SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kevin Rose who wrote (37323)2/14/2005 10:55:11 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
”The founding fathers designed a framework that would adapt over time, to the changing views of morality of its citizens, while retaining certain immutable tenets: the inalienable rights of men; the limited role of government; the checks and balances of power.

A moral code or view involves the treatment of a moral idea. As in our earlier example ‘deceit’ is a clear and fixed moral idea that may be viewed as good or bad depending on the context. (strategy in chess vs lying about a man’s character or conduct). Again, the story of Huckleberry Finn is a good example of how American views on morality have struggled and adapted within the constitutional framework.

”They attempt to redefine which rights are 'inalienable', and usurp equal protection, by attacking the rights of homosexuals.

Let’s get one thing straight. Human power organizations are corrupt whether they are political authority, social authority, religious authority, or tyrannical in nature. It does little good to point the finger at one with the implication that an alternative is clean. So, it must be with great humility that anyone endorses a particular agenda, while knowing the nature of the forces one is dealing with. Attempting to corrupt the system is an endemic problem related to political agendas and the pundits who bolster them.

I personally feel that the enumeration of what is considered to be inalienable rights of human beings should be broadened. I am one of the few here who would endorse a constitutional convention to take a second look at the founding premises.

Which inalienable rights in particular are you referring too?

What rights of homosexuals are under attack?

”They attempt to redefine the limited role of government by masking their acts under the cloak of security in the 'war on terrorism'.”

Help me here to understand what the new definition that is being proposed would be?

”They attempt to destroy the role of both the minority party and the judicial system with petty power grabs, such as destroying the long standing power of the minority party to fillibuster, and proposing legislature that is supposedly immune to judicial review.”

Power grabs are what political parties do. Lots of things get proposed. That is fairly meaningless until or unless the proposition becomes viable. What legislature is immune to judicial review?

”I am continually disturbed when I see studies like the recent survey of high school age children who were asked if they believe that right of freedom should be sacrificed for security, and the majority say yes.

OK.

I am disturbed when I see these neocons scream about 'activist judges', when they clearly have no clue what the phrase means. In fact, I believe their leaders know what it means, and how they are deceiving people into with these phrases, but they simply view them as code words useful in their relentless thirst for more power.”

I was under the impression that an ‘activist judge’ is one who goes beyond the role of interpreting law by engaging in social engineering of some sort. I would also believe that some Repubs would stick that label on any liberal judge just to cause them to lose their position … and visa versa.

”When will the people who have been deceived wake up and realize that they have been turned into dupes of the rich and powerful who lust for even more?”

Good question.



To: Kevin Rose who wrote (37323)2/14/2005 11:34:06 AM
From: geode00  Respond to of 173976
 
"When will the people who have been deceived wake up and realize that they have been turned into dupes of the rich and powerful who lust for even more?"

======== They will not. The taking back of the republic will depend on those 50 million or so who did not vote.

The right wing will go the way of all cult-followers. We just have to watch them fade away without destroying the country.



To: Kevin Rose who wrote (37323)2/18/2005 2:46:37 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
What Freedom? What Liberty?

"The founding fathers designed a framework that would adapt over time, to the changing views of morality of its citizens, while retaining certain immutable tenets: the inalienable rights of men; the limited role of government; the checks and balances of power."

If freedom is an inalienable right, can it be signed away or bargained with?

The answer is “No. Inalienable specifically regards that which cannot be severed, surrendered, transferred, or alienated from the person in any way.

So how clear cut are the ideas we bandy about in these discussions under the veil of ‘freedom’. Not at all clear and in most cases not even applicable.

I would divide the freedom issue into two aspects of rights. Those rights that one is endowed with at birth as a matter of being granted noble human status. Secondly, those rights one is granted by the state in order to maintain and secure noble personhood.

It is a self-evident fact that noble human beings are endowed with the natural right to think, speak, and conduct themselves freely with regard to the well being of creatures and creation.

Do you currently have this level of freedom recognized by the government?

No, is the correct answer.

At the heart of this question we must look to the government to recognize and protect our freedom to conduct ourselves, at all times, in a conscionable manner. Anything else from the government, represents a coercive influence. Coercion in government is the antithesis of freedom.

It should therefore be self evident to all of us that liberty is represented by the following statement:

'No person shall be required to violate an issue of personal conscience in the performance of public or private service to another.'

If the government recognized this fundamental inalienable right of noble human beings, it would drastically alter the society in which we currently live.