God Given Right!

[ForeverAutumn]

Or... from here....http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr3.html



(Got all that?)

Um...sorry I asked. 'scuze me, I have a thing that I have to go to (backs out the door, turns and runs like hell).

[markw]

Bear in mind that none of the above poop is actually in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

"National Socialist Fascist Communist Healthcare" by Bill Huff ... can you say full of sh!t.

Neither is free health care.

[GMichael]

could you be more specific GM?

I don't think so.

FA,

You could just choose my first answer.

Feanor,

It was just something I found on the internet. I don't really see it as the final word on anything. You know me. A joke at any expense.

[Feanor]

...
Feanor,

It was just something I found on the internet. I don't really see it as the final word on anything. You know me. A joke at any expense.

That's OK, GM. In any case that website is an interesting example of extreme but ill-informed opinons.

It is a fact that a number of the American Founders and Framers of the Consitution were skeptics who firmly believed that relgion ought to have no directly roll government nor the laws of the land. They believed in the thorough separation of the church and state. I have the impression that there is a substantial number of US citizens today who reject that concept.

Again, I believe that rights are defined by democrative governments. They aren't God-given. Rights assumed to be God-given are doubtful because even "people of faith" can't decide on what God really expects of us.

From time to time democacies do get it wrong about what rights should be. For example:

• People have a right to free speech
• Free speech implies the right to give unlimited amounts of money to support candiates' campaigns
• According to common law, corporations are defined to be "people"
• Ergo corporations have the right to given unlimited amouts to fund political campaigns.

But this logic fails to distinguish between human rights and rights of artificial entities such as corporations. It has no regard for the concept of equality of human beings but instead takes a "one dollar, one vote" view of equality.

[GMichael]

That's OK, GM. In any case that website is an interesting example of extreme but ill-informed opinons.

It is a fact that a number of the American Founders and Framers of the Consitution were skeptics who firmly believed that relgion ought to have no directly roll government nor the laws of the land. They believed in the thorough separation of the church and state. I have the impression that there is a substantial number of US citizens today who reject that concept.

Again, I believe that rights are defined by democrative governments. They aren't God-given. Rights assumed to be God-given are doubtful because even "people of faith" can't decide on what God really expects of us.

From time to time democacies do get it wrong about what rights should be. For example:

• People have a right to free speech
• Free speech implies the right to give unlimited amounts of money to support candiates' campaigns
• According to common law, corporations are defined to be "people"
• Ergo corporations have the right to given unlimited amouts to fund political campaigns.

But this logic fails to distinguish between human rights and rights of artificial entities such as corporations. It has no regard for the concept of equality of human beings but instead takes a "one dollar, one vote" view of equality.

Not sure how to eliminate all corporate funding of campaigns, but they should be limited somehow. Maybe a cap? Who decides what the cap is though? Politicians?

[Feanor]

Not sure how to eliminate all corporate funding of campaigns, but they should be limited somehow. Maybe a cap? Who decides what the cap is though? Politicians?

Who if not our elected representatives?

All politicians like campaign funding from whatever source; however some are more likely to attract corporate funding than others. Thus right-wing politicians are more likely to gain than the left-wing ones in general, and so are more likely to vote to permit corporate funding, don't you think?

[GMichael]

Who if not our elected representatives?

All politicians like campaign funding from whatever source; however some are more likely to attract corporate funding than others. Thus right-wing politicians are more likely to gain than the left-wing ones in general, and so are more likely to vote to permit corporate funding, don't you think?

I think that if you let those receiving the funds decide on the cap, then we'll have no cap. But who else is there? Kind of a catch 22 if you ask me.

Can we pressure them with the threat of voting for someone else? Maybe, but won't that someone else be one of them too?

[Feanor]

I think that if you let those receiving the funds decide on the cap, then we'll have no cap. But who else is there? Kind of a catch 22 if you ask me.

Can we pressure them with the threat of voting for someone else? Maybe, but won't that someone else be one of them too?

What I'm saying is if candidate 'A' thinks that he is likely to get less funding from corporations than his compeditor, candidate 'B', then 'A' if elected will likely vote to prevent or cap corporate contributions.