Hmmm...Iranian Attack Subs

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
Riiight!

Move along folks, there really isn't anything to see in the above post.

FatPaste,

Phelps believes that American soldiers "get what they deserve" because they serve a federal government which tolerates homosexuality.

You believe that American soldiers "get what they deserve" because they serve a federal government which is engaged in wars which you deem immoral.


As I said, you are no better than him and just as ignorant.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B
Stop wasting your time and talents. Get a real job, you can thank me later. [/B]

Yeah--be just like paste, changing the world in Pelican parts Off-topic forum.
This is the surest way to get results, or the surest way to express idiotic opinions without fear of reprisal.

You must need that F-350 to haul around your tremendous ego--it surely isn't needed to carry around your friends.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by fastpat

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to be the one "leg-humping."
You should really stick to cut-and-paste. Whenever you try to communicate original thought, you show your ignorance.
Twit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you're able to demonstrate substance to the last statement above, come back and do it.

I got to say this made me laugh. Pat was the one who started the whole "leg-humping" with this...

Originally posted by fastpat
... And, last, your leg humping militarism be damned.

Then he demands proof when told he is the humper not the humpee.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by allaircooled
I never said that I had given you anything patty. I said that I serve my country for you and everyone else. Its the Constitution that gives you your rights.

The Constitution gives no rights at all. It requires the government to protect rights that are mine, and yours, intrinsically. Naturally, the US government doesn't really do its' required duty very often.

I'd suggest you get a better understanding what rights are and the operation of and how the Constitution was created, and by whom.

After all, you've stated that your job is to protect it, don't you think you ought to know more about that which you're working so hard to protect?

[allaircooled]

I knew you where going to give me some kind of lesson on the
Constitution when I stated that. I have read alot of your pathetic posts and predicted your actions quite well.

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.

You can argue my word usage if you want. I still don't care. I am just an idiot in the military waiting my turn to kill some "god damn Australians"
Ned: "umm I think we're fighting Canadians"
Uncle Jimbo: "Canadians, Australians, whats the difference?"

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally posted by fastpat
The Constitution gives no rights at all. It requires the government to protect rights that are mine, and yours, intrinsically. Naturally, the US government doesn't really do its' required duty very often.

I'd suggest you get a better understanding what rights are and the operation of and how the Constitution was created, and by whom.

After all, you've stated that your job is to protect it, don't you think you ought to know more about that which you're working so hard to protect?

So you feel you have inalienable rights just because you are a US citizen yet you piss all over the Government that grants you these rights? The Constitution was built by the people for the people but in fact it was the Government that was and is the people - some were voted in others assumed the post. They are doing the work while others cry and whine and contribute nothing to change.

You want all the cake yet don't want to mix the batter and cook the thing. Entitlements Entitlements Entitlements Gimme Gimme Gimme - sounds like the very folks you despise doesn't it?

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally posted by allaircooled
...I have 11 years in and 9 more to go. Then I can get a so called "real job"...

I think I can speak for a bunch of folks here - we truly thank you for your service and what you are doing for us. I know I pray for you guys. Sometimes we get frustrated with the administration (as I can only imagine you all do as well) but we honor your commitment and loyalty.

You guys are the ones risking your lives to keep phat scat and the rest of the yakkers warm and cozy in their safe world and expensive cars.

God bless you and know that there are some of us who care and respect your commitment.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by fastpat
The Constitution gives no rights at all. It requires the government to protect rights that are mine, and yours, intrinsically.

in·trin·sic (n-trnzk, -sk)
adj.
1. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
2. Anatomy Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts. Used of certain nerves and muscles.


So what rights do you have that are "intrinsic"?
I am truly curious what you think are inherently your rights as opposed to those given in the Constitution.

Oh, and please spare me the crap like, "If you don't know what your rights are, I am not going to teach them to you."

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
So you feel you have inalienable rights just because you are a US citizen yet you piss all over the Government that grants you these rights? The Constitution was built by the people for the people but in fact it was the Government that was and is the people - some were voted in others assumed the post. They are doing the work while others cry and whine and contribute nothing to change.

You want all the cake yet don't want to mix the batter and cook the thing. Entitlements Entitlements Entitlements Gimme Gimme Gimme - sounds like the very folks you despise doesn't it?

+1

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
I think I can speak for a bunch of folks here - we truly thank you for your service and what you are doing for us. I know I pray for you guys. Sometimes we get frustrated with the administration (as I can only imagine you all do as well) but we honor your commitment and loyalty.

You guys are the ones risking your lives to keep phat scat and the rest of the yakkers warm and cozy in their safe world and expensive cars.

God bless you and know that there are some of us who care and respect your commitment.

+2

[allaircooled]

I think I can speak for a bunch of folks here - we truly thank you for your service and what you are doing for us. I know I pray for you guys. Sometimes we get frustrated with the administration (as I can only imagine you all do as well) but we honor your commitment and loyalty.

Thanks guys. The best thing in the world is when a total stranger walks up to me while I am in uniform and thanks me for my service. Pat doesn't bother me. I wont let him. There are some real good people in the military. For some the military was the best and/or only choice they had. Not all of us agree with the administration but we have a job to do.

Now what was this thread about again?

[dhoward]

Originally posted by allaircooled


Now what was this thread about again?

Scary Iranian submarines...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tobster1911
in�trin�sic (n-trnzk, -sk)
adj.
1. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
2. Anatomy Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts. Used of certain nerves and muscles.


So what rights do you have that are "intrinsic"?
I am truly curious what you think are inherently your rights as opposed to those given in the Constitution.

Oh, and please spare me the crap like, "If you don't know what your rights are, I am not going to teach them to you."

The basic premise used by the founders was the concept of natural rights as expounded by John Locke. Most of the founders were well educated men and understood the concept thoroughly, while I'm still learning the full depth of the meaning, I do adhere to it as much as possible in my thinking. To give the most full understanding of the operation of the Constitution as Amended by the Bill of Rights you must get an understanding of natural rights, or read the voluminous Federalist Papers often called the Constitution's owners manual. For balance, the equally voluminous Anti-federalist Papers should also be read. Learning what natural rights are and how they belong to every human intrinsically is much easier. You can read the "Papers" from time to time to learn what each founder intended when he wrote them.

From Wikipedia,

Natural rights (also called moral rights) are universal rights that are seen as not contingent upon being granted by government. Government may violate a natural right, but in doing so it is not eliminating the existence of that right. For example, if there is a natural right to be free, then a government that enslaves an individual is violating an individual's right to liberty rather than eliminating the existence of that right. Hence, natural rights provide a moral justification for condemning actions taken against individuals by governments or other individuals. Those who advocate natural rights hold that there are certain liberties that should not be violated regardless of other considerations. This contrasts with legal positivism which holds that the only rights that can exist are legal rights. John Locke was one of the first Western theorists to conceptualize rights as natural and inalienable, that is, they could not be bought or sold, but were derived from common human nature. Many philosophers and statesmen have designed lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty, as these are considered to be the two highest priorities. R. M. Hare has argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. The existence of natural rights may be derived by individuals in various ways, such as through philosophical reasoning or religious study. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through "reason" alone. The term "natural rights" lost popularity, particularly after World War II and has been largely replaced with the term human rights, because natural law has become controversial.[1]

Note that the controversial aspect of natural rights is solely from the progressives who believe that all goodness comes from dedication and surrender to government as expounded by Jean-Jacque Rousseau in his 1765 treatise Social Contract written to justify the totalitarian rule of the French monarchy. Rousseau's concepts were adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their philosophy, communism. This philosophy was the basis of the Fabian Socialists in Britain as well, who really dominated Britain after World War One through to today.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by fastpat
The Constitution gives no rights at all. It requires the government to protect rights that are mine, and yours, intrinsically. Naturally, the US government doesn't really do its' required duty very often.

If your rights are not protected, or at a minimum, accepted, it is the same as not having any because anyone can take them from you.

I suggest you do some travelling in the third world and you will find this to be true: Those who have guns (might), have rights, (makes right) and everyone else does not.

No one is saying to place all trust in the gov't. That is foolish and not what the framers wanted anyway. But this anarchist individualist commune society that you expound is fantasy and unworkable.

Why? BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO ALWAYS DO WHAT IS FAIR, RIGHT AND JUST. Jesus new this, As did Siddhartha, Mohammed, Confusions, Lao Tzu, Moses, and anyone who has ever attempted to lay down a workable moral or legal code.

But we're talking about submarines, right?

My favorite ones are yellow.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by fastpat
The basic premise used by the founders was the concept of natural rights as expounded by John Locke. Most of the founders were well educated men and understood the concept thoroughly, while I'm still learning the full depth of the meaning, I do adhere to it as much as possible in my thinking. To give the most full understanding of the operation of the Constitution as Amended by the Bill of Rights you must get an understanding of natural rights, or read the voluminous Federalist Papers often called the Constitution's owners manual.

That is very nice of you to admit that the founders took this into account when they set up the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That was not my question though.

You stated that the Constitution does not give you your rights. I would like to know what specific rights you claim are yours that were not given (or at least affirmed) to you by the Constitution?

Keep in mind that some, as you said above, were accounted for by the founders. Which ones did they leave out?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tobster1911
That is very nice of you to admit that the founders took this into account when they set up the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That was not my question though.

You asked what my rights originated from and I explained, at lenght, what my philosophy on rights is.

Keep in mind that some, as you said above, were accounted for by the founders. Which ones did they leave out?

The ones covered by the Ninth Amendment. The founders, wisely in my opinion, knew that they could not list all of the rights of man in the Constitution to be protected, so the Ninth was written to protect unlisted rights.

This is all in the history of the founding of the federal government, haven't you read any of it? That is, it's in the original documents, which I've read, but lacking in most history books written after 1950, or slightly earlier. Funny, though, is the fact that nearly everyone in the 18th and 19th century had the concept of natural rights well in hand. It's why, for example, the Second Amendment is written in the language it is written in; from the perspective of rights as private property. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he included the philosophy in the words "unlienable rights", which refers to intrinsic rights.