• 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 Secular Left Isn't Compatible with the Declaration of Independence

"Who wrote the dictionary? liberals.... more lies and deceit." jd
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif 44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif 44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif

ABSOLUTELY hilarious !!

Now it's not merely the media that's liberal. It's the language itself !! SNL should have material this hilarious!
"In fact Independence day itself it an affront to liberalism." jd
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif
If conservatives had remained in charge, the People of what is now the United States of America would not be citizens, but royal subjects.

The root word of "conservative" is to "conserve".
To conserve the 18th Century status quo in the American colonies would be to retain KG3 rule, despite the Townsend Act Tax dispute, etc.

You could not possibly be more wrong on this!

The U.S. Founders were not merely liberals but radicals; literally revolutionaries.
"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.
"The founders on this date declared their independence from subserviently to a government which claimed to have authority over them. They rejected the notion that government was superior to the individual and created the society in which government was subservient to the people and where every man had the rights of a king.
Liberalism stands for subservience of the citizen to the government." Mint Jelly
Yet once again, completely backwards.

It's Republicans that are the authoritarians, and Democrats the unyielding champions of Liberty, and human rights as protected, not usurped by government.
Republicans including particularly VP Pence are resolutely determined to:
- usurp a woman's right of choice
- deny same sex couples the same inconveniences accorded to heteros suffer
- grant wedding cake bakers to discriminate based on personal bias.

What ever happened to love of the free market?
"Enjoy your independence day!"
With a comedian like you to keep me convulsing with laughter, I just hope I won't need to have my torso bound to treat a cracked rib.

BTW
I referred to you as "Mint Jelly" because you are ON A ROLL !!
 
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.

I think it is probably more accurate to say that rights are recognized by government. Government doesn't create rights.
 
Liberals are not bad, they are ignorant, it is their ideology which is evil and desecrates mankind.

The internet is the proverbial infinite monkeys with type writers. Most of the monkeys don't write anything intelligent, especially conservative ones. Evil ideologies are defined by actions. The idea that mankind can be desecrated by socialism is like saying dogs are desecrated by fur. Our species evolved to be a social species but we also have a certain percentage of us who would willingly destroy anything good the rest of us enjoy.

What desecrates mankind is the notion that we are all greedy by nature and only in greed can we be ourselves and that government, somehow, corrupts our nature. The right is perpetually consumed with the idea that possessions define us. The contradiction and conflict between appealing to what is best about humanity, like the left does, and appealing to the worst of our nature, as the right does, is available for us to choose between.

Type on, George.
 
"What desecrates mankind is" DN #28
"Desecrate" means to violate the sacredness of.
Do you think it's appropriate to refer to "mankind" (a sexist throwback to millennia past) as sacred? Shouldn't "sacred" be reserved for deities?
"the notion that we are all greedy by nature and only in greed can we be ourselves" DN
It's axiomatic in Psych. 101 that we all tend to act in our own enlightened self-interest.
There are exceptions.
But given the general trend all the exceptions combined don't total a rounding error.
"and that government, somehow, corrupts our nature." DN
We were a different People in the 19th Century than we are in the 21st.

In the 18th and early 19th Centuries, government was our servant.
In the 21st government is our punitive master.

As late as the early 20th Century U.S. citizens were admired at home and envied abroad for our self-sufficiency and rugged individualism.
Today instead of relying on our selves we rely on:
- Social Security
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Obamacare
- Food Stamps
- HEAP
- lord knows what else.

Could it possibly be more elemental than:

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

Our government isn't teaching us to fish. It's giving us a fish, making us ever incrementally more and more dependent on it.

AND !!

It sends us the $bill for the disservice.

The irony is, in this way, United States governments are doing more to disempower the People of the United States than al Qaida, the Taliban, and ISIL combined.
 
The internet is the proverbial infinite monkeys with type writers. Most of the monkeys don't write anything intelligent, especially conservative ones. Evil ideologies are defined by actions. The idea that mankind can be desecrated by socialism is like saying dogs are desecrated by fur. Our species evolved to be a social species but we also have a certain percentage of us who would willingly destroy anything good the rest of us enjoy.

What desecrates mankind is the notion that we are all greedy by nature and only in greed can we be ourselves and that government, somehow, corrupts our nature. The right is perpetually consumed with the idea that possessions define us. The contradiction and conflict between appealing to what is best about humanity, like the left does, and appealing to the worst of our nature, as the right does, is available for us to choose between.

Type on, George.

The stupidity of your post has to be read to be believed. Only an idiot would believe that mankind is not corrupted by power. You can tell when you are in the 4th turning by the abundance of idiots who are incapable of understanding the obvious truth. Socialism is a step backward in evolution as it is simply a return to the tribal system. When mankind abandoned the tribal system and began the era of self dependency was the beginning of civilization.

Our so called Colleges are perfect examples of how far liberalism has caused our species to devolve. Once a bastion of free speech, our Colleges are now bastions of fascism and intolerance for any perspective that is not socialist. Hell you might as well be in a 1960's soviet College as a 2017 US college.

The latest antics of the liberals have shown to the world just how uncivilized the liberals really are. Just a bunch of violent, chimpanzees who will lie, cheat, steal, or murder to get something someone else has earned.
 
jd #30
- Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. - often attributed to Lord Acton
But the quotation is:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,"
*writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton, 53, April 5 to Cambridge University professor Mandell Creighton. Lord Acton is a liberal Roman Catholic and a leader of the opposition to the papal dogma of infallibility
Source:
The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1995, 1996 by James Trager. All rights reserved. (aka Bookshelf '98)

It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. David Brin

"Only an idiot would believe that mankind is not corrupted by power." jd #30
"Mankind" is composed of individuals.
I'm not aware that we are collectively corrupted as a race.

Most of us may be corruptible to some degree.
A few of us mostly not.

For some insight into that I recommend the Robert Bolt screen play / the Academy Award winning movie A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS starring Paul Scofield.
It's interesting insight into what it means to be a man of principle. It won 6 Academy Awards including 1966 best picture.
 
Modern liberals are nothing but authoritarian pricks. Of course, they have no place in the country and should just move to Europe, but they insist on corrupting everything instead.
 
If institutions of law and government were to be taken away, our conservative friends' "inalienable" rights would be alienable so fast their heads would spin.

So happy Independence Day to you too. We got your back.

I can't figure out where they suggested to remove all government. You realize that protecting inalienable rights would call for a much smaller government than liberals want, right? Wanting less government than liberals doesn't mean you want no government.
 
jd #30
- Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. - often attributed to Lord Acton
But the quotation is:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,"
*writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton, 53, April 5 to Cambridge University professor Mandell Creighton. Lord Acton is a liberal Roman Catholic and a leader of the opposition to the papal dogma of infallibility
Source:
The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1995, 1996 by James Trager. All rights reserved. (aka Bookshelf '98)

It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. David Brin


"Mankind" is composed of individuals.
I'm not aware that we are collectively corrupted as a race.

Most of us may be corruptible to some degree.
A few of us mostly not.

For some insight into that I recommend the Robert Bolt screen play / the Academy Award winning movie A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS starring Paul Scofield.
It's interesting insight into what it means to be a man of principle. It won 6 Academy Awards including 1966 best picture.

Really? You get your insight to human nature from movies? LOL You want to get a real indication of the tendencies of humans? Try spending a few hours in you local prison. You know what? You will not find a single person in there who is guilty of what they are charged with....

Or you can try to find a single politician in Washington that is not bought and paid for. If you knew jack crap about anything you would know that you cannot be a politician in Washington without being on the take.

The first thing you are required to do when you are elected is to sell your soul to campaign contributors to repay what your party has contributed to your campaign. EVERY large campaign contribution comes with a string attached. No one gives big money to a politician without wanting something in return. We have the best government money can buy... literally.
 
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.

soon you will belong to me MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
 
If conservatives had remained in charge, the People of what is now the United States of America would not be citizens, but royal subjects.

I wonder if you realize the difference between classical liberals and modern liberals. Bet not.

Tell me though, how are liberals of today the same as liberals of the founding of the country. :popcorn2:

Be sure to note how they still find merit in such things as natural rights. Oh wait...


A little history. Modern liberals didn't come about from an evolution of classical liberalism, but in fact it was created by the word being hijacked by the opposition. Meaning, you're the people that would have stood by the king, not the other way around. This would be obvious if you actually paid a bit of attention to political philosophy and knew a damn thing about the history of liberalism.
 
Last edited:
jd #30
- Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. - often attributed to Lord Acton
But the quotation is:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,"
*writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton, 53, April 5 to Cambridge University professor Mandell Creighton. Lord Acton is a liberal Roman Catholic and a leader of the opposition to the papal dogma of infallibility
Source:
The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1995, 1996 by James Trager. All rights reserved. (aka Bookshelf '98)

It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. David Brin


"Mankind" is composed of individuals.
I'm not aware that we are collectively corrupted as a race.

Most of us may be corruptible to some degree.
A few of us mostly not.

For some insight into that I recommend the Robert Bolt screen play / the Academy Award winning movie A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS starring Paul Scofield.
It's interesting insight into what it means to be a man of principle. It won 6 Academy Awards including 1966 best picture.

Looks like all of it, greed, hunger for power, taking huge risks with other peoples money/future is simply addiction to neurotransmitters. Dopamine in particular.

Our brains are drug pushers. They addict us to behaviors they deem pro-survival.

Stopped working right when we settled down and established rigid heirarchies. Invented the "manager" class.
 
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.

Where were you when they turned the right to shelter, to sleep, into a privelege that must be paid for?

That seems like a pretty inalienable right.

You'll die without it.
 
Wi #38

I don't want to torpedo this thread. But you're right.
In fact, the reasons psychotropic medications act that way is precisely because they mimic the natural "reward" chemistry of the brain.

Didn't Skinner find that a rat that could press a button and have an electrode stimulate a "pleasure center" in its brain would continually hit the button until it dropped from thirst / starvation / exhaustion; even if there was food, water, and a nice comfy sofa right near by?
 
1.)Who wrote the dictionary? liberals.... more lies and deceit.

2.) In fact Independence day itself it an affront to liberalism.

3.) Liberalism stands for subservience of the citizen to the government. It stands for the repression of individual rights and the assentation of the government as the superior to the citizen.

4.) Enjoy your independence day!


1.) I hope that's a joke. I'll take that as a joke.

2.) In a world that was servant to giant Empires, lands that dare not confront the power of Europe, 13 colonies declaring independence is text-book liberal (per the dictionary definition posted). Tough to reconcile your point.

3.) How is empowering more citizens with the rights to vote, the rights to love whomever they want, and the demilitarization of police forces trying to make more people subservient? Also irreconcilable.

4.) I did. Thanks!
 
If institutions of law and government were to be taken away, our conservative friends' "inalienable" rights would be alienable so fast their heads would spin.

So happy Independence Day to you too. We got your back.

It is government which alienates the citizens rights. There is a law on the books which makes anything you do illegal. That is why cops can arrest you any time any where and there is nothing you can do about it.
 
if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right.
So what?

You don't have to believe in inalienable rights in order to believe that human beings have rights -- and equally important, when discussing the DoI, the right to change how they are governed.

There are numerous NGOs that work on human rights, that don't have any religious affiliation or beliefs. ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UNESCO, the list goes on.

And of course, philosophers have spent decades developing secular ethical systems which produce universal moral principles, in which rights are a critical component. One of the most prominent figures is John Rawls, who posited that we should develop a hypothetical consensus of moral principles. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, freedom of the press, and other rights were critical requirements for Rawls' process to work. No deity required.

But do go on....


So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.
Or: Rights are formed as an agreement by the citizens on how they want to organize their society, how they want to be governed, the principles they want to uphold, and whom they want to protect.

Equally important is that anyone who thinks that invoking God will protect political rights is a damned fool. Countless millions believe in God and human rights -- including leftists and conservatives alike -- without agreeing on which rights are, in fact, provided by God and/or inalienable. Claiming a divine pedigree does not, in any way shape or form, ensure any consistency in which rights we protect, and to what extent.

I.e. The concept of "consent of the governed" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs. That's why the Constitution itself makes no reference to any deity, because it's completely unnecessary to its functions and philosophical structure.


The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred.
Uh, hello?

Civil Rights Movement? Martin Luther King, Jr. (a Baptist minister)? Women's rights? LGBT activists? The left has led on civil rights for decades. Most of those activists, particularly in the most critical civil rights movement in the US, were inspired by their religious beliefs.

Along those lines, the claim that leftists are irreligious is at best inaccurate, and at worst insulting. It shows that you barely have a clue about the people you're describing.

Who, exactly, do you see as the defenders of civil liberties? Segregationists, perhaps? Strom Thurmond? How about J Edgar Hoover, who spied on civil rights activists, and sabotaged their political organizations? Was Ronald Reagan defending God's inherent liberties, when he supported gun control?

By the way, I find your general post incredibly ironic, given that NPR Tweeted the Declaration of Independence yesterday... only to have a bunch of Trump supporters freak out, and accuse NPR of wanting to engineer a coup. :mrgreen:
 
1.) I hope that's a joke. I'll take that as a joke.

No, its a fact. Liberals being in charge of education write all educational material. It is how they keep the masses idiots.


2.) In a world that was servant to giant Empires, lands that dare not confront the power of Europe, 13 colonies declaring independence is text-book liberal (per the dictionary definition posted). Tough to reconcile your point.
Actually, the liberals are just modern day Federalists. Authoritarian pricks who want to establish a new royalty of statists. The forefathers were mostly libertarians in every way.

3.) How is empowering more citizens with the rights to vote, the rights to love whomever they want, and the demilitarization of police forces trying to make more people subservient? Also irreconcilable.
Giving non citizens the right to vote simply dilutes the vote of real citizens who have earned the right to vote, hardly a noble cause.

The government should not be involved in peoples relationships to begin with. It is liberals who want to give government the power to dictate relationships.

Liberals do not want the demilitarization of police. They need the police to enforce their authoritarian freedom robbing Bull Crap.

4.) I did. Thanks![/QUOTE]
 
No, its a fact. Liberals being in charge of education write all educational material. It is how they keep the masses idiots.


Actually, the liberals are just modern day Federalists. Authoritarian pricks who want to establish a new royalty of statists. The forefathers were mostly libertarians in every way.

Giving non citizens the right to vote simply dilutes the vote of real citizens who have earned the right to vote, hardly a noble cause.

The government should not be involved in peoples relationships to begin with. It is liberals who want to give government the power to dictate relationships.

Liberals do not want the demilitarization of police. They need the police to enforce their authoritarian freedom robbing Bull Crap.

4.) I did. Thanks!
[/QUOTE]

Oh my God. I don't know how to respond to the lack of thought from your post.

1.) Without education, we would be even dumber and MORE reliant on the government--especially for entitlement programs because we wouldn't be able to get a good f***ing job.

2.) You side stepped the point entirely. Guaranteeing people rights and freedoms is the antithesis of what conservatives are doing these days.

3.) No one is saying non-citizens should be able to vote. What I am referring to is the Jerrymandering of voting districts and some of the ridiculous voter registration laws that are out there. Of 300,000,000 votes in the past decade, only ~60 some have been fraudulant. That is so insignificant it isn't worth debating anymore.

Going further, you could use the same logic to say the government should stay out of race equality and gender equality. Without government protection of the rights of ALL citizens, ignorant masses try to command the minorities. We have proven that throughout our history. Nazi Germany did that. pre-Soviet and now post-Soviet Russia are doing that as well.

People in your camp think protecting the status quo--protecting traditional thought--preserves freedom. But it's the opposite; enforcing and demanding your way and the vile language you use for anyone who disagrees with you is the largest existent threat to that freedom. Your "fight for freedom" is the thing killing it.
 

Oh my God. I don't know how to respond to the lack of thought from your post.

1.) Without education, we would be even dumber and MORE reliant on the government--especially for entitlement programs because we wouldn't be able to get a good f***ing job.

2.) You side stepped the point entirely. Guaranteeing people rights and freedoms is the antithesis of what conservatives are doing these days.

3.) No one is saying non-citizens should be able to vote. What I am referring to is the Jerrymandering of voting districts and some of the ridiculous voter registration laws that are out there. Of 300,000,000 votes in the past decade, only ~60 some have been fraudulant. That is so insignificant it isn't worth debating anymore.

Going further, you could use the same logic to say the government should stay out of race equality and gender equality. Without government protection of the rights of ALL citizens, ignorant masses try to command the minorities. We have proven that throughout our history. Nazi Germany did that. pre-Soviet and now post-Soviet Russia are doing that as well.

People in your camp think protecting the status quo--protecting traditional thought--preserves freedom. But it's the opposite; enforcing and demanding your way and the vile language you use for anyone who disagrees with you is the largest existent threat to that freedom. Your "fight for freedom" is the thing killing it.
No offence, but you are delusional. If you really believe you can achieve liberty and freedom through government tyranny, then you are incapable of critical thought and it is a waste of time for any one to try to educate you.
 
The secularists in American are compatible with the Constitution and that is all that counts.
 
But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

You do realize many of the Founding Fathers were deists at 'best?' Some, like Thomas Paine, were arguably atheists.

So there goes your theory.
 
Liberals are not bad, they are ignorant, it is their ideology which is evil and desecrates mankind.

Ah, yes, evils such as abolition, women's suffrage, and the Enlightenment. Oh, the horror! :roll:
 
Who wrote the dictionary? liberals.... more lies and deceit.

In fact Independence day itself it an affront to liberalism. The founders on this date declared their independence from subserviently to a government which claimed to have authority over them. They rejected the notion that government was superior to the individual and created the society in which government was subservient to the people and where every man had the rights of a king.

Liberalism stands for subservience of the citizen to the government. It stands for the repression of individual rights and the assentation of the government as the superior to the citizen.

Enjoy your independence day!

What utter bull****.
 
Back
Top Bottom