districts order, oversee the distribution, and determine how many voting machines are at every voting center. Do you believe, as Dean's statement would indicated, that minority or low income population centers are managed and run by right wing white Republicans?

Don't tell me what you are against, or why what is going on doesn't work; tell me what you will do, what you are for, and how you will accomplish those goals. Did Bush do that? No. All Bush represented was status quo, and commitment to a task. The alternative Kerry didn't present a commitment to anything. Instead he based his position and policy on his audience and the opinion polls. Vacillation does not make for generating confidence. Unfortunately for Kerry, we live in an age when every contradiction is documented and published. My vote for Bush was based upon being able to live with the "status quo" and the unknown that a Kerry presidency presented. Also contributory was his running mate Edwards was a trial lawyer, formerly known as an "ambulance chaser". I didn't see any tort reform coming from an administration that included him.

Do you know the best way of getting rid of the party in power? Let them succeed in what they are trying to do. In other words - let them fail. The current Senate and House filibustering in only accomplishing more alienation. Next election, in 2006 for congress, Republicans will be able to point to Democratic filibustering as the cause for government impotence, deflecting focus from the real issues. And in an off year election who will go to the polls in greater numbers? Which party is better organized? Who will mobilize more forces? If the US ambassador to the UN really that important? I challenge anyone to name the current one.

The sad thing is I see no one on the horizon for either party. So next time around I'll have to go through the same "lesser of two evils" process. I don't know how the Democratic party got so screwed up, but it looks like they are headed for another disaster. If this article is any indication: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060705/fundraisers.html
there may only be one party in the near future. The hope is if it does fall to the wayside like Teddy's "Bull-Moose" party maybe there will be something better to take up the vacuum. The problem, is that in many respects we are ripe for Dictator. People are STARVING for someone to take charge and be pragmatic to the issues at hand. With one more or larger scale 9/11 this may seem like the "good old days".

Sorry - I got on a soap box!



Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/7/2005 1:49:32 PM)

Well, yes, I understand all that and generally I agree. And I dislike Kerry, but he was still a much better choice than Bush. Dean didn't win the nomination, so what he said didn't really matter in November. Besides, if that's the worst thing Dean ever said or did, it pales in comparison to what Bush and his cronies have pulled off. Voting for Bush because of something dumb that Dean said one day is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I've been wondering why so many millions of Americans consistently vote against their interests, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they are scared and they believe the Republicans are going to handle national security better than the Democrats. How they decided that, I'm not too sure, but it's clear that that's what they believe.

Still, I have to say I sense a shift in momentum. I've been hearing too many complaints about hypocrisy lately, even among ordinary people. That's new, and I think it's bad news for the GOP.

Lam



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125