Text 11043, 245 rader
Skriven 2013-10-28 14:17:28 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 11014 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Ärende: APODs
=============
 Brer Lee Lofaso wrote to Brer Roy Witt about APODs:

 LL>>>>> You mean to tell me that Thomas Jefferson was *WRONG*???

 DD>>>> What did he say?

 LL>>> It is not so much what he said, but what he wrote.  And what Thomas
 LL>>> Jefferson wrote was most certain *NOT* inalienable rights.

 RW>> Do you know the difference?

 LL> Yes.  But then, I was trained at Harvard (on the Bayou).

What prison is that in?

 LL> As such, I would not expect Texans to understand.  Swedes, maybe.
 LL> But not Texans.

If anybody would know, it would most assuredly be a Texan.

I'd be skeptical of your opinion that a Svede would know anything except
how to pick his nose.

 LL>>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
 LL>>> created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
 LL>>> unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
 LL>>> pursuit of happiness."

 RW>> Natural (aka unalienable rights) and legal (aka inalienble) rights.
 RW>> They are two different types of rights:

 LL> Natural rights and legal rights are two very different things.

So are the two words in and un alienable.

 LL> Natural rights are based on natural law,

Or rights given to a person by their creator.

 LL>  legal rights are based on whatever the fuck kind of rights a control
 LL> freak might decide to grant you.

Like the Obama would take away, rather than grant you...

 RW>> Inalienable rights are legal rights bestowed onto a person by
 RW>> a given legal system or government, while unalienable rights are
 RW>> natural rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs
 RW>> of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal
 RW>> and inalienable

 LL> Legal rights bestowed are not the same thing as rights endowed upon.

So, you're saying that you've stowed your brain and are now in the process
of using your asshole to think with.

 LL> Thomas Jefferson understood the difference, as did every person who
 LL> signed the Declaration of Independence (not to mention the King of
 LL> England, who had quite a fit upon reading those traitorous words).

 RW>> i.e. "Creator" given rights.

 LL> "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."

That's what it means...

 DD>>>>> Some give their life for the state (or the stripy rag).....

 LL>>>>> "Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, American
 LL>>>>> patriot

 DD>>>> What did he get? - Ah, I see that he got death. That can happen
 DD>>>> when you back people into a corner.

 LL>>> Well, at least he was not a horse thief like Paul Revere.

 RW>> Actually there is no way to tell if that is truth or fiction.
 RW>> But, the poem written in 1860. It mentions that "Revere rides HIS
 RW>> horse through Medford, Lexington, and Concord to warn the patriots."

 LL> After Revere stole a horse from the injuns it became *his* horse.

And your proof of this is?

 LL> And you know from your own history books, patriots never lie.

The history of Revere's ride, and doing so on HIS horse isn't covered by
any history books, except for those written 70 years after the fact.

 DD>>>>> There are NO inalienable rights - just privileges granted by the
 DD>>>>> regime of the day.

 LL>>>>> That's what the King of England thought - until the American
 LL>>>>> colonists staged a successful revolution against his rule.

 RW>> Still, the King did bestow cerain inalienable rights on his
 RW>> subjects.

 LL> The King of England made no consent to give up any of his rights,

I didn't say that he did...I said that he gave his subjects in the
colonies the right to assemble as a self-governing body...

 LL> as the King of England got all of his rights directly from GOD.

Not really. He made that part up to fool little nose pickers like you
to think that he did...

 LL> What the Lord giveth the Lord can taketh away, but never kings as
 LL> kings are nothing but mere humans ...

Kings can taketh away, which is why that particular king was kicked out of
Colonial America by the humans he begrudged their rights given to them by
their creator.

 RW>> They were allowed to form a localized citizens congress, for
 RW>> instance.

 LL> What the King giveth the King can taketh away ...

Which is contrary to what you said above...which is it going to be?

 RW>> Y'all should know the differences between 'in' and 'un' alienable
 RW>> rights before expounding the same.

 LL> Yes, you really should.

Can't you ever carry on a conversation without that drated mirror?

 LL> It would also help if you understood the term "consent of the
 LL> governed" - as coined by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of
 LL> Independence.

"Consent of the Governed" came after John Locke (29 August 1632 - 28
October 1704), widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism.

You of all people should know of him and his works very well...

 DD>>> Even in the US today peoples' "inalienable right to life" is taken
 DD>>> away from them.

 LL>>> Most folks do not realize what the difference is between
 LL>>> inalienable rights and unalienable rights.  The two are not the
 LL>>> same. Inalienable rights can be defined as being "rights which are
 LL>>> not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent
 LL>>> of the one possessing such rights."

 RW>> Actually they can. All you have to do is look into any prison with
 RW>> a 'death row' to see that 'life' is or scheduled to be taken by the
 RW>> government, even though it is 'creator' given.

 LL> There are many prisons in America that have a `life row', but none
 LL> that have a `death row' ...

Actually, there is no such thing as 'life row' in American prisons. Only
death rows...the rest are merely cell blocks full of prisoners.

The definition of Death row, in English-speaking countries that have
capital punishment, is the place, often a section of a prison, that houses
prisoners awaiting execution.

 LL>>> Unalienable rights can be defined as being "the state of a thing or
 LL>>> right which cannot be sold." (Definitions are from gemworld.com)

 RW>> I'd find a different source for you materials.

 LL> The gemworld site has an accurate definition for both words.

How would you know what is accurate and what isn't?

 LL> However, I am sure you can find many other fine sites that can
 LL> explain the terms in even more detail than gemworld.

I've always used the 'free dictionary' which has more than just a
dictionary on its website.

 LL>   So please feel free to use google to find other sites of interest.

Feel free to shove Google up your ass...I'm sure that your little pig will
find it good company.

 LL> Remember, google is your friend ...

So says your guinea pig...

 LL>>> Thomas Jefferson was very deliberate in his choice of words.
 LL>>> That is why he wrote "unalienable rights" that are "endowed by
 LL>>> their Creator" - along with limited rights belonging to the
 LL>>> government with the "consent of the governed".

 DD>>> If the regime of the day passes legislation that you may not
 DD>>> carry a firearm on a domestic flight then that "right " is taken
 DD>>> away too.

 RW>> Not really. All one has to do to carry a firearm on a domestic
 RW>> flight is comply with the carrier's regulations.  It's done all
 RW>> the time.

 LL> Maybe in Texas,

Yes, here too.

 LL>  where folks are allowed to carry concealed weapons into the Texas
 LL> state capital ...

I don't think so...but you know more about that than I do.

 LL>>> Last week, NBA basketball legend Bill Russell tried to board an
 LL>>> airplane with a loaded firearm, but was caught and arrested before
 LL>>> he could do a 9/11 ...

 RW>> Last report was that between 9-27 and 10-17, there were a total
 RW>> of 99 handguns, 84 of which were loaded, found in carry on baggage.
 RW>> Bill Russell is a piker in the carry-on firearms department.

 LL> Russell was an idiot.

You misspelled 'is'...

 LL> A complete and total idiot.

Yeup, just like you.

 LL> He should have  checked his luggage before going to the airport,
 LL> along with whatever he was wearing.  I am assuming it was an honest
 LL> mistake, and not a failed attempt to hijack an airplane ...

He could take his firearm with him to the airport, but he should have read
the airline and federal regulations before attempting to carry it onboard.
It would have been much easier to declare it in his checked baggage and it
would have been there when he got off the airplane. All legal like. Except
in NYC, where it is illegal to have a handgun without a permit and he
would have been arrested when the airport police read the flight manifesto
and especially the part where he declared the weapon is in his checked
baggage...


         R\%/itt - K5RXT

 Reminder: "On Friday September 8th 2006, Mike Godwin's 16 year experiment
 was concluded and Godwin's Law was officially repealed by a MAJORITY vote
 among millions of individuals." http://repealgodwin.tripod.com/

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-31012
--- D'Bridge 3.92
 * Origin: Lone Star BBS San Antonio, Texas - US-of-America (1:387/22)