- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Um, no, the Constitution is predicated on the existence of natural rights.
You may have to explain to him who those people are. It's pretty apparent he's never heard of them.
Their opinions aren't relevant to the situation. Mostly because the situation was no different when they wrote the constitution. Partially because they're dead.
Have it your way then, kid. If you won't even recognize the basic foundation of rights upon which the Constitution rests, and if you can't even read the Ninth Amendment and understand what it says, it is a waste of time to attempt to converse any further with you on the subject.Nope, that's nothing but flowery language. There are no such things as natural rights. Maybe it makes you feel better about the world to think that there are, but you're only lying to yourself.
digsbe said:Which party best supports civil rights?
It also makes it a lot easier to write a bill of rights if you don't have to write down every single right a person has.Even if there were no such thing as natural rights, the very fact that a government presupposes that there are is the greatest benefit to its citizenry.
There are no homosexual Muslims. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says so.Whose civil rights? The civil rights of a Protestant, heterosexual, white male from the upper middle class? Or the civil rights of an Islamic, gay, black female who was born into poverty?
There are no homosexual Muslims. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says so.
Have it your way then, kid.
it is a waste of time to attempt to converse any further with you on the subject.
Gov. Schwartzenegger is a staunch supporter of SSM. Is your statement a fact or opinion? I'm a Republican. I support those things. Misconception...or reality. I don't know.
So in other words, you have no actual arguments to make, so you'll just try to marginalize mine by accusing me of being young and not 'getting it?'. Weak.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I am shocked, shocked, that you would come to this conclusion.No doubt there are some very progressive Republicans but the poll question was about the two parties and not the individuals and when one examines the records of the two parties since 1976 when the Republican party turned its back on the Equal Rights Amendment one can only conclude the Democratic party has the better record on civil rights.
Pearls before swine, TD. Pearls before swine.you get schooled and you start posting even lamer stuff. The bill of rights was written by people who operated under certain assumptions. TO claim that what THEY WROTE is detached from those assumptions is assinine
you get schooled and you start posting even lamer stuff.
The bill of rights was written by people who operated under certain assumptions.
TO claim that what THEY WROTE is detached from those assumptions is assinine
I say ‘neither’ party is the best at supporting civil rights. Both parties have created the illusion that they opposing factions when they are the same beast trying to control us all and funnel our money into their pockets.
No; it’s the reality of politics in America.This is like the 'too cool for school' approach to politics. I just don't see its appeal.
No doubt there are some very progressive Republicans but the poll question was about the two parties and not the individuals and when one examines the records of the two parties since 1976 when the Republican party turned its back on the Equal Rights Amendment one can only conclude the Democratic party has the better record on civil rights.
How would you give them an "equal playing field"?
The majority of republicans are against SSM, and LGBT rights. That's the biggest civil rights movement of today IMO. So I would say democrats.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?