Romney BS this morning but believed by all cons

[clistensprechen]

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

Speaking of the "unitary executive", what is BHO's position on that, eh?

We'll have to wait to see if he asserts that. He hasn't so far, but that's not to say Dubya didn't set that precedent.  Dubya will come back to haunt you! His legacy just won't go away.

[wbcoleman]

So Clara, it is your contention that our creator(s) did not bestow us with inalienable rights?  That government did?

It is my contention that if any creator bestowed any unalienable rights, humans can't take them away.  The unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence can be taken away by government by due process, therefore either the creator is less powerful than human beings or doesn't exist.  The latter is most likely IMHO.

Human rights are granted by the government:  That is the recipe for totalitarianism.

Exactly why cons have succeeded under Gingrich's "permanent majority plan" and why oligarchs again strive to insist on their view of their Divine Right to Rule. Of course it is. What prevents it is checks and balances vs the nonsense about "separation of powers" tommyrot.

These comments are completely wrong-headed.

The Founders felt that certain rights were INALIENABLE and that they were derived from mankind's CREATOR.  They felt that, while government was meant to be the GUARANTOR of natural rights, government was not the SOURCE.

You really don't see the difference?

The difference doesn't matter because the Constitution didn't recognize any unalienable rights of women, children, Indians or slaves, and here you stand before me inferring that they did.  Your idea of a creator is a failure.

You really are a little weak on the Declaration!  After claiming the "inalienable" natural rights, the Declaration goes on to say:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

See, when the People proposed and ratified the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, they were exercising their right to alter our beloved Constitution, and to vindicate those rights previously unprotected.

[clistensprechen]

Ah! At last we agree that the government gets it power by the consent of the people, which gave their consent to relinquish their "natural right" to due process!

One problem: women, Indians, and slaves didn't give their consent and their unalienable natural rights were nonetheless NOT granted, and without their consent.

[wbcoleman]

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

Speaking of the "unitary executive", what is BHO's position on that, eh?

We'll have to wait to see if he asserts that. He hasn't so far, but that's not to say Dubya didn't set that precedent.  Dubya will come back to haunt you! His legacy just won't go away.

Why, he has gone so far as to assert that he alone can determine when the Senate is or is not in recess, not the Senate itself!

[clistensprechen]

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

Speaking of the "unitary executive", what is BHO's position on that, eh?

We'll have to wait to see if he asserts that. He hasn't so far, but that's not to say Dubya didn't set that precedent.  Dubya will come back to haunt you! His legacy just won't go away.

Why, he has gone so far as to assert that he alone can determine when the Senate is or is not in recess, not the Senate itself!

:bull:

[wbcoleman]

Ah! At last we agree that the government gets it power by the consent of the people, which gave their consent to relinquish their "natural right" to due process!

One problem: women, Indians, and slaves didn't give their consent and their unalienable natural rights were nonetheless NOT granted, and without their consent.

We agree that the government gets its power by the consent of the governed, but you go further to make the incorrect claim that the government is the source of natural rights.

And slavery does not exist, while women, Indians, [and blacks] are all in a position to give their consent.

[wbcoleman]

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

Speaking of the "unitary executive", what is BHO's position on that, eh?

We'll have to wait to see if he asserts that. He hasn't so far, but that's not to say Dubya didn't set that precedent.  Dubya will come back to haunt you! His legacy just won't go away.

Why, he has gone so far as to assert that he alone can determine when the Senate is or is not in recess, not the Senate itself!

:bull:

Sorry, my dear, avoidance of inconvenient facts doesn't make them go away!

[clistensprechen]

Ah! At last we agree that the government gets it power by the consent of the people, which gave their consent to relinquish their "natural right" to due process!

One problem: women, Indians, and slaves didn't give their consent and their unalienable natural rights were nonetheless NOT granted, and without their consent.

We agree that the government gets its power by the consent of the governed, but you go further to make the incorrect claim that the government is the source of natural rights.

And slavery does not exist, while women, Indians, [and blacks] are all in a position to give their consent.

After a shitload of Amendments, you mean. The government alienated those so-called inalienable rights until those Amendments were ratified, and even after that, Jim Crow alienated all those inalienable rights of blacks, so basically, your creator amounts to a dogpile.

[clistensprechen]

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

Speaking of the "unitary executive", what is BHO's position on that, eh?

We'll have to wait to see if he asserts that. He hasn't so far, but that's not to say Dubya didn't set that precedent.  Dubya will come back to haunt you! His legacy just won't go away.

Why, he has gone so far as to assert that he alone can determine when the Senate is or is not in recess, not the Senate itself!

:bull:

Sorry, my dear, avoidance of inconvenient facts doesn't make them go away!

If that BS was factual, inconvenient or otherwise, you'd have a point.  You don't.

[wbcoleman]

Ah! At last we agree that the government gets it power by the consent of the people, which gave their consent to relinquish their "natural right" to due process!

One problem: women, Indians, and slaves didn't give their consent and their unalienable natural rights were nonetheless NOT granted, and without their consent.

We agree that the government gets its power by the consent of the governed, but you go further to make the incorrect claim that the government is the source of natural rights.

And slavery does not exist, while women, Indians, [and blacks] are all in a position to give their consent.

After a shitload of Amendments, you mean. The government alienated those so-called inalienable rights until those Amendments were ratified, and even after that, Jim Crow alienated all those inalienable rights of blacks, so basically, your creator amounts to a dogpile.

Your actual point is beyond me.  You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Over time, the American people have exercised their G-d-given power to alter the government, creating "a more perfect union".

[wbcoleman]

It is not as long as our system of checks and balances isn't gutted, but that's what the party of "separation of powers" and "unitary executive" elite oligarchs have been doing.

Speaking of the "unitary executive", what is BHO's position on that, eh?

We'll have to wait to see if he asserts that. He hasn't so far, but that's not to say Dubya didn't set that precedent.  Dubya will come back to haunt you! His legacy just won't go away.

Why, he has gone so far as to assert that he alone can determine when the Senate is or is not in recess, not the Senate itself!

:bull:

Sorry, my dear, avoidance of inconvenient facts doesn't make them go away!

If that BS was factual, inconvenient or otherwise, you'd have a point.  You don't.

Sorry, sweetheart, he did it not once but twice!

[clistensprechen]

Ah! At last we agree that the government gets it power by the consent of the people, which gave their consent to relinquish their "natural right" to due process!

One problem: women, Indians, and slaves didn't give their consent and their unalienable natural rights were nonetheless NOT granted, and without their consent.

We agree that the government gets its power by the consent of the governed, but you go further to make the incorrect claim that the government is the source of natural rights.

And slavery does not exist, while women, Indians, [and blacks] are all in a position to give their consent.

After a shitload of Amendments, you mean. The government alienated those so-called inalienable rights until those Amendments were ratified, and even after that, Jim Crow alienated all those inalienable rights of blacks, so basically, your creator amounts to a dogpile.

Your actual point is beyond me.  You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Over time, the American people have exercised their G-d-given power to alter the government, creating "a more perfect union".

Inalienable rights were alienated and you're pretending they weren't.  What rights we have, we fought for and had to fight religionists to do it, which means that the God of the religionists was and still is defeatable by humans.

[kentay]

I don't think God chooses winners and loser
. kentay .

Have you ever heard of "God's chosen people" ?

i was responding here to your lack of knowledge regarding choosing winners and losers.
I refer you to
Deuteronomy 7:7-8
"The LORD set his heart on you and chose you, even though you didn't outnumber all the other people. You were the smallest of all nations.
You were chosen because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors. So he used his mighty hand to bring you out. He freed you from slavery under Pharaoh (the king of Egypt)."

Here is an instance wherein God chose the winners (Israelites) and the losers (the Pharaoh and his army). Obviously Moses required God's intervention in parting the Red Sea on behalf of the winners.

RWE, the Verses you selected are talking about individual people like you and I,  not nations. You must always read the verses before and after your selected verse in order to understand the verse you selected. What you did is what many people do when selecting a verse out of a paragraph and it changes the entire meaning, which they use to put down others with.  kentay

Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 7:1-11

Here is a strict caution against all friendship and fellowship with idols and idolaters.  Those who are in communion with God, must have no communication with the unfruitful works of darkness.  Limiting the orders to destroy, to the nations here mentioned, plainly shows that after ages were not to draw this into a precedent.  A proper understanding of the evil of sin, and of the mystery of a crucified Savior, will enable us to perceive the justice of God in all his punishments, temporal and eternal.  We must deal decidedly with our lusts that war against our souls; let us not show them any mercy, but mortify, and crucify, and utterly destroy them.  Thousands in the world that now is, have been undone by ungodly marriages; for there is more likelihood that the good will be perverted, than that the bad will be converted.  Those who, in choosing yoke-fellows, keep not within the bounds of a profession of religion, cannot promise themselves helps meet for them.

[Gnosisquest]

I don't think God chooses winners and loser
. kentay .

Have you ever heard of "God's chosen people" ?

i was responding here to your lack of knowledge regarding choosing winners and losers.
I refer you to
Deuteronomy 7:7-8
"The LORD set his heart on you and chose you, even though you didn't outnumber all the other people. You were the smallest of all nations.
You were chosen because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors. So he used his mighty hand to bring you out. He freed you from slavery under Pharaoh (the king of Egypt)."

Here is an instance wherein God chose the winners (Israelites) and the losers (the Pharaoh and his army). Obviously Moses required God's intervention in parting the Red Sea on behalf of the winners.

RWE, the Verses you selected are talking about individual people like you and I,  not nations. You must always read the verses before and after your selected verse in order to understand the verse you selected. What you did is what many people do when selecting a verse out of a paragraph and it changes the entire meaning, which they use to put down others with.  kentay

Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 7:1-11

Here is a strict caution against all friendship and fellowship with idols and idolaters.  Those who are in communion with God, must have no communication with the unfruitful works of darkness.  Limiting the orders to destroy, to the nations here mentioned, plainly shows that after ages were not to draw this into a precedent.  A proper understanding of the evil of sin, and of the mystery of a crucified Savior, will enable us to perceive the justice of God in all his punishments, temporal and eternal.  We must deal decidedly with our lusts that war against our souls; let us not show them any mercy, but mortify, and crucify, and utterly destroy them.  Thousands in the world that now is, have been undone by ungodly marriages; for there is more likelihood that the good will be perverted, than that the bad will be converted.  Those who, in choosing yoke-fellows, keep not within the bounds of a profession of religion, cannot promise themselves helps meet for them.

I was just wondering if the cause of the primitive society in the US is clinging to a book of fables that gave us which hunts, talking snakes and donkeys. Female discrimination, shortened life spans, cruelty and wars to make primitive people look good. This fable peddled by some people who feel they are superior because they are in possession of the ancient fertility cult's "Tree of Life" has been abandoned as a model for society by more civilized nations!

[RWE]

I refer you to
Deuteronomy 7:7-8
"The LORD set his heart on you and chose you, even though you didn't outnumber all the other people. You were the smallest of all nations.
You were chosen because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors. So he used his mighty hand to bring you out. He freed you from slavery under Pharaoh (the king of Egypt)."

Here is an instance wherein God chose the winners (Israelites) and the losers (the Pharaoh and his army). Obviously Moses required God's intervention in parting the Red Sea on behalf of the winners.

RWE, the Verses you selected are talking about individual people like you and I,  not nations. You must always read the verses before and after your selected verse in order to understand the verse you selected. What you did is what many people do when selecting a verse out of a paragraph and it changes the entire meaning, which they use to put down others with.  kentay
[/quote]
Read it again. It's referring to Israel as a Nation. How can an individual person be outnumbered by another individual person?