Outrage?

[ProV1]

The point is that the Founders believed in natural rights, which encompasses all of them, and as Jefferson so eloquently put it, are endowed by our Creator. PMJ has tried to explain it to you, but as with most who make the effort, your eyes just glaze over.

Madison may be considered the author of the Bill of Rights, but he was reluctant to even write them down. You see the Founders believed that our rights were so obvious, so unassailable, so endowed, that writing them down only provided fodder for future sophists such as yourself to quibble over the words and divine some meaning that was never intended.

They were 100% correct.

The fact that the founders believed in natural rights is not relevant to the conversation. It’s great that they thought that but they did not protect those rights. An individual may believe that all people are born equal, but that does not give them the rights associated with equality. It certainly does not give them the right to bare arms. As such, whatever your creator intended to give you is meaningless unless it is supported by something like a constitution or laws that grant or protect these things.

Back to the original point. There are inherent differences in civil liberties and civil rights. Carter Page’s civil liberty was infringed upon. It was not a civil rights issue at all. I don’t care to debate which of the two is more valuable, superior, or important. That is personal based on a value system shaped by things like experience.

 

[Guillotine]

You are THE example of the failed education system in the United States of the last 30 years.

He is also the very definition of a sophist.

Others can attempt to untangle his blather, but it's not anymore rewarding than completing a corn maze, and 10 times as exhausting.

I'm just here for the entertainment, which he provides in buckets full. Poking fun at the opposition is great sport! lol

 

[Guillotine]

It certainly does not give them the right to bare arms.

..I almost missed this stupidity!

What a maroon.

 

[fish82]

Well, it is pretty cold out this week lol.

 

[ProV1]

He is also the very definition of a sophist.

Others can attempt to untangle his blather, but it's not anymore rewarding than completing a corn maze, and 10 times as exhausting.

I'm just here for the entertainment, which he provides in buckets full. Poking fun at the opposition is great sport! lol

Glad you are entertained even if the points are over your head. I will try to dumb things down in the future.

 

[Guillotine]

Glad you are entertained even if the points are over your head. I will try to dumb things dumb in the future.

K

 

[fish82]

I will try to dumb things dumb in the future.

You're actually not doing a bad job of it at this very moment lol.

 

[SWMCinci]

...... It certainly does not give them the right to bare arms. …...

In Florida we bare arms 365 days every year.....

 

[SWMCinci]

The fact that the founders believed in natural rights is not relevant to the conversation. It’s great that they thought that but they did not protect those rights. …...

Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence gave Americans the power to remove the yoke of oppression from the British. Rights mentioned in the Constitution are those that are protected from interference by the government.

 

[Purplemojo]

Yorktown is right about the ignorance engendered by our education system. ProV1's position reflects continental Europe's belief in a benevolent despot and is completely divorced from the English and American political thought and history. Our legal system and the rights we enjoy predate even the Magna Carta (1215) and go deep into the tribal society of Anglo-Saxon England. Our rights were seen as the natural rights of a free Englishman and it was the violations of these rights that were the basis of our Revolution. Natural man and natural law go back to the English philosophies of Locke, Hobbe, Hume and the French Enlightenment philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The evidence of this is in the writings of all of our founding fathers, all of which are rejected or ignored by people like ProV1. In the Constitution itself look no further than the 10th amendment. As someone said earlier, the writers of the Constitution were so confident in the universal understanding of our natural rights that the enumeration of them was unnecessary. When they finally acknowledged that two hundred years later someone like ProV1 might come along and would need to be "spoon fed" they wrote down some of our more important rights. But what of all of the other rights too numerous to list? They are found addressed in the 10th Amendment, "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." Now granted, we have not been as vigilant in protecting these rights as we should have been and the over reaching federal government has whittled away at these rights, but they are still there and, some day, we will learn to value all of our rights again.

 

[chs1971]

This is a really stupid thread. It’s entire premise is ignorant. The surveillance on Carter Page did not violate his civil rights. Civil rights are about equality and political/social freedom. The surveillance infringed his civil liberties which are different rights and freedoms (right to privacy, right to property) that can not be taken without proper due process. They are two different things, entirely. Since you are ignorantly trying to troll Democrats with this post, you will not have much success. Generally speaking, Democrats are stronger on civil rights and Republicans are stronger on civil liberties. At this point, you should delete the thread to avoid further embarrassment.

A single post is not a thread. They are two different things entirely. You should delete yourself to avoid further embarrassment.

 

[ProV1]

Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence gave Americans the power to remove the yoke of oppression from the British. Rights mentioned in the Constitution are those that are protected from interference by the government.

Sure...100% agree. That is core to my point.

 

[ProV1]

Yorktown is right about the ignorance engendered by our education system. ProV1's position reflects continental Europe's belief in a benevolent despot and is completely divorced from the English and American political thought and history. Our legal system and the rights we enjoy predate even the Magna Carta (1215) and go deep into the tribal society of Anglo-Saxon England. Our rights were seen as the natural rights of a free Englishman and it was the violations of these rights that were the basis of our Revolution. Natural man and natural law go back to the English philosophies of Locke, Hobbe, Hume and the French Enlightenment philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The evidence of this is in the writings of all of our founding fathers, all of which are rejected or ignored by people like ProV1. In the Constitution itself look no further than the 10th amendment. As someone said earlier, the writers of the Constitution were so confident in the universal understanding of our natural rights that the enumeration of them was unnecessary. When they finally acknowledged that two hundred years later someone like ProV1 might come along and would need to be "spoon fed" they wrote down some of our more important rights. But what of all of the other rights too numerous to list? They are found addressed in the 10th Amendment, "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." Now granted, we have not been as vigilant in protecting these rights as we should have been and the over reaching federal government has whittled away at these rights, but they are still there and, some day, we will learn to value all of our rights again.

That sounds super awesome! I'm not sure where you found the bulk of that but it has nothing to do with " Where is the outrage from Democrats who pride themselves on support of civil rights towards the federal government for the fraudulent, unconstitutional spying by the FBI on an American citizen?" It was not a civil rights violation. It was a civil liberty issue as granted by our government. In some countries, there is no protection or due process for surveillance so the government can listen to you all they want.

 

[chs1971]

. It was a civil liberty issue as granted by our government. In some countries, there is no protection or due process for surveillance so the government can listen to you all they want.

So civil liberties are granted by the government?

 

[ProV1]

So civil liberties are granted by the government?

Civil liberties are protections of citizens from unwarranted government action. As an example, this countries Bill of Rights was largely centered on limiting the governments powers. As such, the government defines those liberties.

 

[2manyBats]

Civil liberties are protections of citizens from unwarranted government action. As an example, this countries Bill of Rights was largely centered on limiting the governments powers. As such, the government defines those liberties.

Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that liberal governments commit not to abridge, either by legislation or judicial interpretation, without due process.

To Be Clear !!!

Due Process = ability for Conservatives to Vote Out those that feel the Need to Change Our Guarantees & Freedoms

 

[ProV1]

Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that liberal governments commit not to abridge, either by legislation or judicial interpretation, without due process.

To Be Clear !!!

Due Process = ability for Conservatives to Vote Out those that feel the Need to Change Our Guarantees & Freedoms

What you said is basically the same as what I said. Go ahead and replace my definition with yours if you want. It does not change the point in any way.

 

[chs1971]

Civil liberties are protections of citizens from unwarranted government action. As an example, this countries Bill of Rights was largely centered on limiting the governments powers. As such, the government defines those liberties.

So the government decides what our liberties are.

 

[ProV1]

So the government decides what our liberties are.

The government defines what liberties it values through the protections it offers it's citizens.

 

[SWMCinci]

The government defines what liberties it values through the protections it offers it's citizens.

The government defines no liberties. People themselves determine the liberties that are valued and what they will protect. It's why control of the government changes depending on what liberties they feel are under attack.

 

[Purplemojo]

That sounds super awesome! I'm not sure where you found the bulk of that but it has nothing to do with " Where is the outrage from Democrats who pride themselves on support of civil rights towards the federal government for the fraudulent, unconstitutional spying by the FBI on an American citizen?" It was not a civil rights violation. It was a civil liberty issue as granted by our government. In some countries, there is no protection or due process for surveillance so the government can listen to you all they want.

Yeah, some countries violate the rights God intended a freeman to possess and some populations willingly gave up those rights for a degree of comfort and security, deserving neither of them (to paraphrase Ben Franklin). Oh, and "where I [you] found the bulk of that", it is called being a well informed citizen. That and fifty years of caring about freedom and independence. They should have taught you that too, but obviously they did not.

Finally, abuse of judicial process and secret tribunals, does and always have = tyranny.

 

[Purplemojo]

Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence gave Americans the power to remove the yoke of oppression from the British. Rights mentioned in the Constitution are those that are protected from interference by the government.

With all due respect, you played into ProV1's little game in denying the source of our rights. The Declaration did not give us the power to do anything. We had that as freeborn Englishmen. What it did was present our cause as a just one to the world. That was its intent and that was its result. Without it we likely would not have gotten the degree of French help that we received. The French monarchy was a little concerned with the idea of revolution.

We were born freemen and those who embrace and defend their rights live as free men. People like ProV1 are slaves living in a gilded cage made up of their own twisted ideas about our liberty and the source thereof and looking to some despot to take care of their every need.

 

[ProV1]

The government defines no liberties. People themselves determine the liberties that are valued and what they will protect. It's why control of the government changes depending on what liberties they feel are under attack.

Please re-read. I said the government defines what liberties it values via the protections it offers. I'm not interested in word games. If you don't know what that means, just say so and I will attempt to make it easier for you to understand.

 

[Purplemojo]

ProV1 presents himself as an educated man and belittles others while his education is clearly lacking and he has no understanding of the American Experiment. ProV1 thinks Hobbes is just the name of a stuffed tiger and Ben Franklin just flew kites.

 

[ProV1]

With all due respect, you played into ProV1's little game in denying the source of our rights. The Declaration did not give us the power to do anything. We had that as freeborn Englishmen. What it did was present our cause as a just one to the world. That was its intent and that was its result. Without it we likely would not have gotten the degree of French help that we received. The French monarchy was a little concerned with the idea of revolution.

Your play on words is ridiculous. It is 100% theoretical and does not have a single element of practical reality. Whatever God given rights you are talking about are useless and irrelevant if there are no protections for them. Good luck living by them by themselves. In reality and in any practical sense, rights they only exist when protected and yes that is by a government or something similar.

 

[ProV1]

ProV1 presents himself as an educated man and belittles others while his education is clearly lacking and he has no understanding of the American Experiment. ProV1 thinks Hobbes is just the name of a stuffed tiger and Ben Franklin just flew kites.

I have made no reference to education. You are the only one to do that and I can not figure out why.

 

[2manyBats]

The government defines no liberties. People themselves determine the liberties that are valued and what they will protect. It's why control of the government changes depending on what liberties they feel are under attack.

Amen !!!

Obama & the Dems Changed Healthcare - Forced it on the People

So the People took it Upon Themselves And we Changed it Up !!!

 

[SWMCinci]

With all due respect, you played into ProV1's little game in denying the source of our rights. The Declaration did not give us the power to do anything. We had that as freeborn Englishmen. What it did was present our cause as a just one to the world. That was its intent and that was its result. Without it we likely would not have gotten the degree of French help that we received. The French monarchy was a little concerned with the idea of revolution.

We were born freemen and those who embrace and defend their rights live as free men. People like ProV1 are slaves living in a gilded cage made up of their own twisted ideas about our liberty and the source thereof and looking to some despot to take care of their every need.

True, and for that I apologize. We had rights before, in each document they were simply referenced.

 

[Purplemojo]

Your play on words is ridiculous. It is 100% theoretical and does not have a single element of practical reality. Whatever God given rights you are talking about are useless and irrelevant if there are no protections for them. Good luck living by them by themselves. In reality and in any practical sense, rights they only exist when protected and yes that is by a government or something similar.

They are only "theoretical" if you do not live them and defend them. I hope our federal, state and local government helps me defend my rights. To the extent they do, great. If they become an impediment to the exercise of my rights, that does not mean my rights no longer exist, it just means I have to confront my government (in court or otherwise if necessary). I refuse to be a child, dependent on a federal "Mom", a slave or a serf. I suggest you do the same.

 

[ProV1]

They are only "theoretical" if you do not live them and defend them. I hope our federal, state and local government helps me defend my rights. To the extent they do, great. If they become an impediment to the exercise of my rights, that does not mean my rights no longer exist, it just means I have to confront my government (in court or otherwise if necessary). I refuse to be a child, dependent on a federal "Mom", a slave or a serf. I suggest you do the same.

If they aren't defended they are useless. It is kind of like having money. If nobody will take it as currency in exchange for something, then all you have is paper. You may think you have money but you don't? Are you an academic dude?