100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: RP 16 Things you might not have known | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Luv ya M  , but that is a truely passive/permissive view.
It's obvious people are NOT happy, and removing a grain of sand from a mountain is NOT real change. jmo its not passive, cant move a mountain without moving the grains,,,, people want to put the cart before the horse, and dont realize it is a collection of the small that builds up to the LARGE but what else do we expect from an instant gratification culture? It is passive in the sense that if you have an arterial bleed....a bandaid isn't going to fix it. where is the arterial bleed? You can really ask this?????? OMG.... just look around you each day! I see a place thats better than many , but not yet perfect. I see a place where 'classes' who once had little to no rights are being afforded more equal opportunities. I see a place where people are 'free' to express themself and pursue dreams so, I guess I dont see an 'arterial' bleed, that is, nothing that is life threatening as opposed to just life,,, not to say I see nothing that can improve, just that I dont see the dire political situations others seem to,,, So "Occupy", the new defense authorization act, the patriot act and policies of the TSA and DHS are freedoms? They still bear restrictions above and beyond our constitutional rights.... so our freedoms are allowed, like privileges granted by gov't, rather than constitutional, god given rights. Sorry, but I must agree to disagree with you again. The gov't does not have the right to restrict any privilege that doesn't impose upon the rights of another! agree to disagree as well as usual, the fundamental disagreement between the difference in a 'right' and a 'privilege' and my personal belief that privileges are earned with responsibility and sacrifice To which I state, the gov't has NO authority or ability under the constitution to restrict a persos god given right. They can pass laws, but they are given that right under the constitution, and if against the constitution, can not be legally enforced (But they do anyway....he who has the guns has the power). Privilege may be earned, but again the gov't has no authority to restrict "rights", so their ability to award privilege is in question per issue. Thank you for your input. Always a pleasure , tho we may disagree at times.
BUt what is a 'God' given right, in a world where not everyone even believes in a God? is it in the bible, the torah, the Quran,,? who gets to decide, specifically, what is or is not a 'god given' right? Jefferson explained this briefly in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson is putting his own spin on Lockean natrual rights theory. (he was well-versed in the writings of Enlightenment philosophers) It's explained in great detail in Locke's assorted books and essays on Natural Rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we have a natural 'right' to live , until our natural right to die
everything in between, has to do with choices and consequences, and laws,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If weed is ever legalized...I can't wait to see the commercials! Think Snoop or Willie Nelson will do the ads? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Mon 12/26/11 07:22 PM
|
|
we have a natural 'right' to live , until our natural right to die everything in between, has to do with choices and consequences, and laws,,, Not according to Natural Rights philosophy. Here is a summary of Locke's views on natural rights: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#LawNat See also Locke's Treatises on Government and Thomas Paine's "Rights Of Man". These are the most influential thinkers in American philosophy and epistemology. Jefferson absorbed their works and was heavily influenced by them. You can dismiss this if you wish, but you won't understand why America is the way it is if you do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we have a natural 'right' to live , until our natural right to die everything in between, has to do with choices and consequences, and laws,,, Not according to Natural Rights philosophy. Here is a summary of Locke's views on natural rights: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#LawNat See also Locke's Treatises on Government and Thomas Paine's "Rights Of Man". These are the most influential thinkers in American philosophy and epistemology. Jefferson absorbed their works and was heavily influenced by them. You can dismiss this if you wish, but you won't understand why America is the way it is if you do so. its hard to dismiss, as its fairly undetailed and non descript,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If weed is ever legalized...I can't wait to see the commercials! Think Snoop or Willie Nelson will do the ads?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Tue 12/27/11 09:13 PM
|
|
Although the WIC program has no effect on me personally, I think it's a terrible idea to eliminate it. Consider that RP wants to reduce federal spending on both our military and our socialist programs. Consider also, that as commander in chief he has direct authority over what the military does, and does not have direct authority over our socialist programs. Those laws are up to congress. I think he would have greater success at cutting military spending then he would at cutting socialist programs. I don't think that if RP was president, it would be the 'anti-socialist disaster' that many pro-welfare people think it would be. I just don't think the president has that kind of power. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although the WIC program has no effect on me personally, I think it's a terrible idea to eliminate it. Consider that RP wants to reduce federal spending on both our military and our socialist programs. Consider also, that as commander in chief he has direct authority over what the military does, and does not have direct authority over our socialist programs. Those laws are up to congress. I think he would have greater success at cutting military spending then he would at cutting socialist programs. I don't think that if RP was president, it would be the 'anti-socialist disaster' that many pro-welfare people think it would be. I just don't think the president has that kind of power. Am I wrong? I argued in another thread once how limited a Presidents power really is and the idea was discarded by practically all who posted glad someone else sees this,,, |
|
|
|
|
