Then where, prey tell, do you believe that one's "unalienable" rights may come from?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:38 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
No speculation about it PlainOl......."It Is, What It Is".---
an old myth
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:26 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No speculation about it PlainOl......."It Is, What It Is".
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM, plainolamerican
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > All unalienable rights are from God
> > ---
> > speculation noted
>
> > On Sep 10, 11:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello John,
>
> > > Although it was difficult to get through that long winded disortation,
> > > (reminds me of someone who graduated from Clemson!) and I agree that the
> > > Obama Administration has by executive order installed unconstitutional,
> > > communistic mandates upon "We, The People"; I am at a loss as to how
> > you
> > > believe that our two party system is unconstitutional.
>
> > > Far from it.
>
> > > There is nothing in the Constitution, (or maybe you can point out the
> > > Article and paragraph for us?) that restricts the association of like
> > > minded politically thinking individuals from forming associations or
> > groups
> > > to further their political cause.
>
> > > I also take exception to your notion that the "weak govern the strong".
> > > Examples please. With regard to bias within the law.....Yes. It's true,
> > > and has been since the beginning of recorded history. The United States
> > is
> > > no exception, and I can cite numerous instances within our 235 year
> > > history, beginning with the "Shea's Rebellion" of bias contained within
> > > the law. To some degree, it is these "biases" that you refer to, that
> > > shape and form our "culture" and our "morals".
>
> > > All unalienable rights are from God, not government and they cannot be
> > > stripped by government, unless one "volunteers" to waive his God given
> > > unalienable right.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, Studio, but "the two major political parties" are 100%
> > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! The USA isn't a
> > > > democracy, but is supposed to be (but never has been) a Representative
> > > > Republic. The Founding Fathers were totally committed to the
> > > > principle that the PEOPLE control government. Nowhere in the
> > > > Constitution is it sanctioned to allow political parties to substitute
> > > > biased group power for the "close to a Democracy" power of the voters
> > > > on election day. Yes, there were Whigs and Tories in the 18th
> > > > century. But those were mechanisms for government control far
> > > > different from a Representative Republic! Note: That treasonous
> > > > BASTARD in the White House, Barack H. Obama, still supposes that the
> > > > USA is "our great Democracy", while he acts as our communist-socialist
> > > > dictator. As numbers of you have pointed out a year or two ago,
> > > > Democracies—if that's the only stipulated 'control' of government—will
> > > > allow the weak to control the strong. And that isn't just if it is
> > > > like: two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper. Having
> > > > controls in the Constitution that mandate justice and fairness will
> > > > allow the voters to decide controversial issues WITHIN the bounds of
> > > > justice and fairness. No biased group gets to define justice and
> > > > fairness so as to allow them to exploit others for their own selfish
> > > > gain. The best route to saving the USA, as well as our entire
> > > > socioeconomic system, is to strip all biased groups of power over the
> > > > course of government. Once that happens, there won't be any more
> > > > pressure to have governments become all things for all people, which
> > > > as we should know by now ( but Obama doesn't), doesn't work! — John
> > > > A. Armistead —
>
> > > > On Sep 6, 11:48 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 5, 5:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Dear Studio:
> > > > > > Since both of those are issues of
> > > > > > high controversy, the American People should be allowed to decide
> > once
> > > > > > and for all in direct referenda.
>
> > > > > I'm in TOTAL agreement with that!
> > > > > However, Republitards will remind you we live in a Republic, not a
> > > > > Democracy.
> > > > > And neither of the 2 major parties actually want people to decide by
> > > > > referendum.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment