Obama's 'Elitism' Issue

[mym1a]

Dear Troy, nazi commie liberal progressive????????????? split the hairs if you wish? one thing I do know I don't want them controling my life! nor am I willing to give up my rights so I can be taken care of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Windwalker]

The "speachmaker" finally made a bad speech and Hillary is not about to let him off the hook.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mym1a

Dear Troy, nazi commie liberal progressive????????????? split the hairs if you wish? one thing I do know I don't want them controling my life! nor am I willing to give up my rights so I can be taken care of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you forgot to toss in neo conservative as well. The problem is the word liberal is a label used by the right's media machine to convince all the conservatives it is a bad word. Hell, even some liberal people view it as a bad word and they are freaking liberal.

The sad thing is, most americans have liberal views to begin with, but have this whole wrong perception of what the word really means or stands for. Just like Mitch didn't quite grasp the meaning of grant, and we use words in wrong syntax all the time.

Example, plethora is used a lot in the wrong way. It actually means over abundance in a bad way, not just many.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

There are far worse things the government can do to us besides restrict our weapons. I never said they could take away the right either, I said they can regulate it, which they are already currently doing. As long as the regulations are not infringing on the right itself then it should be fine.

If a county wishes to banish all guns from the public, then they have every right to vote for it. Take Texas liquor laws for example. When I was in Dallas/Fortworth I have never seen such liquor laws. They were by county, and one county was dry and the other was not. I thought it to be a bit ridiculous but no one was saying drinking liquor was illegal. If that is how they want to do that and vote for it that way, then that is their right whether I agree with it or not. You could always tell when you crossed county line though, you'd see like 5 liquor stores all back to back at county line.

Mitch,

You're rights are granted by the government, and they can be taken away by the government if you commit a crime and some states do not even reinstate all your rights after you serve your time in a federal prison.
There is a documentation granting those rights which our entire system of government is built off of. Whether you want to believe that or not, that is how it is. Those granted rights shall not be infringed either. The current administration has enabled some acts and created home land security which has already violated so much of our privacy through illegal warrants, and no one was held accountable for it.

You guys should really be more concerned about personal privacy rights right now than anything. Once that is gone it will be the beginning of our "big brother" government tracking everything we do.

Yikes !!!!

I'm sorry, but I very much beg to differ with these concepts. Rights aren't granted by any government. Basic human rights ARE affirmed in our constitution. And no, a county or state CANNOT vote to banish firearms according to our U.S. Constitution any more than they could vote to establish a "county wide" religion, or prohibit freedom of speech within their county. The U. S. Constitution (with very good reason) preempts such heinous activity. In order to allow gun banning, or warrantless search and seizure, the Constitution needs to be amended. Wisely, the framers of it made this a difficult process to ensure we really wanted to do it before we did--this prevents "mob rule" on a whim and is part of the inherent checks and balances within the constitution.

There isn't any "privacy" that is guaranteed by the constitution (and rightly so, because privacy is a subjective term). However, warrantless searches ARE very much prohibited. This is pretty objective and actually has teeth (would we choose to follow it which we often don't). It is a judicial check on an executive function--quite simply, drug testing, car searching, people searching, house searching, etc. requires a warrant. Unfortunately, we've chosen to ignore this in many cases because it's hard to do. When we do this with any affirmed rights, we run the risk of losing them.

Anyway, back to work !

Cheers.

[jimkim]

tlarkin So that means that you grant that Mitch was right when he said that these rights were ours to begin with?

• "A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
  -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

• "Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which as not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind."
  -- James Wilson, Lectures on Laws, 1791
• "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."
  -- James Madison, National Gazette, March 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14 ed. R.A. Rutland (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), p. 266.
• this is a good website government quotes

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

you forgot to toss in neo conservative as well. The problem is the word liberal is a label used by the right's media machine to convince all the conservatives it is a bad word. Hell, even some liberal people view it as a bad word and they are freaking liberal.

The sad thing is, most americans have liberal views to begin with, but have this whole wrong perception of what the word really means or stands for. Just like Mitch didn't quite grasp the meaning of grant, and we use words in wrong syntax all the time.

Example, plethora is used a lot in the wrong way. It actually means over abundance in a bad way, not just many.

Oh, I understand. "Grant" means "give". I'm just glad to have furthered your education on the matter.

[tlarkin]

I never said they can ban them, I said they can ban liquor sales, which was my example of Dallas.

I grow tired of posting on here only to have my points picked away by people and turned into an argument when i agree with them mostly to begin with.

I said the state can not ban them, but they can regulate them just like they are doing now. In my state I can damn near own anything, but in say CA you can't. The people who live in those counties or states should get the right to vote what regulations they want, but with out infringing the right.

You have the right to bear weapons, but what types of weapons is regulated. Obviously you don't want anyone owning chemical or biological weapons, or have some idiot neighbor with an RPG to only have it accidentally go off in your own neighborhood.

Again, with the word grant you are nit picking, splitting hairs, and arguing semantics, and you are wrong. They grant them because they recognize them, that is the meaning of the freaking word.

"all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people..."[2] and that "whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

This is clearly granting us the right to do so with out the government having any ability to take it away.

It also says that it does not grant certain power to the government over its citizens.

The word by definition is used correctly.

[jimkim]

You may not hide behind the word Progressive but the people formally known as liberals sure seem to take great pride in the term. Ronald Reagan once said he didn't leave the Democratic party. the Democratic party left him. We have all been left by both parties. Choosing a candidate now is like choosing which blind guy you want to do your appendectomy the out come will be the same.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I never said they can ban them, I said they can ban liquor sales, which was my example of Dallas.

I grow tired of posting on here only to have my points picked away by people and turned into an argument when i agree with them mostly to begin with.

I said the state can not ban them, but they can regulate them just like they are doing now. In my state I can damn near own anything, but in say CA you can't. The people who live in those counties or states should get the right to vote what regulations they want, but with out infringing the right.

You have the right to bear weapons, but what types of weapons is regulated. Obviously you don't want anyone owning chemical or biological weapons, or have some idiot neighbor with an RPG to only have it accidentally go off in your own neighborhood.

Again, with the word grant you are nit picking, splitting hairs, and arguing semantics, and you are wrong. They grant them because they recognize them, that is the meaning of the freaking word.



This is clearly granting us the right to do so with out the government having any ability to take it away.

It also says that it does not grant certain power to the government over its citizens.

The word by definition is used correctly.

Again, you are 100% wrong. Nothing in that quote says that the governemt GRANTS anything. Please point it out if so.

Per dictionary.com:

grant Audio Help /grænt, grɑnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[grant, grahnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) 1.to bestow or confer, esp. by a formal act: to grant a charter. 2.to give or accord: to grant permission. 3.to agree or accede to: to grant a request. 4.to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point. 5.to transfer or convey, esp. by deed or writing: to grant property. –noun 6.something granted, as a privilege or right, a sum of money, or a tract of land: Several major foundations made large grants to fund the research project.

Oh, and I am aware that this "grant" thing is a problem for liberal secularists. They certainly wouldn't want to admit that the basis of our country is that GOD GRANTS RIGHTS, not the government.

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I never said they can ban them, I said they can ban liquor sales, which was my example of Dallas.

I grow tired of posting on here only to have my points picked away by people and turned into an argument when i agree with them mostly to begin with.

I said the state can not ban them, but they can regulate them just like they are doing now. In my state I can damn near own anything, but in say CA you can't. The people who live in those counties or states should get the right to vote what regulations they want, but with out infringing the right.

You have the right to bear weapons, but what types of weapons is regulated. Obviously you don't want anyone owning chemical or biological weapons, or have some idiot neighbor with an RPG to only have it accidentally go off in your own neighborhood.

Again, with the word grant you are nit picking, splitting hairs, and arguing semantics, and you are wrong. They grant them because they recognize them, that is the meaning of the freaking word.



This is clearly granting us the right to do so with out the government having any ability to take it away.

It also says that it does not grant certain power to the government over its citizens.

The word by definition is used correctly.

Oh, and the link [2] took me to this:

A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs.
The theory of natural law, a law whose content is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere, is derived from natural rights. During the Enlightenment, natural law opposed the divine right of kings, and became the basis of classical liberalism.
The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is said to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society, while a legal right is one created by the government or society for the benefit of its members. The question of which rights are natural and which are legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all human rights are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights say that documents like the American Declaration of Independence, and social contracts like the Constitution of the United States, demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights.
The idea of human rights descended from that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[1] Natural rights, in particular, are the rights of the individual, considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The idea that animals have natural rights is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century.[2]

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

The "speachmaker" finally made a bad speech and Hillary is not about to let him off the hook.

+ 1 !

Words are often a sword that cuts in both directions...

[tlarkin]

Mitch,

This will be the last response on my part of this manner. I like your futile attempt to bait me into an argument over the interwebs, but I will point out a few things. Firstly, grant is used in many different ways, sometimes as a verb and sometimes as a noun. Depending on its context depends on how you interpret it. Next, the following words are synonyms with the verb:

accede, accept, accord, acknowledge, acquiesce, admit, agree to, allocate, allot, allow, assign, assume, avow, award, bestow, bless, cede, come across, come around, come through, concede, confer, consent to, convey, donate, drop, gift with*, give, give in, give out, impart, invest, own, own up*, permit, present, profess, relinquish, shake on*, sign on*, stake, suppose, sure-thing, surrender, thumbs up, transfer, transmit, vouchsafe, yield

By granting them, they acknowledge them and that is what the word means. If you were busting out some science on me, then yeah I wouldn't be so sure of myself, but the two subjects I am really good at are Math and English.


That is the whole point of documenting it, is to acknowledge it and grant it. Therefore, my use of the word is totally correct. I find this ironic coming from you since you just lectured me on how my public education failed me.

If you can't see my point then I guess you really can't educate Americans.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mym1a

Dear Troy, nazi commie liberal progressive????????????? split the hairs if you wish? one thing I do know I don't want them controling my life! nor am I willing to give up my rights so I can be taken care of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose the number of people who think pointing out the difference between a Nazi and a Communist is just 'splitting hairs' is just another indication of how uninformed the average American is.

That's like saying a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew are all pretty much the same thing. Go to the next neo-Nazi get-together in your neck of the woods, and see what happens when you tell them the difference between them and a Commie is just splitting hairs...

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Mitch,

This will be the last response on my part of this manner. I like your futile attempt to bait me into an argument over the interwebs, but I will point out a few things. Firstly, grant is used in many different ways, sometimes as a verb and sometimes as a noun. Depending on its context depends on how you interpret it. Next, the following words are synonyms with the verb:

accede, accept, accord, acknowledge, acquiesce, admit, agree to, allocate, allot, allow, assign, assume, avow, award, bestow, bless, cede, come across, come around, come through, concede, confer, consent to, convey, donate, drop, gift with*, give, give in, give out, impart, invest, own, own up*, permit, present, profess, relinquish, shake on*, sign on*, stake, suppose, sure-thing, surrender, thumbs up, transfer, transmit, vouchsafe, yield

By granting them, they acknowledge them and that is what the word means. If you were busting out some science on me, then yeah I wouldn't be so sure of myself, but the two subjects I am really good at are Math and English.


That is the whole point of documenting it, is to acknowledge it and grant it. Therefore, my use of the word is totally correct. I find this ironic coming from you since you just lectured me on how my public education failed me.

If you can't see my point then I guess you really can't educate Americans.

Again, it appears that, not only did you miss out on logic, but reading as well.

Aren't you a school teacher?

I suspect that our decision to home school our daughter was the correct one.

and you are still 100% wrong.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

Again, it appears that, not only did you miss out on logic, but reading as well.

Aren't you a school teacher?

I suspect that our decision to home school our daughter was the correct one.

and you are still 100% wrong.

This proves that you don't read or listen to my posts. I work IT (information technology) for an inner city public school system. I manage 6000 mac computers, 20 mac servers, plus several thousand other desktops through out 50 some buildings and I don't know how many tens of thousands of students.

I don't teach anything, other than training people how to use technology, and then its typically a one on one basis with the end user of the computer, instead of it being in a class.

I have stated this to you in at least 2 other threads.

I guess you don't understand how our language works, we have synonyms and antonyms and since grant is a word that can be used as a noun or a verb, and has many meanings does not make it only have one meaning.

I clearly pointed out actual dictionary and thesaurus references that prove my point. I don't see how you could argue with it.

Now, you are trying to tell me that it is a god given right?

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

This proves that you don't read or listen to my posts. I work IT (information technology) for an inner city public school system. I manage 6000 mac computers, 20 mac servers, plus several thousand other desktops through out 50 some buildings and I don't know how many tens of thousands of students.

I don't teach anything, other than training people how to use technology, and then its typically a one on one basis with the end user of the computer, instead of it being in a class.

I have stated this to you in at least 2 other threads.

I guess you don't understand how our language works, we have synonyms and antonyms and since grant is a word that can be used as a noun or a verb, and has many meanings does not make it only have one meaning.

I clearly pointed out actual dictionary and thesaurus references that prove my point. I don't see how you could argue with it.

Now, you are trying to tell me that it is a god given right?

I talk to alot of people and recalled that you worked for a school system.

I know how to read a dictionary and "Grant" means "give". I cannot be given natural rights (see previous post) by government. A government can infringe on them, however.

Apparently, some remedial education in history would help you.

Try doing some reading, work on that jerky knee, and get back to me.

[tlarkin]

No Mitch, the problem is not that you don't understand the meaning of grant, the problem is you don't understand all of it's meanings.

It can mean to give, and it can also mean to acknowledge, or it can mean to give someone access - as in permission granted, or access granted, it can also be a gift of money called a grant, it can also mean to accept, admit or agree to.

While your definition is not wrong, my use of the word was also correct. The problem is you are refusing to accept that.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

No Mitch, the problem is not that you don't understand the meaning of grant, the problem is you don't understand all of it's meanings.

It can mean to give, and it can also mean to acknowledge, or it can mean to give someone access - as in permission granted, or access granted, it can also be a gift of money called a grant, it can also mean to accept, admit or agree to.

While your definition is not wrong, my use of the word was also correct. The problem is you are refusing to accept that.

I think that I already presented you with the definition of "grant." Since you have failed to even bother to address that post, I must assume that you come from the "according to the definition of "is"" group.

No, you cannot change definitions to suit your needs at the time.

In addition, you are skirting the issue. The government grants/gives/presents/awards no human rights.

I am not sure how I can present this to you any clearer.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

I think that I already presented you with the definition of "grant." Since you have failed to even bother to address that post, I must assume that you come from the "according to the definition of "is"" group.

No, you cannot change definitions to suit your needs at the time.

LOL, OK dude, now I am changing definitions.....

Do you know what a synonym is?

[Casull]

Being a liberal is nothing to be ashamed of. I refuse to hide behind the term 'progressive' instead, just because a bunch of Ditto Heads not only don't know the difference between Nazis, Communists, Socialists and Liberals, but are actually proud of their ignorance...

Now that's funny. Troy, you might not be ashamed of being a liberal, but it seems that most of your brethren run screaming when someone calls them that. And, I must say how arrogant and elistist of you to bunch us conservatives together as "Ditto Heads". Guess I should just refer to you as one of those Frankin Heads (for Al Frankin, if you didn't catch that). And again, I think I will agree with Lee when he wrote about the simililarities of those groups being more important to the discussion than the differences (kind of like a rattler and a copperhead). But, like most condescending, arrogant, elitist liberals, you are good at looking at the fine points and completely missing the big picture.

[Cyrille]

In my opinion Mr. Troy if one considers the nazi party worse than the communist party or the communist party worse than the nazi party it makes no diffrence what the ideaology of either party was or is; it is my opinion that either of the two people running for the demoncratic (emphsis mine) party nomination are no better and may be a whole lot worse than the two people who became infamous as leaders of their respective parties! I hold these truths to be self-evident that the demoncratic party and their ilk will not rest until they have stripped the U.S citizenry of any and every vestiage of personal and political freedom! That sir, is my opinion! I realize ,sir, that there are bad apples in every party G.O.P. as well as the other, why do you insist on backing either of the two worst choices for leadership of this country? I can only hope, sir, that you come to your senses before you learn to your sorrow that you have backed the wrong people.