Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4428896 - 07/20/05 03:02 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

John Roberts was quoted as saying, "They should have beaten the little hooligan".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4428963 - 07/20/05 03:20 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

No, he wasn't. Read the French fry decision. He followed established law and ruled that there was no basis for relief in the law. He didn't try to make law, he interpreted and followed law, which is what judges should do.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4428979 - 07/20/05 03:23 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

joke Audio pronunciation of "joke" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jk)
n.

1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal.
1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
2. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4429023 - 07/20/05 03:33 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
Perhaps you've read this portion of the Constitution before? Not to mention the 9th and 10th amendments as well as the 4th.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is abundantly clear not only from the Constitution but from the stated intent of its framers that government is here to protect our rights not create them.




And the right to privacy and abortion on demand is found exactly where in this? Please expound at your leisure. I don't think that the stated intent of the framers was to allow abortion, which was a possible, though much riskier, choice even then. And it does seem to me that the Supreme Court did indeed create a right to privacy that does not exist in the text of the Constitution. What exactly do you mean by "protect our rights not create them?" Our rights are what our government says they are. This is of course strictly from a legal standpoint. But the safety of legal surety is what government is all about. We cannot have every nitwit on the street declaring that he has a right to punch us in the nose. Then I will have to declare that I have the right to tie him up and make him watch me fuck his wife. If you want to argue in favor of anarchy, that's fine, if stupid. It is not a place I want to live in and I have zero interest in that particularly nonsensical argument. I don't want to live in an anarchy and you don't want to live in one with me, because I'm old and I'm mean when I need to be


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4429035 - 07/20/05 03:37 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

cb9fl said:
I like to lick the balls of vervet monkeys and ring-tailed lemurs because they have that delightfully musky scent that makes me shiver




This is not OTD


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4429081 - 07/20/05 03:48 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

If you want to create a thread about abortion or what defines a person's rights be my guest. I don't think this is the proper thread for those specific discussions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4430097 - 07/20/05 07:36 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
And the right to privacy and abortion on demand is found exactly where in this?



This was already answered in previous posts. The concept of natural rights had a large role in the crafting of the founding of our country. References to the concept are contained in the constitution and the bill of rights.

Quote:

What exactly do you mean by "protect our rights not create them?"



From The Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" The 9th amendment (again), "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Quote:

Our rights are what our government says they are.



Wrong. I suggest that you educate yourself. Start by reading some of the documents of the founding of this nation and the works of those who influenced it. Pay careful attention to the terms "rights" and "natural rights," as these are key in your intellectual growth on the subject. Whether or not you agree with the concept of natural rights is a moot point when attempting to understand just what they are and what people mean when they speak of them.

Quote:

We cannot have every nitwit on the street declaring that he has a right to punch us in the nose. Then I will have to declare that I have the right to tie him up and make him watch me fuck his wife. If you want to argue in favor of anarchy...



Rights, as understood by the founders and those willing to educate themselves on the subject, have absolutely nothing to do with giving a person the right to punch another in the nose, tie another person up and fuck his wife, nor anarchy (in the sense of disorder or chaos).


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4434234 - 07/21/05 04:01 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I'm sorry, but it is the government's role to define what the rights of it's citizens are. In the case of a democracy, it should be those elected by the populace, not some "elite" group of oligarchs . Who is to decide what a "natural right" is? I, frankly, don't believe in them. They are fairy tales for little children.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434239 - 07/21/05 04:03 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Further, I think the concept of a Creator is for the weak of mind.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434371 - 07/21/05 04:24 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I'm sorry, but it is the government's role to define what the rights of it's citizens are.



Apparently you are unable to understand the 9th amendment, or the concept of original intent. Please quote The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any relevant document written by the founders to support your opinion.

Quote:

In the case of a democracy, it should be those elected by the populace, not some "elite" group of oligarchs . Who is to decide what a "natural right" is?



We do not live in a democracy, the country was not founded as a democracy and you are totally ignorant of the definition of natural rights.

Quote:

I, frankly, don't believe in them. They are fairy tales for little children.



You don't even know what they are! Attempting an intelligent discussion with you on this subject is like attempting the same discussion with a little child.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434432 - 07/21/05 04:34 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, I think the concept of a Creator is for the weak of mind.



Your opinion on the existence of a creator is irrelevant to the definition of natural rights as understood by those who drafted the constitution and the bill of rights. Just as your opinion would be irrelevant to the definition of sin by those who wrote the Bible.

The WHOLE POINT of Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of a subject rests on understanding the meaning of the document, the terms used and original intent. It is my understanding that the founders of the nation had a definition of rights which said that rights pre-exist government and it was their opinion that governments are instituted (in part) to protect these rights. If you have references from them which contradict this, please provide them. Thanks.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4434497 - 07/21/05 04:49 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Prosgeopax said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I'm sorry, but it is the government's role to define what the rights of it's citizens are.



Apparently you are unable to understand the 9th amendment, or the concept of original intent. Please quote The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any relevant document written by the founders to support your opinion.




That would actually be the Bill of Rights. It's existence is a de facto validation of my position and repudiation of yours. It exists solely to , here we go, define our rights.

Quote:



Quote:

In the case of a democracy, it should be those elected by the populace, not some "elite" group of oligarchs . Who is to decide what a "natural right" is?



We do not live in a democracy, the country was not founded as a democracy and you are totally ignorant of the definition of natural rights.




We live in a representative democracy. I do believe that I said our rights should be decided by those whom we elect to represent us, not appointed oligarchs and I will now add, who are not accountable to the will of the populace.

Quote:


Quote:

I, frankly, don't believe in them. They are fairy tales for little children.



You don't even know what they are! Attempting an intelligent discussion with you on this subject is like attempting the same discussion with a little child.




I know exactly what they are, fairy tales.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4434556 - 07/21/05 04:59 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That would actually be the Bill of Rights. It's existence is a de facto validation of my position and repudiation of yours. It exists solely to , here we go, define our rights.



WRONG. Read the way they're written. The first ammendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The rest of them are written in similar language. They are not an enumeration of rights at all, but rather restrictions on the government's ability to violate those rights.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: DNKYD]
    #4434595 - 07/21/05 05:11 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I was reluctant at first, but now I welcome this choice.

He's not a clearly good choice for Bush either- he could go either way. I don't know. So far, Roberts hasn't actually given his own opinion on anything through his actions...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Silversoul]
    #4435236 - 07/21/05 07:28 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:

The rest of them are written in similar language. They are not an enumeration of rights at all, but rather restrictions on the government's ability to violate those rights.




I fail to see the distinction. In furtherance of my point that government defines rights I would point to all legislation. For instance, the government has granted certain farmers the right to receive money for certain actions, for instance, not growing certain crops. Your rights are what your government says they are. Here we can change the actors in our government if we don't like them, other places it is more difficult. That is irrelevant to the point. The man with the gun tells you what your rights are. Any other belief is childish.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4435559 - 07/21/05 08:45 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I fail to see the distinction. In furtherance of my point that government defines rights I would point to all legislation. For instance, the government has granted certain farmers the right to receive money for certain actions, for instance, not growing certain crops.



It is not my fault that you cannot differentiate between a right and a priviledge.

Quote:

Your rights are what your government says they are.



If that were true, then the term "rights" would lose all meaning.

Quote:

Here we can change the actors in our government if we don't like them, other places it is more difficult. That is irrelevant to the point. The man with the gun tells you what your rights are.



No, he tells you what rights he is willing to recognize. If he doesn't respect your rights, that does not mean that you don't have them.

Quote:

Any other belief is childish.



That's quite a childish attitude to have.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4435749 - 07/21/05 09:36 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

The point of this line of discussion is whether or not the government is legally obligated to avoid violating a right to privacy by the Constitution. You steadfastly ignore the concept of rights as embodied in the constitution, and in all the supporting documents of the era. You fail to give any rational consideration to the 9th amendment and it's explicit wording on the matter (as well as ignoring the wording of the other amendments of The Bill of Rights as Paradigm has pointed out). You have failed to provide ANY supporting references for your position, but instead rely on the fallacious argument of attacking the concept of natural rights instead. That you find the concept of natural rights childish is irrelevant to the interpretation of the bill of rights as written and as intended.

To understand natural rights requires that one use the faculty of reason in identifying conditions of human interaction. Natural rights can be identified by applying the following parameters to human action: everyone may do or refrain from doing as he damn well pleases, including protecting the exercise of his liberties from the transgressions of another as long as he does not interfere with another's freedom to do or refrain from doing as he damn well pleases. All natural rights can be identified in this manner. Therefore, there is no natural right to take another man's life, to force him to pay for farm subsidies, or force him to pay for your health care. Natural rights are not limited to what you may currently enumerate unless you are capable of imagining all possible non-aggressive actions a person may take. Anyone may identify what is a natural right by applying this reasoning, but this does not mean that he must believe that natural rights should be protected (if you were capable of understanding the concept I assume that you would fall into this category).

It must also be understood that the Constitution was a charter of the various states as representatives of the people which created the federal government and delegated to it certain duties it is to perform as an agent of the states and the people. In other words, the U.S. government was conceived as being a servant of the people as opposed to the European concept of the people being subjects of the government. You consistently argue in support of the mindset of Old Europe which the founders were seeking to leave behind. Hence the moniker, 'neocon' is quite fitting.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4435766 - 07/21/05 09:42 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best.

Quote:

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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.




Quote:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: newuser1492]
    #4435773 - 07/21/05 09:44 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

TJ was the man. :thumbup:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination [Re: Silversoul]
    #4437847 - 07/22/05 11:47 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

You all seem to be arguing for some kind of "virtual" group of rights. I have no use for "virtual" rights. The only rights that exist are those which you can secure. Call them "practical" rights. All others are the product of useless navel gazing and merely intellectual masturbation. They bear no fruit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why Americans Must Vote for John Kerry
( 1 2 3 all )
Zahid 4,717 40 08/29/04 02:08 PM
by Zahid
* Confidence in Bush Slipping Xochitl 833 11 10/04/03 08:47 AM
by Learyfan
* .
( 1 2 all )
dr_gonz 4,219 30 02/16/04 05:02 PM
by Innvertigo
* Is Bush delusional? Skikid16 657 9 09/30/04 04:03 PM
by CJay
* Would Bush risk his own country for votes?
( 1 2 3 all )
Tasty_Smurf_House 2,782 57 07/21/04 03:50 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* BEYOND BUSH - Part I RonoS 1,457 12 07/02/03 03:07 PM
by Rono
* Bush, Kerry, and the CFR, It's All In The Family ekomstop 491 0 10/03/04 06:57 PM
by ekomstop
* John Kerry hates african americans. tak 944 4 09/21/04 10:56 PM
by DigitalDuality

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,726 topic views. 1 members, 8 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.