RE: Fourth of July 2017

RE: Fourth of July 2017 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 10:09:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The entire purpose of government is to secure the 'certain unalienable Rights' of Man. The Declaration is just a "Fuck off -- we're not gonna play in your sandbox anymore" notice. The government's purpose is stated here: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. That covers a lot of ground -- including arguably much of what you're ranting against. Because HOW we do those things and what they look like are open questions. So the rest of the document lays out a system of government that lets us decide those questions -- including the parts that appear not to your liking. No, the Declaration is not just a "Fuck off" notice. That you think that means you don't really understand it, and that's damn sad. Also the Declaration and Constitution were written 11 years apart and are completely seperate documents.

BamaD -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 10:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact <FR> On my wall, just up the stairs a`ways, is a piece of paper that says, "on behalf of a grateful nation..." Whether people like it or not, your freedoms aren't free. Some of us actually PAID for it, so you could go about saying any fool thing that crosses your head. Good for you.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 10:11:54 PM)
Well the traitorous orange coward didnt - fuking bone spurs eh!

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/4/2017 10:29:21 PM)
and that was the only battle that Henry did ( or didn't actually) fought in ?

Musicmystery -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/5/2017 5:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The entire purpose of government is to secure the 'certain unalienable Rights' of Man. The Declaration is just a "Fuck off -- we're not gonna play in your sandbox anymore" notice. The government's purpose is stated here: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. That covers a lot of ground -- including arguably much of what you're ranting against. Because HOW we do those things and what they look like are open questions. So the rest of the document lays out a system of government that lets us decide those questions -- including the parts that appear not to your liking. No, the Declaration is not just a "Fuck off" notice. That you think that means you don't really understand it, and that's damn sad. Also the Declaration and Constitution were written 11 years apart and are completely seperate documents. Not to mention, since the poster was lecturing about the purpose of government as a critique of today's policies, the first doesn't not address the purpose of government directly, while the second does, explicitly, from sentence one.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/5/2017 9:11:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Reward vs. Punishment Penn's friend Tim was indulging a false dichotomy, or at least one that no one ever proposed. The Left has proposed that we provide sustenance and healthcare for people in need, that the purpose of government is the welfare of the people. How is that rewarding someone for doing nothing when forces beyond a citizen's control render him destitute? We glorify equal opportunity in the abstract but turn to victim blaming when someone is really down and out for reasons that are not clear to us. Libertarians do not impress me in their smug righteousness but maybe I just do not understand their thinking. You say the left proposes providing sustenance and health care for people in need who were brought to that state by "forces beyond their control". 2 questions...is it only the people where "unknown" forces are in play? Or is it also those where "known" forces are in play? Forces not limited to LEGITIMATE physical or mental disabilities...legitimate reasons...but also forces such as laziness, gluttony, unwillingness to learn, addiction, etc.?

tamaka -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/5/2017 10:59:52 AM)
So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness.

WhoreMods -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/5/2017 11:03:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant ...but also forces such as laziness, gluttony, unwillingness to learn, addiction, etc.? I think they give people with those sorts of self inflicted ailment a job in the Senate.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/5/2017 8:20:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant ...but also forces such as laziness, gluttony, unwillingness to learn, addiction, etc.? I think they give people with those sorts of self inflicted ailment a job in the Senate. No. I know you're trying to be funny but oddly enough, even the people in the Senate that I'm in strong disagreement with earned a living at one time.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 3:34:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I wonder why the Founding Fathers listed the Right to Life before Liberty? The listed unalienable rights aren't the only unalienable rights. It may be because of what MM said, or, it may not mean fuckall. Does it matter the order? Is the right to Liberty or pursuit of happiness superceded by the right to Life? I'd think so. Wouldn't you? How much do you care about Liberty or pursuing happiness if you're dead? So, in your estimation, what is the order? Where do you put the right to property (Jefferson's first draft included property rather than pursuit of happiness)?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 3:47:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The Declaration stated our intent to be independent. That didn't make us a government. It just started the formal rebellion. This is all correct. I do not dispute any of that. It did (and still should) serve as a foundation upon which the Constitution sits. It certainly does describe the need for government. And, yes, the US Constitution is the framework through which our Federal system is built. But, the Constitution isn't the only government-creating "thing." The US Constitution, for instance, create any State government, County government, or other lower level of government, does it? If government is going to dole out welfare, shouldn't it be a level of government closer to where the welfare is being taken and given? If the City of Toledo wants to provide welfare for it's needy residents, shouldn't that be a decision and funding responsibility of the City of Toledo and it's residents? Should the State of Ohio be able to take from the residents of California for the purpose of redistributing what is taken to Ohio residents? You calling me full of myself is comical at every level.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 3:48:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I wonder why the Founding Fathers listed the Right to Life before Liberty? The listed unalienable rights aren't the only unalienable rights. It may be because of what MM said, or, it may not mean fuckall. Does it matter the order? Is the right to Liberty or pursuit of happiness superceded by the right to Life? I'd think so. Wouldn't you? How much do you care about Liberty or pursuing happiness if you're dead? It flow better. Does it flow better just because that's the way it's always been, and what we're used to?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 3:54:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness. Protecting one's right to life is not the same as providing one's right to life. The right to life means no one is allowed to take your life without consequences. If you are suffering a chronic illness that will end your life, it is the illness that is taking your life, not another person.

vincentML -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 4:23:29 AM)
quote: Should the State of Ohio be able to take from the residents of California for the purpose of redistributing what is taken to Ohio residents? 1. In order to reduce greed and envy and to make a more perfect union, yes. 2. You imply a false assumption that all the riches of California are down to the residents of California when in fact various industries there feed at the Federal trough. If we are to have a union of borderless flow of goods and people it is just as reasonable to have a union of flow of wealth. What are we to do now with Indiana? Let it go bankrupt? Allow its citizens to live lives of despair because of circumstances they did not create? Are we not ONE NATION in this together, each for the other? Or are we fifty nations each on its own? The view of the separation of states into independent sovereigns is a replay of late Middle Ages Principalities in Europe. America to Indiana: "Drop Dead" Really?

vincentML -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 4:24:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness. Absolutely. Makes sense to me.

vincentML -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 4:33:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Reward vs. Punishment Penn's friend Tim was indulging a false dichotomy, or at least one that no one ever proposed. The Left has proposed that we provide sustenance and healthcare for people in need, that the purpose of government is the welfare of the people. How is that rewarding someone for doing nothing when forces beyond a citizen's control render him destitute? We glorify equal opportunity in the abstract but turn to victim blaming when someone is really down and out for reasons that are not clear to us. Libertarians do not impress me in their smug righteousness but maybe I just do not understand their thinking. You say the left proposes providing sustenance and health care for people in need who were brought to that state by "forces beyond their control". 2 questions...is it only the people where "unknown" forces are in play? Or is it also those where "known" forces are in play? Forces not limited to LEGITIMATE physical or mental disabilities...legitimate reasons...but also forces such as laziness, gluttony, unwillingness to learn, addiction, etc.? Are these punishable crimes? Are they attitudes made willingly from the cognitive functions of brain or do they result from social circumstances. How do we judge "unwillingness to learn?" Does such a state even exist in the human psyche that is not brain dead? Or must they be willing to learn what you approve of? And addiction? We know full well the neurochemistry of addiction. Do you suppose a person wakes up one morning and says, "You know what? I think I will lead a life of laziness, gluttony, addiction, etc?" Is that a premeditated condition for which the person ought spend time in the public stocks?

bounty44 -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 4:35:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness. Absolutely. Makes sense to me. except this has been explained to you before, partially by the contrast between "negative" rights and "positive" rights. our country was founded with the former at its core---that is, the things the government CANNOT do to you. that is in this case, since we have a right to life the government cannot just willy nilly take it, and further, governments are established so that other people cannot just willy nilly take it either. it simply does not follow from having a right to life, that governments exist to provide for people in the way the left desires.

LadyPact -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 4:39:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness. Why not?

bounty44 -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 4:42:54 AM)
because of what I just wrote above. and in that regard, the government has no business being involved in healthcare.

vincentML -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/6/2017 4:47:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness. Protecting one's right to life is not the same as providing one's right to life. The right to life means no one is allowed to take your life without consequences. If you are suffering a chronic illness that will end your life, it is the illness that is taking your life, not another person. A train is speeding down the track and five men are working on the rail unaware. . . . Assume you have control of the switch to set the train off on a divergent track. You choose not to throw the switch. The five workers die. Who killed them? The train? Or you?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02