Unamerican people need to leave America

reply to post by SpectreDC


It would be Unamerican to stop someone from bombing a building??? I mean that is what you said in response to someone, "That stopping a muslim bomber would be "Unamerican". So in reference wouldn't it be "UnAmerican" To let him bomb the building because that impeeds on others "Natural" freedoms? Another question that I also await a response too.

reply to post by azzllin


Quit trying to blame the actions of a few on the whole lot of us. It is not my fault that people are getting paid slave wages for work. That is there country and their problem.

No it is not my attitude that the world is in the state that it is in, the world is in the state that it is in because that's the way things are and have always been. People have always taken advantage of people. People have always tried to oppress people. That is the way it is and the way it will always be.

Does it suck, it sure does, but I can't do anything about it all I can do is make sure the problems in my country are taken care of so my family can survive and enjoy even more freedoms that I enjoy now.

reply to post by SpectreDC


First, it is interesting that you choose to leave out where Natural Law comes from and therefore, where our rights from. And that is God. But we can discuss that later. Yes, everyhuman has the rights endowed by his creator you are correct. However, Natural Law does not include education, food stamps, other welfare and the ability to not pay taxes as all other LEGAL citizens must do. That is why those founders you spoke so highly of, included in the 18 enumerated powers, the responsibilty of the federal government to protect and defend our borders. In conclusion, yes we all have the same rights that occur naturally and come from God, but no not everyone has the same right to the other benefits of living within these borders. You know, those benefits that the rest of us have to pay for.

reply to post by SpectreDC

First off, lets not make this an argument about political theory and especially anarchy, in which I will trounce the living hell out of you in.

That is exactly what this rant is all about Political Theory. You are talking about Law which at its core is Political. Oh yes, you will "trounce me" because I disagree with you?

What you are doing is strongly advocating Anarchy. And there is nothing to "trounce me" with because once again it is of your opinion. You have text book definitions of what it is and then you have political philosophies of what YOU think it is.

If you want natural law, go live in the wilderness.

reply to post by sos37

You scream and rant about "rights" that all people have imbued in them simply by being born. There is only one right that you have at any one time and that is the right to resist the mandate of the existing law (order).

Before responding to this, I am compelled to quote you yet again:

These "inalienable" rights you like to trumpet aren't imbued upon you simply because you are a born human being - that's the most SINGULAR CONCEITED, ARROGANT statement made, next to "We are the only life in the universe".

It is your own conceit that undermines your own argument. You wish to dismiss the assertion that all people are born with rights that are inherent and inalienable, but will concede that all people have the right to resist "the mandate of existing law". Your conceit lies in the fact that you willfully ignore, for example, The Constitution for the United States of America, which stands as the Supreme Law of the Land, and has placed clear and undeniable mandates, not upon the people, but the government Ordained by the People to serve the People.

Further, there is no comparison between those who assert "we are the only life in the universe" and those who assert what rights are inalienable. Even worse, you further argue that only might makes right, and while Natural Law often requires the use of force, indeed the implementation of Justice requires the use of force, it is your conceit that people only have rights due to the force others used to grant these rights. That there are those who would clearly abrogate and derogate the rights of others does not serve as evidence that inalienable rights are non-existent, but rather serves as evidence that tyranny does indeed exist, and it is your conceit to argue in favor of tyranny over freedom. After all, all tyrants gain their power through the same force you claim grants rights. Indeed, a so called benign tyrant may deign to "grant" rights, but this is merely their conceit thrust upon the ignorance of people who accept such conceit.

Your most egregious conceit is your fear mongering where you clearly hope to convince people that assertions of rights almost always come with certain death and/or imprisonment. You dismiss the right to speech, and the right to ones own beliefs but then turn around and suggest one has the right to resist and oppressor. Of course, it would be difficult to resist this oppressor without relying upon speech and belief, but this is a merely a quibble with one who is obviously selling tyranny as rightful and just, and that order could not possibly exist among the self governed, and that conceit is the most odious of all.

woohoo..
I'm surprised it took this long for the Agnostic to chime in...any time they hear "God" in any thing they come in guns ablazing..And this goes second for the "hard right" closet white hood wearing white man rules crowd as well. I think this was well spoken. And put it this way for all you closet Nazi
I welcome my brother black,red,jew,devil worshiper I don't care. I will fight for you against the powers that are upon this country to seperate us into groups.I might not like what you believe in or stand for but I'll fight for you. Will you do the same for me?

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Again, the only right you have to excercise as a human being is resistance. You may die for excercising that right, depending on who oppresses you, but you are free to excercise it.

Thanks you sos37 for this post.
And for those of you who jump the gun, fleeing is also a from of resistance.

Actually, I'm deleting this post. Just way too burnt out on the whole subject.

[edit on 5/4/2010 by AshleyD]

I think you went about it COMPLETELY wrong, but I agree with you and have said the same thing many times.

This is why I am bothered by certain things like purposefully not applying the American constitution to anyone not an American citizen. We can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't go around bragging that we have the best constitution in all the land and then deny anyone the same rights Americans have as a result of it just because they did something we don't like. I see it as nothing more than taking advantage of a loophole.

reply to post by SpectreDC

HMMM, I WONDER WHAT TRUTHS THEY WERE SAYING WERE SELF-EVIDENT?

That Black people were property and women couldn't own property, things like that. The Declaration and Constitution were great for their time but they are far from perfect.

There is no opinion that is Un-American because America is built upon DEFENDING the opinions of all. It's a little thing called Freedom of Speech, you might have heard about it. Most things a person can say are protected under free speech, including the opinion you quoted in your OP.

Lots of replies, I'll try to wade through those that are on topic and point.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

I don't agree with your diatribe. "Natural Rights" are a concept. An opinion of what you THINK you have, of what you deserve. Yes, I said an OPINION.

In reality you are born with nothing. You deserve nothing. You are given nothing except what those around you will give to you.

You scream and rant about "rights" that all people have imbued in them simply by being born. There is only one right that you have at any one time and that is the right to resist the mandate of the existing law (order).

These "inalienable" rights you like to trumpet aren't imbued upon you simply because you are a born human being - that's the most SINGULAR CONCEITED, ARROGANT statement made, next to "We are the only life in the universe".

The rights you enjoy now are due to soldiers who fight enemies who would take those "inalienable rights" away from you. And there will always, always be someone who will be ready to take away your rights. Rights are BORN out of superior resistance. And if at any time a superior force were to take over this country, you would quickly see that those "rights" you quack about being imbued on everyone would be taken away.

Try arguing that you have inalienable rights with the man who has a weapon pointed at your head. If he demands you do something or not do something, the only right you have is the right to resist his order. Try excercising your "inalienable" rights in a prison camp under the order running the camp. Again, the only right you have to excercise as a human being is resistance. You may die for excercising that right, depending on who oppresses you, but you are free to excercise it.

Not exactly with the topic. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in members bringing up the founding fathers, the declaration of independence and the constitution and yet ignore the most important point the fathers and the constitution talk about; Natural Law and Natural Rights.

Feel free to make a topic debating Natural Law and I'll gladly debate it with you, but I feel moving on the point you are arguing in this thread goes away from the purpose of the thread.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Well to throw a wrench in the works I'll add this; You call these laws "Natural" laws, a "God Given Right". So in reference how is this possible with the seperation of Church and State which the United States also upholds? I await any response.

The concept of Natural Law isn't necessarily dealing with God although there are certainly understandings of it that do.

Furthermore many of these concepts of Natural Law that may use the word "God" or "maker" often aren't referring to any specific religious belief.

The concept of Natural Law in America mainly come from Locke, Hobbes and Paine, and it didn't have any sort of religious bearing on it.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

It would be Unamerican to stop someone from bombing a building??? I mean that is what you said in response to someone, "That stopping a muslim bomber would be "Unamerican". So in reference wouldn't it be "UnAmerican" To let him bomb the building because that impeeds on others "Natural" freedoms? Another question that I also await a response too.

Noooonoononononnonono lol

You took that way wrong.

Of course we can stop someone from attacking one of our buildings. And if this person is arrested, we treat him/her just like we treat our own. We don't torture to gain information, or detain inhumanely. They get a fair and just trial, and they go to prison.

What I'm basically saying is that we don't sacrifice our principles to gain justice. Beyond the fact that it will likely not truly be just, we're just pegging ourselves down to their level in the end.

Originally posted by tsloan
woohoo..
I'm surprised it took this long for the Agnostic to chime in...any time they hear "God" in any thing they come in guns ablazing..And this goes second for the "hard right" closet white hood wearing white man rules crowd as well. I think this was well spoken. And put it this way for all you closet Nazi
I welcome my brother black,red,jew,devil worshiper I don't care. I will fight for you against the powers that are upon this country to seperate us into groups.I might not like what you believe in or stand for but I'll fight for you. Will you do the same for me?

If they would that would make them American. That would mean that all those others that call themselves American but wouldn't fight for the Natural rights of all men are really unamerican.

Hey, that's what the OP was about.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by NoJoker13]

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Well to throw a wrench in the works I'll add this; You call these laws "Natural" laws, a "God Given Right". So in reference how is this possible with the seperation of Church and State which the United States also upholds? I await any response.

The Establishment Clause does not preclude the notion of a "Creator" who preexisted the government "Ordained" by We the People. The Establishment Clause is a prohibition on government in establishing a national religion, but is in no way a prohibition on We the People. It is merely bad semantics to suggest that this Clause somehow refutes the notion of Natural Law and God given rights.

It matters not whether one believes in God or not, and you are free to disbelieve if you choose, however it is common sense that by asserting that rights are something granted by a higher power than humans, and therefore can not be granted, nor taken away by humans, without dire consequences. Even the staunchest atheist, if thinking rationally, comes to understand the importance of inalienable rights. It is moot whether the inherent rights of people are God Granted or not, and one is using such phraseology, what they are insisting is that no human may claim power to grant or take away the Natural Rights of people.

That people do abrogate and derogate the rights of others serves as evidence as to why we have governments, to protect those rights, and that so many governments willingly ignore such a mandate and instead attempt to consolidate power, only serves as evidence as to why it is so essential that all people jealously guard their inalienable rights and zealously assert those rights when necessary.

This is what the argument comes down too.

The OP is saying that everybody is born with these natural rights. Which is true. But the OP is trying to expand upon that by saying that everybody has these Natural rights, which is true. But if you really want to talk bout natural rights the only natural right you are born with is the right to survive at all cost. Nothing more and nothing less.

The US Constitution is the founding document of the United States of America, it does not apply to Europe or Africa or Asia or anybody else. the US Constitution applies only the United States of America.

I think what some peoples problem is that they want to read to far into things. When the deceleration of independence was written signed and sent it was only a certain amount of people that agreed with the revolution, not every single person in the colonies at the time wanted to start their own country.

So in effect when the deceleration of independence was written it was the philosophy of the people who wanted the revolution. The Deceleration of Independence did not speak for everybody.

I find it highly disturbing that a lot of people here like to throw the US Constitution around as well as the Deceleration of Independence around as if it applies to everybody in the world when it doesn't. It only applies to the people of the United States of America, because the US Constitution is the governing document of The United States of America.

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

First off, lets not make this an argument about political theory and especially anarchy, in which I will trounce the living hell out of you in.

That is exactly what this rant is all about Political Theory. You are talking about Law which at its core is Political. Oh yes, you will "trounce me" because I disagree with you?

I'm not talking about law I'm talking about ethics. What, gravity is now in the realm of law because it's the "law of gravity"?

Natural Law has nothing to do with political theory, it has to do with ethics.

What you are doing is strongly advocating Anarchy.

I'm not advocating any political ideology because I'm not talking about political theory. I'm talking about Natural Law.

If you want natural law, go live in the wilderness.

So the United States of America, whose founding principles and beliefs are based off of Natural Law, which can not be argued as it is based off of Natural Law, is the wilderness?

Before i even read any futher i'd like to educate that Canadians are American so are people from paraguay chile etc.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Very well said but what your saying is that for these rights to be anything at all that I must hold them to a "higher" power??? I mean I'm a moral man who wouldn't want something done to me, that I wouldn't do to someone else. This isn't a principle that comes from seeing a "higher" power but simply a principal that comes from common sense. Also I find it very ignorant to suggest that I'm an athiest because I bring up "Natural" law as being "God's" law. People can be spiritual without believing in a MANMADE religion, maybe you should realize that and rethink your current sheeple stance (Where anyone who doesn't believe in "GOD" is an athiest.).

reply to post by SpectreDC


I understand much of your responses but what your insinuating is that Locke and his band weren't religious... Is that also true?

*facepalm*

Okay, people seem not to be getting what I'm saying, and I suspect it's own purpose in certain cases.

I'm not arguing off of my own opinion any where in this thread.

Natural Law is the basis of what America's principles are based off of, this is not my opinion, this is fact.

Natural Law is referenced in the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the philosophies of many of our founding fathers, this is not my opinion, this is fact.

And yet you have "patriotic Americans" preaching and crying about the DoI, the Constitution, the founding fathers....and yet completely contradict themselves when they start shouting for the natural rights of others to be infringed. This isn't my opinion, this is fact.

I'm calling people out for being hypocrites and sycophants, cherry picking what is convenient for them to say at certain times to make their plights and arguments more impacting.