In the 1990s, some conservatives were urging that states vote for a new constitutional convention, and I believe that some did so. If that were to happen, this is the kind of crap we’d get.
And my answer to obtaining all these rights? “Start your own business”.
...and we can achieve these goals by taking from each according to his ability, and giving to each according to his need.
This IS satire, right? Oh wait, we have a Commie president, I forgot.
WHAT... THE... F*$%ING... HELL... IS... THIS?
The Bill of Rights is an affirmation of preexisting rights that are unassailable and the birthright of every person born. They include the RIGHT to defend oneself, the RIGHT to speak freely, the RIGHT to assemble with whomever you wish, the RIGHT to practice religion in whatever manner you wish. These are things that cannot be taken away. They are not subject to market factors or money.
This malarkey is feel-good, plastic banana, good time, rockin’ roller (thanks, Rush) garbage. They can’t possibly uphold ANY of this without infringing on someone’s rights.
We have the rights to life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. There’s no guarantee of success ANYWHERE in our country’s history. It’s your right to pursue that success. It’s not your right to infringe on others’ liberty for your personal gain.
FUBO!
I want a small mansion, a houseboat and a new car .... wait, this isn’t a dream thread?
As one of the makers rather than the takers, that looks like an awfully big list of obligations for me with one hell of a bill attached to it.
Sunstain believes in “libertarian paternalism.” This phrase means that statists plan to do to the word libertarian what they did to the word liberal. Here’s how Buttstain explains it:
The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people’s preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people’s choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer.
In other words, our authoritarian masters will be “libertarian” by letting us decide if we want our cot on the left side of the cell or the right side.
Cass Sunstein truly is the most dangerous man in America-possibly the world
Oh, no! He’s going to change the Constitution by EO! It’s TEOTWAWKI, CHTF! The end is near! LOL! More hysteria from the left. Let’s ignore it, write our congressmen about real bills and do something normal today. ;-)
There are way too many references to work or jobs in that to be accepted today.
FDR is the reason America is in the MESS it’s in today.
Whoa:
“The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health”
This works awesome-time when you have a SLAVE class to do the work for free. Baby Mama’s rights end where mine begin.
This wish list, if he actually pushes it, would move me beyond the realm of negotiation and into the reality of separation.
Of course the only way you could even attempt to accomplish this is through command economy dictatorship. At least Obama crowd is no longer even trying to hide its true colors.
Sounds like it was lifted straight out of ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
“...Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address...”
His last, thank God.
Does any one besides Obummer think that anything on that list of garbage is a right? Those are all things to strive for and if you apply yourself and work hard, you stand a pretty good chance of of achieving them. The real Bill of Rights guarantees you that opportunity (but not necessarily that result, sorry, libs).
At least it used to.
There is no right to take another person’s time or resources without just and fair compensation, therefore, any right that assumes taking from another is not a right. It is an infringement of another’s rights.
The Founders said it correctly: The right to the pursuit of happiness.
For example, pursuing happiness might be for you the pursuit of home ownership, but there is no right for you to take from another to realize your pursuit. Not their time, nor their resources, nor their talents.
I want to raise 13 purple petunias only, and I demand my family's right to a decent living!
What about my right to a pony? I want a pony!! This is fascism!!