Terrorist Congress Declares War on American People

[wrightme]

Lookie here, you have outlined precisely the place in which Man - even the exercise of his Rights - cease. We are not discussing coexistence, we are discussing Rights, and whether or not they are surrendered. All Rights are contingent on the Rights of others not conflicting. As I stated previously: Contingent Rights.

Yet they are not surrendered as you claimed.

The exercise of rights does not cease. They are not surrendered, they coexist beside the Rights of other persons. Is that really such a difficult concept for you to discuss?


For instance, my Right to live is Natural; up to the point where the exercise of that Right would harm the Right of another person to live. So, it would harm the Right of the other if I were to kill them for their goods so that I could survive.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Yet they are not surrendered as you claimed.

The exercise of rights does not cease. They are not surrendered, they coexist beside the Rights of other persons. Is that really such a difficult concept for you to discuss?


For instance, my Right to live is Natural; up to the point where the exercise of that Right would harm the Right of another person to live. So, it would harm the Right of the other if I were to kill them for their goods so that I could survive.

This is not a difficult subject for me, promise. You do not have a Natural Right to live. Now, you might have a Natural Right to defend your life and limb. You did not choose to be born, you were born. You do not choose to live, you merely live - if you were to hold your breath, you would merely pass out, then begin breathing again. How can you exercise a Natural Right to live when you were not permitted to decide whether or not to be born?

I know, the Natural Right to live begins the moment of conception, or the moment that you were born, or some place in-between, right!

Natural Rights are NOT absolute! Back around to my conclusion that Natural Rights are Contingent Rights.

 

[wrightme]

This is not a difficult subject for me, promise. You do not have a Natural Right to live. Now, you might have a Natural Right to defend your life and limb. You did not choose to be born, you were born. You do not choose to live, you merely live - if you were to hold your breath, you would merely pass out, then begin breathing again. How can you exercise a Natural Right to live when you were not permitted to decide whether or not to be born?

I know, the Natural Right to live begins the moment of conception, or the moment that you were born, or some place in-between, right!

Natural Rights are NOT absolute! Back around to my conclusion that Natural Rights are Contingent Rights.

It seems the circular is critical to your conclusion.


How does this invalidate the Constitution, or make it anathema to the Union?
The simple answer, it doesn't. The reality is that those in charge keep forgetting to abide by the restrictions placed upon them. We don't need to rewrite the founding documents, we simply need to hold the politicians accountable to them. THAT will preserve the Union.



Through all of this, you still are using some esoteric argument that "if we want the Union to remain, we must trash the founding documents and begin again." Yet you haven't shown that what you see as a problem in the construction is actually what needs 'fixed' to 'fix' the Union.


You appear to be experiencing a bit of "I see a problem, now I KNOW that what I don't like is causing it!"


To paraphrase, you are jumping on a solution that you like, without first showing that a problem you imagine is caused by what you see as 'in need of trashing.'

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

It seems the circular is critical to your conclusion.

How does this invalidate the Constitution, or make it anathema to the Union?
The simple answer, it doesn't. The reality is that those in charge keep forgetting to abide by the restrictions placed upon them. We don't need to rewrite the founding documents, we simply need to hold the politicians accountable to them. THAT will preserve the Union.



Through all of this, you still are using some esoteric argument that "if we want the Union to remain, we must trash the founding documents and begin again." Yet you haven't shown that what you see as a problem in the construction is actually what needs 'fixed' to 'fix' the Union.


ou appear to be experiencing a bit of "I see a problem, now I KNOW that what I don't like is causing it!"

To paraphrase, you are jumping on a solution that you like, without first showing that a problem you imagine is caused by what you see as 'in need of trashing.'

I brought your first line onto myself!

I would like for you to describe to me what those restrictions are. Where those restrictions begin, and where they end.

You are right, we can hold politicians accountable, but to what? For disregarding the Principles of the Constitution? What exactly are those Principles?

I have stated that if individuals do want the Union to remain, then they should trash the Constitution (strong language), start over. I view this issue as a Principles issue, that can only be tackled by starting from the beginning.

People have asked for a response that gets at what I think the source of the issue is. I have offered that. The Constitutions Principles, and presuppositions are flawed. That reaches down into the core of the issue here. You stated, basically, "work with what we have." And I am stating that we cannot work with what we have, because we have a flawed Constitution that in many respects is not meeting the needs of the Union in a way that there is political stability, and social cohesiveness (The can of worms I am opening here!).

**I am not cherry-picking anything. I have stated that we need to start from the beginning.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I should add that what I also proposed is a reevaluation, and revaluation of Constitutional Principles. Now, that does not necessarily mean that what is required is starting completely over, but it would require nearly the same energy it would take to start over. What we will be left with, as we were two hundred plus years ago, is a document that is constructed by compromise. Would we end up in the same position that we are in now - it is likely. So, would it be worth the try - what do we have to lose?

The good thing about all of this is that individuals on either side will still be allowed to b*tch and moan about what politicians are, and are not permitted, and restricted from doing as outlined in the Constitution.

 

[wrightme]

I brought your first line onto myself!

I would like for you to describe to me what those restrictions are. Where those restrictions begin, and where they end.

You are right, we can hold politicians accountable, but to what? For disregarding the Principles of the Constitution? What exactly are those Principles?

I have stated that if individuals do want the Union to remain, then they should trash the Constitution (strong language), start over. I view this issue as a Principles issue, that can only be tackled by starting from the beginning.

People have asked for a response that gets at what I think the source of the issue is. I have offered that. The Constitutions Principles, and presuppositions are flawed. That reaches down into the core of the issue here. You stated, basically, "work with what we have." And I am stating that we cannot work with what we have, because we have a flawed Constitution that in many respects is not meeting the needs of the Union in a way that there is political stability, and social cohesiveness (The can of worms I am opening here!).

**I am not cherry-picking anything. I have stated that we need to start from the beginning.

You have stated that we need to start from the beginning. You haven't justified it from a rational standpoint, whereby the Union fails if we do not do as you desire.





What principles?

No, what "Bill of Rights."


"I have stated that if individuals do want the Union to remain, then they should trash the Constitution (strong language), start over. I view this issue as a Principles issue, that can only be tackled by starting from the beginning."

You can state it, restate, tattoo it upon your left butt cheek, and it isn't any more valid than if you send it up in some fireworks and skywrite it.


Unsubscribing, you are simply interested in furthering your attack upon the Constitution, and aren't interested in solving a problem. Unless it is another problem you think you can hang your 'There ain't no Rights' crap upon as a supposed solution to an ersatz problem.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You have stated that we need to start from the beginning. You haven't justified it from a rational standpoint, whereby the Union fails if we do not do as you desire.





What principles?

No, what "Bill of Rights."


Unsubscribing, you are simply interested in furthering your attack upon the Constitution, and aren't interested in solving a problem. Unless it is another problem you think you can hang your 'There ain't no Rights' crap upon as a supposed solution to an ersatz problem.

I am surprised you would use the term "ersatz." I didn't think you were interested in minimizing our social, and political issues, and what some consider to be Constitutional Crisis issues.

I find it ironic that I am sitting here having an exchange with someone on here that is interested in keeping the Union intact - I suppose you don't agree with Perry, Paul, and the 'tea party' on this matter.

The BoR are Idealistic, in an era where we need Practicality. I think that the human brain is not evolved enough yet to be Practical. Humans are still reaching to an elusive Idealism that serves no purpose but to injure in absolutist terms, rather than injure in practical terms. I know, it sounds negative right...that I would state that we are either injured by Absolutist dogma, or Practicality dogma. The latter is a much softer injury because it is based on compromise of feuding groups. Absolutist dogma swings much more violently, and the sole interest is the fleeting moment of winners and losers.

 

[since9]

I should add that what I also proposed is a reevaluation, and revaluation of Constitutional Principles. Now, that does not necessarily mean that what is required is starting completely over, but it would require nearly the same energy it would take to start over. What we will be left with, as we were two hundred plus years ago, is a document that is constructed by compromise. Would we end up in the same position that we are in now - it is likely. So, would it be worth the try - what do we have to lose?

- 235 years of refinement based on hard-earned experience, much of which will have to be repeated in very expensive courtroom proceedings over the next 235 years to get back to where we are today.

- The high likelihood than unsupported and untenable idealism would become a substantial portion of the document, which may very well extend that 235 years to 1,000 years, if it doesn't wind up destroying our country altogether.

Sounds like the bright idea of a third-grader. No thanks.

 

[since9]

You'll find the link to the 2012 version of the NDAA, here.

Here are two interesting tidbits:

"SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces. - 2012 NDAA, page 265

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States." - 2012 NDAA, page 266"​

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

- 235 years of refinement based on hard-earned experience, much of which will have to be repeated in very expensive courtroom proceedings over the next 235 years to get back to where we are today.

- The high likelihood than unsupported and untenable idealism would become a substantial portion of the document, which may very well extend that 235 years to 1,000 years, if it doesn't wind up destroying our country altogether.

Sounds like the bright idea of a third-grader. No thanks.

Nice! You know, I agree. I think that this refinement process that we are going through would be more practical. I am glad to hear someone else is of the view that what is occurring in the interactions with the Constitution is a refinement process. You should be careful when you post things like this - but I agree with you

Idealism is the untenable aspect of the Constitution. Practicality, in the future, will be our friend. Just as soon as we realize that Idealism is not what we need to hang onto. Keep in mind, I am referring to these 'thing' in terms of approach, and application.

Regarding the latter portion of your post - can we keep it clean please?

 

[okboomer]

... snip ... Idealism is the untenable aspect of the Constitution. Practicality, in the future, will be our friend. Just as soon as we realize that Idealism is not what we need to hang onto. Keep in mind, I am referring to these 'thing' in terms of approach, and application.

IMHO, you are entirely wrong about Idealism ... that is the driving force that keeps us as individuals and as a country striving for better from ourselves and from our leaders. We must hang onto Idealism or we become just chattel to existance. Idealism is what drove our founding fathers to aspire to create this nation.

Regarding the latter portion of your post - can we keep it clean please?

Sounds like the bright idea of a third-grader. No thanks.

Unless since9 changed his post since you wrote yours, you have no call to make your last statement. You espouse points of view that are alarming and similar to Anarchist blather.

This is the second time you have belittled this man and one more time will get you a complaint to the admin.

 

[Freedom First]

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States." - 2012 NDAA, page 266"[/I][/INDENT]

Requirement... I.e. they're not required to detain a citizen. But it doesn't say they cannot. Or should not. Or even might not... But always remember, we can trust them, they're our elected representatives...

 

[wrightme]

This is the second time you have belittled this man and one more time will get you a complaint to the admin.

Huh? since9 is the one belittling someone else...

Sounds like the bright idea of a third-grader. No thanks.

Those are HIS words. And, frankly, even if you disagree with her, that IS uncalled for.

I do not agree with much of what she says, BUT, that does not justify childish comments.

 

[Alexcabbie]

You all know what would make for an excellent farce movie? A film about a sports league - 43 Man Squamish would be ideal - which had rules and a method of interpreting them modeled on our Constitution, statutes, etc. with a Supreme Referee Panel to decide thorny questions; and the first (and only) game winds up taking 92 years and ends in a draw.

Meanwhile the game (and the ongoing arguments), first airs on the radio, then television and lasts through dozens of changes of players as the younger ones age out and/or die (and of course this builds a fresh pile of arguments) and becomes wildly popular as entertainment. The possibilities for a successful movie - even a book - are tremendous. A sports game dragged out by aa combination of preposterous circular logic, stupidity, and insanity.

You could title it "92 years of ProStupanity"

 

[Dreamer]

If anyone wants to see a GREAT movie that prophecizes the future of the USA in the wake of the most recent provisions of the NDAA, you MUST get this movie RIGHT now and watch it...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426578/

The future of the USA will, I fear, be filled with thousands (if not millions) of Sophie Scholls if something does not change very soon...

Without the "First Two", all else is meaningless...

 

[PrayingForWar]

If anyone wants to see a GREAT movie that prophecizes the future of the USA in the wake of the most recent provisions of the NDAA, you MUST get this movie RIGHT now and watch it...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426578/

The future of the USA will, I fear, be filled with thousands (if not millions) of Sophie Scholls if something does not change very soon...

Without the "First Two", all else is meaningless...

I'm more concerned it will look like "Idiocracy".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

 

[Dreamer]

I'm more concerned it will look like "Idiocracy".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

My biggest nightmare is that it will be some combination of the two--at least that is the direction that it looks like we are going...


"Why do we need more gun control, and regulation of speech and the press?
Because guns and words don't have electrolytes..."


Believe me, there are already people here in the People's Republic of MD that would agree with that "logic".