• 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!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

Karl said:
Yes, the U.S. declared war on the British and mostly got their ass handed to them, including getting their capitol sacked. Personally I don't see the hilarity in that.

I will, however, await the hilarity of you joining TurtleDude in explaining just exactly how the British invasion of the U.S. precipitated the war of 1812, and just exactly where and when this war-causing British invasion happened. Let's review the original goalpost, which some seem to be tugging upon:


However, I will now readily concede one error -- TurtleDude was serious, and it appears he wasn't the only one :doh
Click to expand...

you got pwned, that was an error of epic proportions.
 
Fletch said:
No one gives you rights, haymarket. Rights are something that are yours by virtue of your nature as man. The state is erected to secure those rights.

But if you want a historical perspective--something one would think a person who spent his years 'teaching' history would offer himself--rights are bestowed upon man by God. So if you believe in that sort of thing, the answer to your question is God.
Click to expand...

claiming that the bill of rights GAVE US rights is an unbelievably stupendous error for someone who claims to understand the constitution. It would be akin to zoologist claiming that a frog is a mammal
 
TurtleDude said:
claiming that the bill of rights GAVE US rights is an unbelievably stupendous error for someone who claims to understand the constitution.
Click to expand...

True-the correct wording would be that the bill of rights ENSURES those rights..
 
Fruityfact said:
True-the correct wording would be that the bill of rights ENSURES those rights..
Click to expand...

from US V Cruikshank

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

recognizes rights that existed before the document was written and would remain if the document were to cease to exist
 
TurtleDude said:
claiming that the bill of rights GAVE US rights is an unbelievably stupendous error for someone who claims to understand the constitution. It would be akin to zoologist claiming that a frog is a mammal
Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting my quote that you took issue with. Read it again. Read it carefully and you will see no error of fact.

You tell us then where your Constitutional rights come from.

You do not have a right if the government does not recognize that right. Our Constitution sets those out for us and forces the government to recognize them.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
from US V Cruikshank

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

recognizes rights that existed before the document was written and would remain if the document were to cease to exist
Click to expand...

Where exactly did these right exist if not in the nation where people lived?
 
TurtleDude said:
Not from the constitution
Click to expand...

BBBBBZZZZTTTTT!!!!!

The Ivy League educated attorney fails to answer the question......... again.

Where do your Constitutional rights come from?
 
haymarket said:
BBBBBZZZZTTTTT!!!!!

The Ivy League educated attorney fails to answer the question......... again.

Where do your Constitutional rights come from?
Click to expand...


you already have been edified on this topic. Natural law and natural rights

I cannot help it if you don't understand the concept or reject it. the fact remains, the constitution was based on those assumptions and your claim that the Second Amendment GIVES rights is moronic
 
TurtleDude said:
you already have been edified on this topic. Natural law and natural rights

I cannot help it if you don't understand the concept or reject it. the fact remains, the constitution was based on those assumptions and your claim that the Second Amendment GIVES rights is moronic
Click to expand...

YOu cannot prove the existence of neither one. They are artificial constructs that become parts of ones self imposed belief system. As such, they are a matter of pure faith or belief and cannot be used to prove someone is correct or wrong in rejecting them.

Where did I claim that the Second Amendment gave you anything?
 
haymarket said:
YOu can prove the existence of neither one. They are artificial constructs that become parts of ones self imposed belief system. As such, they are a matter of pure faith or belief and cannot be used to prove someone is correct or wrong in rejecting them.
Click to expand...

I don't need to prove they exist. this country's constitution is based on the assumption they do exist
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't need to prove they exist. this country's constitution is based on the assumption they do exist
Click to expand...

To have any credibility on this issue, actually you do. Of course if you want no credibility, continue down the path you are now on.

The Country was founded by people who also assumed that GOD exists. And you reject that proposition.

I maintain two very verifiable things about the Constitutional rights of Americans based on reality

1- enough people have to agree that they want a certain behavior recognized and protected as a right
2- they force the government to recognize it as a right

That is where rights in America come from.

You maintain that they come from something you cannot even prove exists.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
The Country was founded by people who also assumed that GOD exists. And you reject that proposition.

I maintain two very verifiable things about the Constitutional rights of Americans based on reality

1- enough people have to agree that they want a certain behavior recognized and protected as a right
2- they force the government to recognize it as a right

That is where rights in America come from.

You maintain that they come from something you cannot even prove exists.
Click to expand...

the issue is that you made a stupendous error concerning the foundations of the constitution

and no matter what you do you cannot overcome that error.

you can whine all you want

take it up with the founders and the supreme court

not me
 
TurtleDude said:
the issue is that you made a stupendous error concerning the foundations of the constitution

and no matter what you do you cannot overcome that error.

you can whine all you want

take it up with the founders and the supreme court

not me
Click to expand...

There was no error.

I challenge you to show me the error.

You are impotent to do so because no error of fact was made.
 
G.O.P. Senators Face Risks Over Proposal on Tax Cuts

"In all, the Republican plan would extend tax cuts for 2.7 million affluent families while allowing tax breaks to expire for 13 million on the bottom of the income spectrum, tax analysts say. An impact analysis released Monday by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation said a permanent extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts would cut taxes on households with more than $1 million of annual income by $74,505 next year. The Democratic proposal would cut taxes for those same households by $7,055."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/politics/republican-senators-face-risks-with-tax-cut-plan.html
 
The silence from Turtle is deafening.
 
Honestly its a subjective "debate" you are having here.. The Constitution and its amendments are the compiling of an attempt at a written and enforceable assortment of natural laws- The constitution enforces and protects the rights that in some form or another are deemed just(natural).
 
TurtleDude said:
more stupidity. its the government that distinguishes between the two
Click to expand...
Because the rich have been very busy buying those 535 votes in Congress, so of course, the game is rigged in favor of Congress's masters.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
natural law, natural rights-look it up
Click to expand...
Fail

Fletch said:
No one gives you rights, haymarket. Rights are something that are yours by virtue of your nature as man. The state is erected to secure those rights.

But if you want a historical perspective--something one would think a person who spent his years 'teaching' history would offer himself--rights are bestowed upon man by God. So if you believe in that sort of thing, the answer to your question is God.
Click to expand...
Double fail


The only "natural" rights are the right to attempt to survive and the right to attempt to reproduce. And notice I used the word 'attempt' in both cases. You do not have the right to live nor the right to reproduce, just the rights to attempt to do both. That's the only "natural" rights, those rights that all animals share. Anything beyond that is a man-made device.



There is the occasional thread that pops up attempting to prove the existence of God, of which all have failed. Until that premise is proved all philosophies based on it fail miserably. This isn't the Dark Ages anymore.



Ed:
And I'd like to see the commons that Locke also uses as a basis for his philosophy. I know of no such place in America where a man without assets can go to live without being beholden to someone else. Servitude has become the rule in America, Locke's 'commons' are all gone.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
No one gives you rights, haymarket. Rights are something that are yours by virtue of your nature as man. The state is erected to secure those rights.

But if you want a historical perspective--something one would think a person who spent his years 'teaching' history would offer himself--rights are bestowed upon man by God. So if you believe in that sort of thing, the answer to your question is God.
Click to expand...

That is your personal belief. It cannot be proven. And because it cannot be proven it cannot be used to prove that somebody who does not believe as you do is wrong.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Because the rich have been very busy buying those 535 votes in Congress, so of course, the game is rigged in favor of Congress's masters.
Click to expand...

uh yet the rich spend as much time promoting far left nonsense as they do right wing hackery

but your point has no relevance to the point you quoted

as to your other post (619) remind me of your education in constitutional law. that post of yours clearly demonstrates you really have no understanding of the concept of natural law and natural rights and those concepts importance in the foundation supporting the US Constitution
 
TurtleDude said:
uh yet the rich spend as much time promoting far left nonsense as they do right wing hackery

but your point has no relevance to the point you quoted

as to your other post (619) remind me of your education in constitutional law. that post of yours clearly demonstrates you really have no understanding of the concept of natural law and natural rights and those concepts importance in the foundation supporting the US Constitution
Click to expand...

It has been explained to you that natural rights and natural law are beliefs that one takes on through an article of faith. As such they prove nothing as they may or may not exist and neither you nor anyone else can do so.
 
haymarket said:
That is your personal belief. It cannot be proven. And because it cannot be proven it cannot be used to prove that somebody who does not believe as you do is wrong.
Click to expand...

that is not the point

the issue is whether the founders believed it and the document they created was based on that belief.

I don't believe that the Pope is God's vicar to earth but for me to claim that the Papacy is not based on that FACT (the fact being what the RC church holds as one of its prime beliefs) would be stupid

whether natural rights and natural law actually "exist" is not relevant. what is relevant is that the founders certainly did and thus the document known as the US Constitution presumes such existence

where you failed was saying that the second amendment is the source of a right and that is contrary to what those who wrote it intended or those who interpret it have held
 
haymarket said:
It has been explained to you that natural rights and natural law are beliefs that one takes on through an article of faith. As such they prove nothing as they may or may not exist.
Click to expand...

Duh-but what you don't understand is that I am not arguing as to their existence but as to the FACT that those who wrote the constitution PRESUMED THEY DID EXIST
 
TurtleDude said:
that is not the point

the issue is whether the founders believed it and the document they created was based on that belief.

I don't believe that the Pope is God's vicar to earth but for me to claim that the Papacy is not based on that FACT (the fact being what the RC church holds as one of its prime beliefs) would be stupid

whether natural rights and natural law actually "exist" is not relevant. what is relevant is that the founders certainly did and thus the document known as the US Constitution presumes such existence

where you failed was saying that the second amendment is the source of a right and that is contrary to what those who wrote it intended or those who interpret it have held
Click to expand...

NO that is not the issue and never was the issue. I stated very clearly that the Second Amendment DID NOT give you the right to own any firearm you wanted.

Now you are telling us that the Second Amendment does not give us any rights. My statement is covered by your statement of agreement.

By your own admission the Second Amendment does not GIVE US certain rights. I stated that it DID NOT GIVE US certain rights.

You agree with me.

But you are so eager to both defend guns and attack me that you allowed your poor reading comprehension skills to short circuit your intellect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom