It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Bill of no-Rights

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 11:03 AM
"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an
attempt to help everyone get along, restore some
semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our
nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the
blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our
great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more
time to ordain and establish some common sense
guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden,
delusional, and other bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole
lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and
are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights".

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big
screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to
you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is
guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be
offended. This country is based on freedom, and that
means freedom for everyone -- not just you!
You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a
different opinion, etc., but the world is full of
idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from
harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to
be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer
to make you and all your relatives independently

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and
housing. Americans are the most charitable people to
be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are
quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after
generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve
nothing more than the creation of another generation
of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health
care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public
housing, we're just not interested in public health

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically
harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally
maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest
of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the
possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce
away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be
surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you
away in a place where you still won't have the right
to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that
our children risk their lives in foreign wars to
soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive
governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from
going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy
parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so
much of our time battling each and every little tyrant
with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of
us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help
you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of education and
vocational training laid before you to make yourself

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness.
Being an American means that you have the right to
PURSUE happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier
if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic
laws created by those of you who were confused by the
Bill of Rights."

( not mine, but I received via email & thought it post worthy!)

[Edited on 28-10-2002 by Bout Time]

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 11:10 AM
It seems, B-T, that I may need to rethink my position on your position. There may be some truth to your claiming to be a "centrist" after all.

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 11:33 AM
cut'n'paste, Thomas from Lewis Napper e.g. here:

".......and all the time, like a jungle tom-tom throbbing and throbbing in his bewildered head, the voice that seemd to come from some distant, happier, past kept saying, over and over: "Post a link. Post a link. Post a link......"

Ooooooh Dat Estragon!

posted on Oct, 28 2002 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It seems, B-T, that I may need to rethink my position on your position. There may be some truth to your claiming to be a "centrist" after all.

Just because I hate the Usurper & don't like seeing innocents of any kind killed, doesn't make me a LIBRUUL!

[Edited on 28-10-2002 by Bout Time]

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 12:35 AM
Bout Time, how about looking at & see if you've got anything to add?...

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Bout Time, how about looking at & see if you've got anything to add?...

Good stuff. Though I would not give ANY call to the Supreme Court; look what they did to the country in 2000. I would also remove the concept of Presidential Pardons: you had 33 felons from the Iran/Contra thing under Reagan/Bush pardoned, some now working in this administration. And that's not even getting into the drug dealers & arms dealers that Bush pardoned, not to mention HIMSELF!
Also, I would add that no sealed court papers from corporate malfesance or of presidential paper ( beyond the 20 year mark). Why do companies get to make a product that kills people, settle on a buy off, and then have the papers locked away from public scrutiny? Shouldn't we be allowed to know what companies intentionally killed our fellow citizens for shortcut to profits & be allowed to take our business elsewhere? And do you think, since we are on an excellerated path to dictatorship with the group currently in power, that knowing the crap Bush the Vp & President & his crew did would effect the perceptions , and voting, against those bastards that are now in the Bush II administration?

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 12:10 PM
What did the Supreme Court do, other than rule in favor of the law?
What you are saying is more detrimental than any homeland security idea could ever be, and by discarding the law, especially in an obvious and public manner, would push more into the category presently occupies by the likes of North Korea and Iraq than all of the domestic assasinations sanctioned by Clinton combined. Presidents comes and go, but if the government itself becomes arbitrary in rule, then we are left with nothing else but another revolution. If the people did not rise up and take back ther government from such arbitray rule then other nations would be forced to take action against us. The world could not afford to allow a country as powerful as this one to be governed by arbitrary rule.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 01:41 PM
Presidential pardons,were you asleep during the Clinton's Presidency?Again you have no room to talk.

List of presidential pardons

January 20, 2001
Web posted at: 1:19 p.m. EST (1819 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The following is a list of Commutations and Pardons that President Clinton granted January 20.

The first list is of pardons. A list of commutations follows.

Pardons granted January 20, 2001

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 03:49 PM
Thomas - they superceded the states rights, for starters, and then appointed Bush along their own ultraconservative ideology.
The rest I'm not clear on; what do you mean?

[Edited on 30-10-2002 by Bout Time]

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by nyeff
Presidential pardons,were you asleep during the Clinton's Presidency?Again you have no room to talk.

It's a list shorter than his predecessors, if you look tan one up ( and he didn't pardon himself like BUSH I did!)
Who do you have issue with from that list?

Here something for you ( since you don't get off of Newsmax much!)

The Bush pardons
Now this is Rich: They include a Watergate felon, a Cuban exile terrorist and a Pakistani heroin dealer. But where was the outrage then?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

Feb. 27, 2001 | Hearing all the indignant noise about the Clinton pardons, the average citizen might understandably think that the granting of presidential clemency had never been tainted by campaign contributions, political connections or insider access. That mistaken perception, promoted by lazy journalists and partisan pundits, is being exploited by Republicans on Capitol Hill (who are never, ever influenced by rich donors).

The truth -- as anyone who glances back into the history of the first Bush administration can quickly learn -- is that Clinton hasn't done anything that his predecessor didn't do first and, in some cases, worse.

The widely and justly criticized pardons of Caspar Weinberger and other Iran-Contra defendants by George Herbert Walker Bush should have been just the beginning of that story. Yet, for reasons best known to the incorruptible watchdogs of the Washington press corps, Poppy's self-interested mercy upon Weinberger instigated no searching examination of the other pardons granted by the departing president. Indeed, the final dozen pardons given by Bush -- including the unexplained release of a Pakistani heroin trafficker -- received virtually no coverage at all.

The elder Bush delivered a few highly questionable pardons well before his last days in office. The very first of his presidency went to Armand Hammer, the legendary oilman best known for his relationships with Soviet leaders dating back to Lenin. In an investigation that grew out of Watergate, Hammer had pleaded guilty in 1975 to laundering $54,000 in illicit contributions to Nixon's reelection war chest. By the summer of 1989, when Bush gave Hammer what he wanted, the aging chief of Occidental Petroleum had been pestering government officials on his own behalf for several years.
Considering his original offense, it was ironic that Hammer won what he called the "vindication" of a presidential pardon only months after he poured well over $100,000 into Republican Party coffers, and another $100,000 into the accounts of the Bush-Quayle Inaugural committee. (In author Edward Jay Epstein's excellent biography of the oilman, there is a photograph of Hammer, his girlfriend and President Bush together at the White House in April 1990. Such visits were perks for members of Bush's "Team 100," as the GOP's most generous donors were known.)

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 04:12 PM
Once again, you are trying to compare a little dust to alot of filth. You seem to be so fixated on Bush you are trying to make him look dirtier than Clinton, and the funny thing is you can't make him look even as filthy as Clinton. Once again, your pardon comparison route only makes Clinton look worse. Stop it! Give Billy a rest, he has his own problems considering he is married to Hillary still. That should be punishment enough for all his crimes!

No states rights were superceded, the Supreme Court only preventred the FL. Supreme Court from acting arbitrarily and in spite of their law. The FL. Supreme Court, being a political activist committee, went against rule #1 in law: Law is business, business has rules and the rules are law!
Also, remember that the republican concept of state's rights was smashed after the "Civil War" (there never was a Civil War, it was a police action, but that is another class). But even if it was actually still in place, the Supreme Court preventing a state court from conducting arbitrary rule is not unconstitutional. It is mandatory.
I forgot, though, you liberals see laws as inconveniences that only are immovable to your foes.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 04:22 PM
Pardons may tarnish Clinton legacy
(CNN) -- Many U.S. presidents have left a trail of controversial pardons in their wake. Former President Bill Clinton is no exception. The 176 people who were pardoned or had prison sentences commuted by Clinton on his last day in office include: An accused tax swindler who is the former husband of a major Clinton donor; two felons who paid Clinton's brother-in-law $400,000 to lobby on their behalf; and the former president's own half-brother.

The pardon controversy

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 04:26 PM
No matter what you say abou Bush, B.T.

Clinton has already been there done that.

I can find nothing that makes Clinton a bright and shining beacon of light.In fact just the opposite,no morals,corrupt,no class, and a liar.I mean the guy can't even stay commited to his own family,how could he stay commited as a President.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 05:41 PM
I'll just label it under the correct RRW file: Minority Report! I know it burns you guys that your far from the majority in your perspectives!
Again, Is America better off today than two years ago?
Does Bush II have felons that his daddy pardoned working for him?
And, most importantly, how can a man who turned his back on his sworn duty & country during War, ever be considered honorable?

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 05:46 PM
Well now you are just running in circles,and can't see the facts about crooked clinton.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 06:06 PM
Well, that's because I guess I do need to clarify: I'm not calling the pope & asking to annoint saint Bill. You know of my beef over the affair, and there were other things I didn't like. But at the end of the day, having started my company in '92, I know what was done for small businesses-the economy-and the lower & mid levels of this countries economic strata besides us in the big ticket bunch.
Besides, to combat such blind hatred of the guy from the RRW, me being lukewarm is not going to cut it!

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 06:32 PM
What do you label your "info" as, left-wing delusion?

You might want to check and see who's in the minority, buddyboy, and you won't find it to be conservatives.

No matter how hard your liberal rags such as the NYT try and poor mouth conservative authors, no matter how they get hidden in the bookstores, their books seem to get to be best sellers. Conservative talk shows blast the airwaves while liberal attempts bomb. Foxnews is destroying CNN in the ratings because Joe Q. is sick and tired of the liberal slant that could be used as a ski slope.

No, we aren't in the minority, B-T, no matter how influenced the mass media is, liberalism does not add up and most people figure that out after looking at the rhetoric and holding it up to the light of reality.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 10:05 PM
Disregarding the obvious point that, given typical US electoral turn-out, you'd have to be something of a clairvoyant to know who was in the majority, ever: "apathetic or indifferent" might be the true majority position:- this is starting to get like arguing whether hanging or the chair is better.
They're all politicians, gentlemen - and the record of scandals probably tells us more about their wit, and who their enemies are, than anything about them.
We might also recall that a pardon signed by an incoming (or new) president can often reflect dirty dealing by the out-going/former president: just a nice little politicians;' club arrangement.
We had some very informed discussion on Presidential Pardons on the old Board, of course.

posted on Oct, 30 2002 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
I would not give ANY call to the Supreme Court; look what they did to the country in 2000.

Agreed. However (I think it was TC) already pointed this out. However, while trying to root out the political corruption in the government, we would be the same as bin Laden if we didn't try to accomplish this in (at least a semblance) of a legal manner; If we can't call upon the Judicial Branch (at least to get the process started & gain some momentum), then who do we call upon? Suggestions have always been welcome for discussion for the Petition.

Originally posted by Bout Time...I would also remove the concept of Presidential sealed court papers from corporate malfesance or of presidential paper...And do you think, since we are on an excellerated path to dictatorship...

All of these things would be addressed in the "Investigational" phase of rooting out the corruption. The government (our *employees*) has no right to hold anything secret from their employers (the citizens). Therefore, all current documentation supporting corrupt practices would have to be revealed for the investigation. However, in order to keep peoples' attention focused enough on the Petition long enough to sign it, it wouldn't be very prudent to try to list every single offense that will need to be addressed. The Petition is merely to bring awareness to the citizens, not bore them to death with lengthiness; Specific demands & accusations to be investigated & corrected should be reserved for more specific papers to mention later.

I'm sure that any inputs towards *that* goal (when we can get to it) would be welcomed for discussion.

Also, in the future, any discussion that's *specific* to the Petition should be posted in that thread...It's hard enough to maintain some coherence among these threads as it is. With that said, I should mention that I copied your response (& *this* response) over there already.

posted on Oct, 31 2002 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
You might want to check and see who's in the minority, buddyboy, and you won't find it to be conservatives.

I agree, but you & your ilk don't belong to that group. Moderates make up the bulk of our country, not your RRW ultra conservative 'authors' or 'news' outlets. Most people just look at Coulter or Limbaugh as the lunatic fringe to the true conservatives like Arlene Specter, Rudy Gulliani and so firth.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in