Dissing Liberty in the Name of Conservative Political Correctness
My new best friend, Bill Stark of Philadelphia, was kind enough to leave this silly little knee-jerk conservative edited verion of a previously libertarian piece titled "New Bill of Rights" in my forum. Of course, he didn't like my response to his silly conservative version and proceeded to go off-topic after that. Naughty, naughty little Billy Boy.
Passed off by Stark as written by Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA, the full text is available here: http://911remembered.blog.com/New+Bill+of+Rights/ (the authorship is attributed to Kaye is not true, see here for a different version: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm) . Also, the version posted by my new buddy was altered in several sections and a very, very significant anti-war Article was deleted somewhere along the way, in an effort to change it from a libertarian to conservative perspective:
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetter’s. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."
Well, the word "liberal" and other edits were made to the original by a dishonest individual. Wow. How about some guidelines for the "terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional" conservatives who are currently running the country and apparently think that just because they want to do a thing that they are automatically entitled? This LIBERTARIAN (not conservative apologist whiner) wants to see that list of "guildelines." Pony up mystery editor.
"ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything."
Of course, some conservatives think they have an unending right to our pocketbooks. And they think that no one has noticed that they're spending billions on a losing war, shifting massive amounts of debt onto future generations, and have established the largest medical welfare program in history in a vote-buying scheme to scare senior citizens into supporting the GOP's Big Government candidates. Wow. Why no mention of that Mitchell?
"ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be."
Of course, that goes double for conservatives. But as demonstrated above, you like most conservatives I've known, can't handle it when you get as good as you give. Stop whining. This Article seems written just for you and your ilk.
"ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy."
True. But what if the harm comes via U.S. warplanes dropping bombs on your weding party? Or a S.W.A.T. raiding your house because they got the wrong address in the hyper-adrenalized paramilitary fervor?
"ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes."
But if you are a friend of the Vice President, you can have all the no-bid contracts worth billions that you can handle. Of course, don't forget the GOP's love of corporate welfare and handouts to small businesses like farmers – at the expense of other small businesses and individuals. Why, did you forget to mention that?
"ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care."
Unless, of course, you are a senior citizen in an election year. Then, a GOP president would be perfectly in his rights to create a massive, trillion dollar scheme to take money from one class of people and transfer that wealth to another class of people via a prescription welfare program. Bravo! The GOP has turned into the worst of the tax-and-spend Democrats.
Funny thing, you forgot to mention that. Better revise these Articles son.
"ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair."
Here's an idea, how about the GOP learn to live by the zero-aggression principle before lecturing others on how to behave. Give that a try. Then revisit this Article again.
ARTICLE VII: "You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure."
Unless, of course, you are a Republican President and GOP dominated Congress. Then, you can redistribute all the wealth you want. To include, but not limited to: big-ass interventionist wars, no-bid contracts for all your closest friends and prescription drug vote-buying scams. Such a deal!
"ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful."
Of course, if you belong to a company that the Vice President used to run, you stand a much better chance of keeping your job. No-bid contracts worth billions and billions are apparently exempt from this Article. You dropped the ball here!
"ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights."
Try following all I've outlined above. Happiness will be much easier to pursue without the GOP in my wallet, bedroom, phone, CPU and car. Get out of my life FIRST. Lecture me on happiness SECOND.
"ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!"
Actually, this is a country of many languages. And who is exactly is this collectivist (neo-Marxist sounding) "we" you speak of? English just happens to be the most prominent language. Perhaps you want to talk to the original inhabitants of this rock prior to making such wide-sweeping decisions? Umm-kay, my anonymous conservative friend?
"ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!"
Our Constitution (the actual document that governs this nation) makes absolutely no mention of "IN GOD WE TRUST."
Please whoever edited this new version, stop trying to change "our country's history or heritage." As you mentioned above, you don't have that right. And yet, like a typical Big Government Conservative, here you are (or whoever actually edited this into the conservative battle-cry it has become) claiming such a right nonetheless.
Fascinating.
“We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetter’s. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.”
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others.
If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
:woohoo:”
Cute attempt at forcing religion on others via use of the term “”In God We Trust””, which does not appear on the Constitution. And by the way, what kind of coward hides behind an anonymous screen name? You sound like a Big Government Conservative.
If you wish to be taken seriously, please use your real name.
Post edited by: admin, at: 2006/09/18 03:21
Oh James, you are so small. Such a narrow mind and limited focus.
Isn’t it ironic how everyone is always forcing something on YOU? How everyone else is racist or a religious zealot. As you hold up your trophy black wife and children to show how you are not a racist and everyone else is. How if you mention the word “monkey” as some one did in your – what do you think about James – section, this is automatically an indication of racism. Couldn’t it simply mean you are a low level primate with limited intelligence? Or if it is mention “in God we trust” you are automatically force feeding religion on James. And of course if you mention a different opinion, you are Big Government Conservative.
Wake up James; it’s not all about you.
And James, a coward, is that the best you can do?
Wow. A white supremacist is posting here.
Or Lord Matt pretending to be a white supremacist.
One of the two. Well, it is probably not LM, as this dude can at least spell.
Well, I’m glad that he has identified himself.
Don’t you need to get back to your Klavern my anonymous cowardly friend? And by the way, if you don’t want replies, then don’t post here.
And clearly, like all Big Government Conservatives, you don’t want someone with a different opinion replying. You demand lock-step conformity and no dissent. Further, if you wish to force “”In God We Trust”” on others via government force, as you clearly stated in your first email, than expect to get called out for such.
And no, my anonymous coward, it is not all about me or you. But if you are going to post on my property, I will damn well reply whenever I choose.
You are a guest, and a cowardly one who posts under a cute little anonymous name at that. I own this here juke joint. Get used to it and stop whining like a typical conservative baby.
Post edited by: admin, at: 2006/09/18 03:24
Dear James,
When you write, I feel like I am back in high school. To start, the whole this is my site, blah, blah, blah, stuff really gets old. Kind of like when you were young, it’s my ball and if you don’t play by my rules, I’ll take it and go home. Grow up James.
And the name calling, typical democratic strategy. “Oh, did you make a valid point… well, well, you’re a pooh-pooh head.” Or in James’ case, you’re a coward or a big government conservative or a racist.
Once again you missed the point. I’m not a white supremacist, though I’m sure you’d like it if I were, then you’d at least have a valid point. In fact I believe Robert Kennedy was on to something when he said “But suppose God is black? What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?” There I go again forcing religion on you, typical big government conservative. Wait… Robert Kennedy was a Democrat. Now things get really confusing.
The point is James, facts win arguments and solutions win debates. So far as I can see all you have are problems with no solutions. You thrive on posturing yourself above others, pointing out their wrong doings and taking pot-shots early and often. Yet, you bring nothing to the table.
:whistle:
Wow, you claim it feels like high school to read here?
Well, let’s review. You posted a silly and very naively written essay that was the intellectual work of someone else without crediting such. That IS pretty childish of you. Then you bring my wife and children into the equation (and then talk about monkeys) to mask the fact that you really have nothing to add to the conversation.
Yes Bill, facts do make an argument and in this case, the facts are not on your side.
In attempting to deflect from your lack of argument and silly reposting of another person’s work, you immediately mentioned my children and then referred to my wife as a “black trophy wife,” an unnecessary designation and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Then you bring up monkeys? Why bring it up unless you had a racist point to make?
Why? Why? Why?
My wife and kids have nothing to do with this thread. Remember, YOU brought them up and are now crying foul at me for calling you on it. Grow up Billy.
Further, what “facts” are on your side?
This LIBERTARIAN would like to know the details of your socialist conservative (sorry, I didn’t mean to repeat myself) aims and “”facts””.
Also, as a conservative, you ought to respect the right of private property without whining like a victimized liberal when told to behave and what the ground rules are on said private property. You really sound like a self-entitled liberal when you complained like that.
It is interesting that you chose to whine rather than acknowledge that simple fact. Have all conservatives turned into whining socialist, self-entitled crybabies these days?
It sure seems that way…
Post edited by: admin, at: 2006/09/18 15:56
Dear Jimmy
Let’s review:
1. You are correct, I put the New Bill of Rights in quotes, however neglected to mention it was written by State Representative Mitchell Aye of GA.
2. In the What Others Have to Say section, Lord Matt wrote “James Landrith is clearly a low level monkey boy.” To which little Jimmy (and no James I am not taking shots at your masculinity) responded “EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a particularly offensive insult to lob at someone with half-black children and a black wife. One could quite easily and reasonably come to the conclusion that Matt had racist intentions and hate in his heart given his choice of words.” I simply pointed out that the word Monkey could just as easily mean a low level primate with limited intelligence. Your wife and kids were brought into it by YOU, James.
NOTE: In the same section, I should also point out that Jimmy accuses no fewer than 5 out of 7 dissenters of having racist intentions. Do you see a pattern?
3. You mentioned facts are not on my side, yet you have yet to post ONE.
4. Finally, private property???? Are you kidding me, James, just stop! ENOUGH. When you invite people to post, expect that you just might get someone who posts a differing opinion. Stop the “this is my site, you are my guest, say only what I want you to say.” When you mention lock-step conformity, isn’t that what you’re doing?
That said Jim, when I first came across your site I thought that perhaps this would be an opportunity to have an intelligent debate with an “Activist.” And, perhaps, just perhaps, I might learn how Activists think. Clearly I was wrong. So, let me give you my take-aways:
1. If your views differ from James you are a racist, a bigot, a big government conservative, a coward, etc. You get my point, don’t you?
2. Little Jimmy brings no ideas or solutions to mix. He has the limited ability of pointing out problems.
3. Jim NEVER sees the whole picture or tells the entire story. You made this quite evident in your last post, taking slivers from other posts and manipulating them to tell a half-hearted story that Jimmy would like others to believe.
4. Finally, though I learned how James thinks, and I can safely say I am not very impressed, it would not be fair to stereotype ALL “Activists” as being close-minded, blinded, self-serving, clueless people who have difficulty formulating valid solutions to problems and resort to name calling when the situation is above them.
Learn from this James, and best of luck to you.
Good-bye,
Your friend.
“Bill Stark said: [quote]1. You are correct, I put the New Bill of Rights in quotes, however neglected to mention it was written by State Representative Mitchell Aye of GA.[/quote]
Excellent. A good start. Own up to it.
Bill Stark said: [quote]2. In the What Others Have to Say section, Lord Matt wrote “”James Landrith is clearly a low level monkey boy.”” To which little Jimmy (and no James I am not taking shots at your masculinity) responded “EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a particularly offensive insult to lob at someone with half-black children and a black wife. One could quite easily and reasonably come to the conclusion that Matt had racist intentions and hate in his heart given his choice of words.” I simply pointed out that the word Monkey could just as easily mean a low level primate with limited intelligence. Your wife and kids were brought into it by YOU, James.[/quote]
Again, since little Billy Boy can’t read, YOU brought the monkey business into this thread and then mentioned my wife and children. As I pointed out before in plain English, none of that was relevant to this thread. Try actually reading what I wrote next time rather than attempting to distract with extraneous information.
Bill Stark said: [quote]NOTE: In the same section, I should also point out that Jimmy accuses no fewer than 5 out of 7 dissenters of having racist intentions. Do you see a pattern? [/quote]
Yes, I accused individuals with obvious racist intentions of having racist intentions. And I explained why in plain English my reasons for those who actually pay attention to what they read. And? I debate people all day long who don’t have racist intentions. Those folks don’t get called out for racism if they don’t offer it up. So, what is your point? That you can refer to my wife as a “”black trophy wife”” in a completely unrelated discussion and I’m just supposed to kiss your ass? Or do you have a point? Given that I’ve been involved in advocacy related to race for more than a decade I come across such racism on a more regular basis than many folks.
Bill Stark said: [quote]3. You mentioned facts are not on my side, yet you have yet to post ONE. [/quote]
Umm, you posted a piece of propaganda. What kind of “”facts”” do you want and for what purpose? Remember, YOU brought up the need for “”facts.”” I simply retorted.
Bill Stark said: [quote]4. Finally, private property???? Are you kidding me, James, just stop! ENOUGH. When you invite people to post, expect that you just might get someone who posts a differing opinion. Stop the “this is my site, you are my guest, say only what I want you to say.” When you mention lock-step conformity, isn’t that what you’re doing?[/quote]
Wow, a typical conservative whining about private property rules when under someone else’s “”roof.”” No one said that you had “”only say what I want you to say.”” And you know it. You started whining when I responded in a manner that wasn’t complimentary of your propaganda piece. I reminded you that not everyone is a socialist who owes you lock-step conformity. You are a guest, and I guess (like most conservatives) you cannot handle it when others dissent in you presence. You’ve lived up to the stereotype. Congratulations. Gold star for Bill Stark.
Bill Stark said: [quote]That said Jim, when I first came across your site I thought that perhaps this would be an opportunity to have an intelligent debate with an “Activist.” And, perhaps, just perhaps, I might learn how Activists think. Clearly I was wrong. So, let me give you my take-aways:[/quote]
Actually, you posted someone else’s work, and when you didn’t like my response, you bring up monkeys and my “”black trophy wife””. REMEMBER, YOU brought that up, not me, contrary to your false assertion above.
Bill Stark said: [quote]1. If your views differ from James you are a racist, a bigot, a big government conservative, a coward, etc. You get my point, don’t you?[/quote]
Wrong. You immediately started talking about monkeys and my wife and child when you didn’t like my response to your pirated propaganda piece. It seems you have a problem admitting the truth. I called you out on it and now you are acting like a typical liberal victim. That is my “”take-away.”” You get my point, don’t you?
Bill Stark said: [quote]2. Little Jimmy brings no ideas or solutions to mix. He has the limited ability of pointing out problems.[/quote]
Actually, solutions and ideas are easy to come by, especially when you spend your time (as conservatives and liberals do) creating problems. Us libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have tons of solutions. Conservatives are not really interested in solutions though. Solutions tend to require that they stop their eternal quest for stronger central government and limitless power over others.
Living a principled life (like us libertarians) is much harder. I suggest you look into it before posting such nonsense in someone else’s forum again. Research the zero-aggression principle and read up on libertarian and anarcho-cap masters, instead of looking for me to solve problems that Big Government Conservatives (wow, you really cannot stand the truth of that term) have created and/or exacerbated over the last six years.
Bill Stark said: [quote]3. Jim NEVER sees the whole picture or tells the entire story. You made this quite evident in your last post, taking slivers from other posts and manipulating them to tell a half-hearted story that Jimmy would like others to believe. [/quote]
Actually, I did no such thing. You are just sore that I refused to allow you to manipulate the conversation with completely unnecessary racial references to my family. Further, you got peeved when I called you out on your lie about your use of my wife and kids in this thread. This is a typical tactic of those who have nothing but other people’s talking points to offer in a discussion. I owe this troll nothing and those who wish to see my views and beliefs can spend some time in my blog archives. This is a simple discussion board, not [b]The Place Where All The World’s Problems Are Solved[/b], contrary to the recent troll’s assertions.
Bill Stark said: [quote]4. Finally, though I learned how James thinks, and I can safely say I am not very impressed, it would not be fair to stereotype ALL “Activists” as being close-minded, blinded, self-serving, clueless people who have difficulty formulating valid solutions to problems and resort to name calling when the situation is above them.[/quote]
Wow. Someone who offered nothing but someone else’s offensive, naive propaganda is claiming that I was responsible for solving the world’s problems and is now crying like a victimized child when I disagree. That is a textbook Big Government Conservative tactic. Why is he desperately trying to wear those shoes if they don’t fit?
Billy’s stomping off in a huff temper tantrum is not uncommon and was expected, given the content of his first posting was just someone else’s propaganda piece. Further, in typical troll mode he was unwilling to actually post with a real name. What does he have to hide? And why stomp away after picking an unnecessary fight and dragging my family into it?
Post edited by: admin, at: 2006/09/19 14:40″
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: “”We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetter’s. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.””[/quote]
Wow. How about some guidelines for the “”terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional”” conservatives who are currently running the country and apparently think that just because they want to do a thing that they are automatically entitled? This LIBERTARIAN (not conservative apologist whiner) wants to see that list of “”guildelines.”” Pony up Billy boy.
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.[/quote]
Of course, conservatives think they have an unending right to our pocketbooks. And they think that no one has noticed that they’re spending billions on a losing war, shifting debt onto future generations, and have established the largest medical welfare program in history in a vote-buying scheme to scare senior citizens into supporting the GOP’s Big Government candidates. Wow. Why no mention of that Billy boy?
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.[/quote]
Of course, that goes double for conservatives. But as you demonstrated above, you like most conservatives, can’t handle it when you get as good as you give. Stop whining Billy boy. This Article seems written just for you.
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.[/quote]
True. And if you start an argument with somone who can stand toe-to-toe with you, the best thing to do (as you did Billy boy) is run away crying. Good show. More please.
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.[/quote]
But if you are friend of the Vice President, you can have all the no-bid contracts worth billions that you can handle. Of course, don’t forget the GOP’s love of corporate welfare and handouts to small businesses like farmers – at the expense of other small businesses and individuals. Why, did you forget to mention that Billy boy?
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.[/quote]
Unless, of course, you are a senior citizen. Then, a GOP president would be perfectly in his rights to create a massive, trillion dollar scheme to take money from one class of people and transfer that wealth to another class of people via a prescription welfare program. Bravo! The GOP has turned into Democrats.
Funny thing Billy boy, you forgot to mention that. Better revise these Articles son.
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.[/quote]
Here’s an idea, how about the GOP learn to live by the zero-aggression principle before lecturing others on how to behave. Give that a try Billy boy. Then revisit this Article again.
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others.
If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.[/quote]
Unless, of course, you are a Republican President and GOP dominated Congress. Then, you can redistribute all the wealth you want. To include, but not limited to: big-ass interventionist wars, no-bid contracts for all your closest friends and prescription drug vote-buying scams. Such a deal!
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. [/quote]
Of course, if you belong to a company that the Vice President used to run, you stand a much better chance of keeping your job. No-bid contracts worth billions and billions are apparently exempt from this Article. You dropped the ball here Billy boy!
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.[/quote]
Try following all I’ve outlined above Billy boy. Happiness will be much easier to pursue without the GOP in my wallet, bedroom, phone, CPU and car. Get out of my life FIRST. Lecture me on happiness SECOND.
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from![/quote]
Actually, this is a country of many languages. And who is exactly is this collectivist (neo-Marxist sounding) “”we”” you speak of? English just happens to be the most prominent language. Perhaps you want to talk to the original inhabitants of this rock prior to making such wide-sweeping decisions? Umm-kay, Billy boy?
[quote]Bill Stark, stealing someone else’s work said: ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE
TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!![/quote]
And neither do you. Our Constitution (the actual document that governs this nation) makes absolutely no mention of “IN GOD WE TRUST.”
Please Billy Boy, stop trying to change “”our country’s history or heritage.”” As you mentioned above, you don’t have that right. And yet, like a typical conservative, here you are claiming such a right nonetheless.
Fascinating.
Post edited by: admin, at: 2006/09/19 14:40″
I couldn\’t possibly agree with everything you say here more. Way to stick it to those red state [URL=http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html]red state fascists[/URL]!
9/21/2006 18:01:00
I think I’m a bit more to the left than you are, since my libertarian leanings run up against the wall of all the people who have no bootstraps upon which to pull.
We are in agreement on this sort of thing, however. I get sent things like this all the time, especially from relatives. I like the point-by-point dismantling here. Nice job.