Why do liberal Americans want more and more and more rights too?

[magnifier661]

No. I will give out money, but not for free. I can make you a good deal on some US Dollars for only $1.20 each. Let me know how many you want.

barfo

Spoken like a true democrat. Artificially inflating the value of the money you got.

 

[MarAzul]

Okay, let me rephrase this, as you had struck a nerve and my response was over the top. Do you think you'd be in the position you're currently in at that company, had you been born to say Will Barton's neighbor growing up in Baltimore?

Will Barton??? How the hell did he creep in to this?

I imagine he would do well to get to keep some money too, especially while he earns some.

 

[MarAzul]

No. I will give out money, but not for free. I can make you a good deal on some US Dollars for only $1.20 each. Let me know how many you want.

barfo

Actually taking a 120 and giving back 100 is pretty damn efficient for a democrat.

 

[barfo]

Actually taking a 120 and giving back 100 is pretty damn efficient for a democrat.

Exactly! Elect me!

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama will have taken in about $20T in govt. revenues in 8 years and will have spent $40T. Pretty darn close to those figures. It's not $1.20 for every $1.

 

[Eastoff]

Welfare would work if there are restrictions like random drug testing. If you fail, then you get your kids taken away from you and sent to a mandatory drug rehab.

For those without jobs, have an active "mandatory" work temp service.

There are answers that can have a finality. Train trees lazy bastards to stop being so fucking lazy. Ones that actually want to get out, can if they have help.

I'm not for giving out free money are you?

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...an-orrock/orrock-questions-drug-testing-plan/

We decided that claim was worth putting to a test of its own -- a truth test, especially given that, as of October, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that 1,883,966 Georgians were receiving food stamps.

Orrock said she based her statement on a story in The Miami Herald about Florida’s program, which operated for four months before it was halted due to legal challenges. The newspaper reported that 4,086 welfare applicants were subject to drug testing, and 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed. An additional 40 people scheduled but canceled their tests.

State law required Florida to reimburse applicants who tested negative an average of

$35 for the screening -- or a total of $118,140. The result was a net loss of $45,780, the newspaper reported.

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/utah...sults-show-12-positive-at-cost-of-over-30000/

To date, Utah has spent over $30,000 (all tax payer funded, remember) to quiz and test these welfare recipients. Was it worth it?

Only twelve people tested positive of the 400+ that were required to test…twelve.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...an-orrock/orrock-questions-drug-testing-plan/



http://www.occupydemocrats.com/utah...sults-show-12-positive-at-cost-of-over-30000/

How many are on welfare? It's gotta be in the millions. 12 out of 400. How many out of a million would test positive? Also, what demographic they use? An antidotal study is hardly something to put weight on.

Drive down the ghetto and you don't even need a study to see how many are on drugs

 

[Denny Crane]

Drug testing is stupid. If the people need the money, give it to them and don't ask them how they spend it.

When the unemployment runs out, they'll end up living with their parents anyhow. Thanks Obama!

 

[magnifier661]

Drug testing is stupid. If the people need the money, give it to them and don't ask them how they spend it.

When the unemployment runs out, they'll end up living with their parents anyhow. Thanks Obama!

The drug addicts take so much and have children to get more for their fix. I don't like giving these losers the ability to bring kids into that type of world.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh291/63-67.htm

 

[Denny Crane]

The drug addicts take so much and have children to get more for their fix. I don't like giving these losers the ability to bring kids into that type of world.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh291/63-67.htm

It's their rotten life. That's no reason to starve them to death.

 

[magnifier661]

It's their rotten life. That's no reason to starve them to death.

That's not what I'm suggesting. What I suggest is have social services take their children away and force them into a drug rehab.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not what I'm suggesting. What I suggest is have social services take their children away and force them into a drug rehab.

Social services showing up to take away someone's kids. Those who don't care about the constitution would be proud!

 

[magnifier661]

Social services showing up to take away someone's kids. Those who don't care about the constitution would be proud!

LOL

 

[maxiep]

The fundamental difference between modern Liberals and Constitutional originalists is their view of "rights". To the Constitutional originalist, rights are negative, i.e., what the Government can't do to you. To a modern Liberal, rights are positive, i.e., what the Government is obligated to do for you.

 

[magnifier661]

The fundamental difference between modern Liberals and Constitutional originalists is their view of "rights". To the Constitutional originalist, rights are negative, i.e., what the Government can't do to you. To a modern Liberal, rights are positive, i.e., what the Government is obligated to do for you.

I like scenario one, since my tax dollars are paying their salaries

 

[Eastoff]

The fundamental difference between modern Liberals and Constitutional originalists is their view of "rights". To the Constitutional originalist, rights are negative, i.e., what the Government can't do to you. To a modern Liberal, rights are positive, i.e., what the Government is obligated to do for you.

I whole heartedly agree with this statement.

 

[Denny Crane]

As I see it, the constitution lays out a very limited set of rights for the government. Back then, there was a debate about even having a bill of rights because it shouldn't be needed - if the government not granted some ability by the constitution, it can't violate the types of things in the bill of rights. They gave us the bill of rights anyhow.

For most of the first 150 years, the elections were all about constitutional type issues. Slavery allowed in new states? That sort of thing.

Then progressives got the idea the constitution was too rigid to allow them to turn government into something not envisioned. The constitution needed to become a "living" document and they would pick and choose what bits they like. Our government was not designed to have lots of unelected committees of "experts" headed by unelected leaders running everything.

I don't see the constitution declared negative rights in the sense Maxiep suggests. It declared mostly positive rights on behalf of the government. It must raise a military. It must create a post office. It must print/mint the money. It must implement a patent office. And so on. Those are by definition positive rights.

Unfortunately, it's not what the government is obligated to do FOR you, it's what it is doing TO you. When it does something TO you, it's pretty much violating the spirit of the constitution.

 

[MarAzul]

I think the Constitution was implemented to support the concepts laid out in the Declaration of Independence fairly well in that our rights are, self-evident and unalienable. We need not petition the government for rights we already have. The business of the branches of government are specified in the Constitution, including the protection of our rights, probably foremost in the list. The bill of rights, added later to satisfy the need of many to enumerate some of these unalienable rights is interesting but not quite complete in my view. It had been long understood that people do have the right of self defense, of their person and their rights. This is well documented in the Law of Nations by Vattel, written several years before the Declaration of Independence. The work by Vattel influenced the writing of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So it is surprising that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution on the right to bear arms is so unclear to many. People have the unalienable right to self defense of their person and right and therefore the undeniable right to bear arms. It seems to me the idea for this amendment come right out of the Law of Nations.

"In treating of the right to security (Book II. Chap. IV.), we have shown that nature gives men a right to
employ force, when it is necessary for their defence, and for the preservation of their rights. This
principle is generally acknowledged: reason demonstrates it; and nature herself has engraved it on the
heart of man."

However imperfect, it has been working quite well. I for one can't not see why so many of my countrymen can not see the beauty of this work and the prescription for sustaining liberty that it holds.