• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Bill Of Wrongs.

Chainsaw said:
You use ONE sentence to try to frame the context?......ONE sentence out of entire interview that actually framed his belief? Obama was trying to justify a federal government mandated redistribution of wealth. He believes a big government of liberal scum bags like himself, should have the power to ignore the rights of individuals as guaranteed in the Constitution, if they believe it benefits collective government. I.e. he thinks the Constitution should be changed to allow the government to forcibly put everyone on equal footing/class.
Click to expand...

If your interpretation of improving social safety nets is "forcibly put everyone on equal footing/class," I don't know what to tell you. You're an absolutist and you'll never understand the world around you or the people in it.
 
Visbek said:
It is, if you understand the difference between positive rights and negative rights.

"Negative rights" require inaction by a person or entity; "positive rights" are those which require actions."

E.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is a limit on government, and a negative right. It requires the government not to do something.

In contrast, the Civil Rights acts require action, such as serving a member of the public regardless of their race, creed, class or gender. They oblige someone to take action, and are positive rights.

So... Yes, someone who understands the difference between positive and negative rights, and realizes that the BoR is all negative rights, ought to be President.
Click to expand...

He thinks a constitutional law scholar from Harvard is using some dumbass layman backwards version of "negative rights."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom