Rights - god given? inalienable? self-evident? natural? WRONG

It's self evident - if the state can grant or remove rights for the good of the state with no consequence or Constitutional protections it is a very dangerous path. Who decides who is affected and what rights can be removed ??

 

you seem to forget 'the state' belongs to us and the people making laws and enforcing them are voted into office by us. There is no such thing as 'a state' as you speak of it, it's ours.

I'm not against basic human rights and i'm not against a constitution. All i argue is that there is no such thing as 'natural rights', rights are simply social constructs that we, as a society, agree to and they change through time.

 

I'm sure you don't like it being pointed out that you are judging the FF's based on your worldview today. That doesn't make *me* immature. It only confirms that you are pushing an agenda. The FF's were *not* racists for the most part. And if they were not racists then they can't be judged as racists.

I've given you all kinds of information on this, including the states that had outlawed slavery by the time of the Constitutional Convention. You absolutely refuse to go read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and the NW Ordinance *did* outlaw slavery in that territory! Congress outlawed the slave trade in Jan, 1807 with an effective date of Jan, 1808 but you don't even know that!

Presentation of historical facts is *not* ranting and raving. And you *do* want to hold those FF's living in 1787 to your views here in 2017. They were two totally different times with different views. You don't even know what any of the FF's said about slavery!

I would run away too if I were you. Willful ignorance is *not* a survival trait!

 

The state does not belong to us.

 

Who the f said they were racists? and what f agenda are you referring to? you have no idea what you are talking about, stop barking. You went off on a tangent about irrelevant stuff. I actually think FF's were brilliant and the constitution very well thought out and drafted. The whole argument is centered about natural rights and this bogus notion that natural rights are governed by natural law or god given. The comparison i make between people back then and people today is simply to point out that what people considered right or wrong has changed through time and this supports my belief that rights are just social constructs that are subject to change. I have no problem with Washington, Jefferson and Madison being slave owners because it simply was just the time they lived in. When you came up with all this nonsense about the NW ordinance, trying to refute the fact that people largely accepted slavery back then, it was simply a dead end and irrelevant. At this point the discussion turned to whether FF's and society back then did enough to end slavery, obviously not! and mentioning some efforts here and there is completely irrelevant.

all completely irrelevant stuff because slavery wasn't abolished until after civil war! NW ordinance did little and completely irrelevant to my argument, which you simply can't even comprehend.

stuff that is completely irrelevant, none of these facts refute what i have said, you have failed to even comprehend the core of my argument.

 

we elect the leaders so, we govern the state.

 

That is incorrect.

 

who runs the state?

 

We govern the state? Then please explain why people are showing up in unprecedented numbers demanding state representatives reverse policies and with virtually no citizen opposition to them.

 

usually the loud mouths are the minority, have you ever heard of the silent majority?

this is a democracy so representatives do what the majority wants, not what the loud minority wants. How can representatives stay in office if they don't do what the majority want? they need their votes. The people running the government answer to us.

 

Did the D's who all voted to gut the health insurance system which ~ 85% of the people so what the people wanted ??

 

Riiiiiiight.... representatives do what the majority want, like good healthcare and schools. I guess you never noticed how politicians say what people want to hear in the run-up to the elections, and after elected they do what they want, or more accurately, what corporations want.

 

aha! i knew this was coming..

this is an interesting one and turns out, the republicans couldn't pass a bill because the majority of Americans preferred the ACA to the republican bill. Most Americans do want the ACA fixed or repealed and replaced but not with a crappy plan. The republican bill was a piece of sh&t and because of this, some senators refused to go along with it. The republican plan received around 20% support from Americans so republicans were nervous about it. The reason this didn't pass is because the majority of Americans didn't want it! and republicans feared that if they had passed this, it could've been worse than not passing anything.

So the American people demand congress to get together and work this out, we'll see what happens in next few years. The American people will hold these people accountable by punishing them in next round of elections. The fact is that over time, congress does what the majority of Americans want, it takes time but it's the way it has always worked.

 

and they lose elections when they don't do a good job.. Trump is in trouble now, he will be forced to do things for americans in next few years or he'll be a 1 term president.

Congress is more complicated because it can be argued that the lack of compromising (to avoid breaking promises to voters) results is few things getting done sometimes. For instance, the people that vote for Bernie WANT single payer and the ones who vote for Ted cruz DON'T want single payer. Bernie and Ted can't agree to a compromise, why is that? because they don't want to break their promises to their voters; in a way, one of the problems we have is that congress is too loyal to the voters. Perhaps people like Ted and Bernie should agree to break some promises in order to get things done (like fixing a healthcare). In a way, we make it difficult for them because we are divisive ourselves. A democracy is not easy.

 

That's ridiculous. ObamaCare is nothing more than an expansion of Medicaid. The three phase R plan put forth by Ryan/Pence/Price gets rid of ObamaCare which is responsible in part for the pathetically low economic growth rate of the Obama Presidency and replaces it with market based health insurance and cost system very similar but much better than pre ObamaCare. The Freedom Caucus and a handful of R legislators who put their own definition of perfect ahead of the well being of the American people scuttled this plan. Again another example of the elected officials putting themselves as first priority. It's disgusting.

Do you thing the elected officials in Europe are putting the well being of their citizens first when allowing unlimited immigration of all those claiming to be Syrian refugees into Europe ??

 

when you say replace with a plan better than pre Obamacare? says who? you? At least half of America doesn't agree with what you just said, see the problem? It's not congressmen, it's us too. We make it difficult for them. So you think Pelosi and Schumer just want big government because only they want it? No, it's because they represent people that want it. Same with Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan and their people who want something else. These people represent people in America who cannot agree on anything. Just read some threads in this forum, people cannot compromise on anything yet you expect congress to compromise on stuff when we can't and they represent us? The problem is that we have a two party system that represent Americans that don't agree on stuff and will not cave in to each other. If we had an independent party, maybe we would elect people that are more in the middle and hope stuff could get done. I think we do have congress men trying to represent us, but we are divided so they are divided. A third party would probably address some of this...

well, the people voted on brexit didn't they? and France's Macron got competition from a hardliner. Why did Macron win though? because most French (the silent majority) are okay with their liberal ways, if most French really considered immigration that bad, Le Pen would've won.

 

Forcing citizens to buy something they do not want is the epitome of government acting in opposition to the will of the people.

Brexit is an example of the people voting for their well being. They are sick of the liberal progressives acting against the welfare of the people.

Politicians place reelection above what is best for the American people.

 

We had a 13th that was removed so
Lincoln could be president, then they quick swapped it out for the one we have now.

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States



"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]

​

 

it seems most Americans want single payer so who's being forced? If you don't like it, so what, you many be the minority.

 

That's again ridiculous.

 

So you agree that at least in some cases in which the public is in strong agreement, politicians are forced to "do a good job" and perform as people demand. GREAT! And so it's time to demand and force government to change to national healthcare since about 70% of the public wants it. And that is the beginning!

 

That's ridiculous.

 

Ok. We can cut it back just a bit. How about 58%?

"Presented with three separate scenarios for the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 58% of U.S. adults favor the idea of replacing the law with a federally funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans." That includes 41% of Republicans - http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

 

Come'on man - read with emphasis on comprehension.

 

Yup, 58% of the adult population wants Medicare for All. If you have an argument, POST IT and stop insulting! Personal attacks are not a substitute for an argument.