Skip to comments.
There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights
The Daily Beast ^
| May 5, 2013
| Michael Tomasky
Posted on 05/05/2013 10:11:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet
2
posted on
05/05/2013 10:16:24 PM PDT
by
Nifster
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I honestly wish we could leave these people in the hell hole they want to live in.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
What he means is the only absolute right belongs to his own islamo/socialist/nazists.
They can’t chop his head off fast enough for me.
4
posted on
05/05/2013 10:23:39 PM PDT
by
Hardraade
(http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
To: Nifster
Not just another A$$ Hat, He’s a Captain A$$ Hat looking to be promoted to Major A$$ Hat!
5
posted on
05/05/2013 10:25:40 PM PDT
by
Mastador1
(I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I don’t get it...why are we wasting time on this fascist?
6
posted on
05/05/2013 10:27:21 PM PDT
by
stormhill
(Guns Save Lives!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Will the author then agree that his right to live can be
legally rescinded without any causal action on his part?
That would be equivalent to gun control laws imposed
on law abiding citizens.
7
posted on
05/05/2013 10:37:11 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Heres one restriction on the Bill of Rights that Id wager most conservatives would happily approve of. In 1988, the HHS under Reagan promulgated rules prohibiting a family-planning professional at a clinic that received federal dollars from promoting (i.e. telling a woman about) abortion. This was challenged partially on free-speech grounds. In Rust v. Sullivan (1991), the Supreme Court held that these rules did not violate the clinicians free-speech rights. So far as I can see, this is still law. Its just one example from many free-speech restrictions that have been imposed over the years, as you can see here.This is a stupid, disingenuous example. The law he describes in no way interferes with freedom of speech. It simply says that you can't say certain things and expect to get government funding. Since there can be no inherent inalienable right to government funding, there is no violation of any right here.
FAIL.
8
posted on
05/05/2013 10:39:17 PM PDT
by
Maceman
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Dear Mr. Tomasky;
“...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...”
Now if you want to do away with self evident truths such as the God given right to self defense, then read what good citizens should do.
Good luck.
9
posted on
05/05/2013 10:40:00 PM PDT
by
Robert357
(D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
To: stormhill; 2ndDivisionVet
why are we wasting time on this fascist?wait..... I know this one...
"Know they enemy" and "Expose his lies".
10
posted on
05/05/2013 10:41:07 PM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)
To: UCANSEE2
11
posted on
05/05/2013 10:42:38 PM PDT
by
2ndDivisionVet
(I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Is the rest of the article as bad as the excerpt?
12
posted on
05/05/2013 10:44:41 PM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)
To: UCANSEE2
13
posted on
05/05/2013 10:45:28 PM PDT
by
2ndDivisionVet
(I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
The right to self defense is absolute and that most especially includes the right to defend one's self against a tyarnical government. This isn't a right that a government granted, it is a right endowed to all free men by their creator that was recognized and codified as part of the supreme law of this land and, as such, no government of this nation has the authority to deny it and if they attempt to do so, free men are well advised to disregard such laws should they be enacted and to offer up all manner of resistance as necessary.
It was our forefather's intention that we were to be their masters and that means they intended for us to be well armed and for them to be small and minimally obtrusive.
14
posted on
05/05/2013 10:45:37 PM PDT
by
RC one
To: Clock King
You mean like this?
15
posted on
05/05/2013 10:48:03 PM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
16
posted on
05/05/2013 10:50:12 PM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)
To: UCANSEE2
It is Michael Tomasky, after all. If Keith Olberman and Gary Younge had a love child.....
17
posted on
05/05/2013 10:51:25 PM PDT
by
2ndDivisionVet
(I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Can we all agree that I absolutely have the right to bear arms on your property whether you permit it or not and any law saying I don’t have that right is an infringement?
18
posted on
05/05/2013 10:54:27 PM PDT
by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I wonder if the writer believes there are any ‘absolute’ lefts ?
19
posted on
05/05/2013 11:00:16 PM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)
To: KrisKrinkle
Can we all agree that I absolutely have the right to bear arms on your property whether you permit it or not and any law saying I dont have that right is an infringement?Since you absolutely have no right to be on my property without my permission, then whether you do or don't happen to be bearing arms while you are violating my property rights is irrelevant.
20
posted on
05/05/2013 11:02:40 PM PDT
by
Maceman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson