It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitution Fail - Why you keep doing it and how to prevent it.

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So you have to carry those all the time?.
Im talking about madatory ID cards which you would have to stop and show the police If asked...doesn't matter If driving or walking.
It is a simple question.
Do you want them?.
edit on 9-9-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Still on this binge I see.

here's a thread from 2013...

Do you have the proper ID to go into a Federal Building or board a plane in the US?

it's the Gold Star Syndrome !!!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I give up I really do.
I ask a question which is a yes or no answer and people dodge deflect and do not answer it.
Enjoy your freedoms.
Land of the free? not If some of you have your way.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I give up I really do.
I ask a question which is a yes or no answer and people dodge deflect and do not answer it.
Enjoy your freedoms.
Land of the free? not If some of you have your way.


Wasn't aware I was either president of the US or a congressman of the US.

Nice hyperbole.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I'm not sure how a concept is universal if it doesn't exist beyond human imagination and intersubjective fictions. The greatest irony of Jefferson's famed quote was that he was wrong. These rights are not self-evident, not inalienable and not endowed by any Creator.


You are entitled to your belief and I do not denigrate you for it. As for Jefferson he purposefully used the word 'inalienable' as its definition means these rights cannot be taken from you, or given by you, which, to me, means that even if you do not believe in them they still exist in the framework of the Constitution.


Anyways, I'm just being a pest. Great writing. S & F.


Now worries, debate is always good and I enjoy your posts as they are always thoughtful and articulate.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Here it is.

Gay Texas judge, Tonya Parker, won’t perform marriages for straight couples





Thanks Seeker, and I hadn't seen this before, but the article is from 2012.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Why don't you ask someone who is against the 2nd Amendment?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If rights are not granted by the government, then who are they granted by? Nature? A creator? I'm still searching my person for these so-called self-evident rights that I was supposedly born with, but it seems they are not so self-evident, not so inalienable, not so inherent after all. One look in the world shows how easily they are taken away. Rights are a comfort one should not get so comfortable believing he is entitled to them.


Rights are like driving on the right hand side of the road (left hand side within the British Dominions). Rights are the elbow room that people would use to get the most out of themselves.

Rights are the way the individual mind is organized. Individuals can know them selves better than they can know any other person. A society oriented about rights is the most ergonomic and natural society.

Rights cannot be alienated in the sense that they are part of being human.

Rights require driving on the correct side of the road.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




That is up to the individual to decide. The person of faith will say a Creator. Those who are not may say the are inherent. We they come from is debatable unless the claim is they come from the government.


Didn't they come from Hobbes and Locke? Neither inherent nor endowed.


Hobbs and Locke both had sponsors to consider.

As a practical matter, rights are the most practical way to live, rights require economic success. I

People choose. Rights allow the maximum range of choice for everyone.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So how is it, that a country with such an amazing CON-stitution has such trouble with restraining itself and literally NEVER listens to the public on anything that matters ??

And NEVER HAS, I am just wondering why you would be lead to believe that things are not planned this way perfectly.

Now that the goose-chase is ending, it is time to put the constitution to its final resting place, from an honest point of view it was nothing more than a means to an end....to provide a different "culture" but was ultimately brought by people who KNEW it was not going to be followed, and KNEW through trickery and bribery it would be completely nullified, as it mostly is now.

It is a key document that hides the fact that everything is for sale, and everything is now SOLD.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Didn't they come from Hobbes and Locke? Neither inherent nor endowed.


Some of the philosophy used came from Hobbes and Locke (among others) but the concept is more universal which, from their writings, is clear.


Ahh Universal, I see then, it IS from a "God".

I wonder how many masons ever really speak to that which they swear allegiance too.

I have seen much, and a Universal JAIL CELL, is from where these words originate.....and they bloody well mean WE ARE OWNED BY........ (insert your own words here LOL)




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963

Well, I don't want to derail this thread so further discussion would need another but that was in 2012.


Grant you it was, but it was a non issue.

Like I said, the only reason it's and issue now is it's political!

Did the Christians raise the hell then that those who are raising hell against this woman? Maybe that's the problem! Christians need to start fighting back?

Honestly? I am already prepared for the hell that we have coming. When it comes? I don't want to see anyone crying! We all brought it upon ourselves because we refuse to understand the meaning of the word "freedom". We chose to put our lives in the hand of corrupt men and women in our government that violated their oath of office due to their greed, and we did nothing more that continue to vote them into office because they were smart enough to divide us!



You need to understand that none of these problems are actually stemming from humans, we would have problems but THESE complicated nuances are all coming from "OTHERS".

When they begin to be eliminated at higher and higher speed, the real freedom of "CHOICE" will be fast and furiously splayed all over the decimated consciousness of all the beings here, I wonder how many will be able to take it.

Most likely cannot survive, but the elimination is a go anyways, we MUST see a TRUE FREEDOM, in existence, and every religion and organization on this planet is doing everything they can, to stop this, they believe they are following GOOD, GOD, and NATURE....none of which govern HERE.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
So how is it, that a country with such an amazing CON-stitution has such trouble with restraining itself and literally NEVER listens to the public on anything that matters ??


Such as?







edit on 10-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Ahh Universal, I see then, it IS from a "God".


Do you have a reading comprehension issue? I made it clear earlier that for those who are not religious they are able to attribute it to anything they want. Hence the reason they are inalienable. Try to pay attention.


I wonder how many masons ever really speak to that which they swear allegiance too.


What does this off topic non sequitur have to do with anything? What does it even mean? You want to talk mason stuff with me try the Secret Societies Forum where I can mop the floor with you.


I have seen much, and a Universal JAIL CELL, is from where these words originate.....and they bloody well mean WE ARE OWNED BY........ (insert your own words here LOL)


Ignorance. That is my word I choose to insert, it just does not apply to everyone in this conversation. Just one person in particular. Hmmmm, who could that be?????



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The problem with those who are not religious or do not believe in God or gods is that they then start to believe that our rights devolve from government or other agencies of mankind. That is dangerous thinking. And don't say it doesn't happen. I've even seen that line of reasoning put forward here. I've also seen it in my own atheist or agnostic friends.

The reason why it's dangerous thinking is that if you believe that man has the ability to bestow, then he also has the ability to remove. And that justifies tyranny. After all, what man giveth, he taketh.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The problem with those who are not religious or do not believe in God or gods is that they then start to believe that our rights devolve from government or other agencies of mankind.


I think that is on overly general statement and while anecdotal, is not what I experienced with my friends who happen to be Atheists.


The reason why it's dangerous thinking is that if you believe that man has the ability to bestow, then he also has the ability to remove. And that justifies tyranny. After all, what man giveth, he taketh.


Which is why Jefferson used the word 'inalienable', you cannot take which is not takeable or givable.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Here it is.

Gay Texas judge, Tonya Parker, won’t perform marriages for straight couples





Thanks Seeker, and I hadn't seen this before, but the article is from 2012.


Not only is it from 2012, it's not even relevant.

The gay judge in Dallas was refusing to perform marriages for "anyone" until they were made available to "everyone."

She wasn't granting the privilege to some while simultaneously denying it to others like Kim Davis.

I don't know of any laws mandating that judges perform marriage ceremonies and the Dallas judge did nothing other than exercise her right to opt out of the entire process.

Huge difference!



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, I understand that, but seeing a word does not equate to belief.

The line of reasoning I see which is what they must be taught in school is that you only have those rights because government defends them for you and makes sure you have them which equates to government giving them to you. Again, I repeat that I've seen it here.

If a person believes the above, then they are less likely to fight on their own for what's theirs by right (life, liberty, ability to pursue happiness, security if person, property, self defense, etc.), and they are more likely to confuse true civil privilege (those things that are not intrinsic rights) with actual rights.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Yes, I understand that, but seeing a word does not equate to belief.


Jefferson's premise was you did not need to belive it for it to be true.


The line of reasoning I see which is what they must be taught in school is that you only have those rights because government defends them for you and makes sure you have them which equates to government giving them to you. Again, I repeat that I've seen it here.


Do you have examples to support this as I have not seen this?



If a person believes the above, then they are less likely to fight on their own for what's theirs by right (life, liberty, ability to pursue happiness, security if person, property, self defense, etc.), and they are more likely to confuse true civil privilege (those things that are not intrinsic rights) with actual rights.


Perhaps, but they are still not giving up or having taken that which cannot be given or taken, that is the whole philosophical point Jefferson and Madison were making.

Also, what is an example of a 'civil privledge'?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I use civil privilege to separate things that people often call rights that really aren't. They're the things that we only have because we have society - marriage and health care are two good examples. You don't have them intrinsic to yourself. You need at least one other person in order for them to exist. So to call them a "right" is to basically put other people at your beck and call or to enslave. FDR's so-called Second Bill of Rights is larded down with them.

You can have food, clothing and shelter as rights, but they are your property, covered as right to property you have labored to provide yourself. When you demand them as rights, in the second bill style (i.e. that they be provided to you) then they become civil privileges. You only have those things because the state gives them to you and others must labor to provide them.




top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join