"I can live without the assitence of anyone."

Mark

And those who cannot, what are their rights?

Do they have a right to physical care provided by the State? Not everyone has the good fortune to be born hale & healthy. Your world, Mark, is not a compassionate one and I wonder what your faith teaches you if not some form of human kindness.

Mark,

Excellent points. The only "rights" that we Americans are entitled to are Constitutional "rights." They are enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As I write in my book "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies" there is no constitutional "right" to healthcare, or education, or welfare. Whether we as a society deem those things necessary for all citizens to enjoy, then we have the constitutional "right" to provide those things via the prescribed legislative process. In other words to answer the above comment by the "Canadian Observer," the person who cannot live without the assistence of others does not necessarily have the inherent "right" to be supported by other tax payers unless those other tax payers decide that they will financially support such disabled people. The govt/state has no constitutional "right" to extract money from the citizenry without first obtaining our consent. We enjoy inalienable rights to our lives (violated by Roe v Wade by the way), property (violated by Kelo) and political speech (violated by McCain Feingold) to name but a few inalienable God Given "rights." Nowhere in our constitution is the "right to healthcare" mentioned. It's mentioned in the Cuban contitution but not ours. While I would concur that a compassionate society takes care of its most defenseless and disadvantaged, they are not born with an inherent right to be wards of the state. Only "we the people" via our elected representative, in a constitutional representative republic, have the jurisdication and authority to extend such "rights" to others. And the good news is that we take care of our disadvantaged (and the downtrodden around the world) better than any other country on the face of the earth!

Gregg Jackson
Pundit Review Radio

Wow, This site has got to be a hoax. Are there really people this ignorant? I think this site is a fake, run by liberals, exposing the brainless waste of neo-conservativism.

Are you guys trying to compete with Stephen Colbert in mocking the Republicans. He is a much funnier, this site is just scary.

Bill O'Reilly's humorous portrayol of MTM's Ted Baxter (Ted Knight) would love this place.

wow is right nick, thank you kindly for proving once again that liberals cannot have intelligent debate!

C.O., once again you dazzle us with your "words out of context" abiblity! I do not think that this thread was meant to take issue with the rights of the disabled etc. The second he said "I can live without the assistance of anyone", he automatically excluded people like yourself with disabilities wether physical, social, or political(as yourself)! But, thank you for once again portraying the depth(or lack thereof)of a liberal mind!

I came to BFB to look for rational discourse on our leadership. After reading the commentary and response, I assumed this was a satire site. Really.
So far to the right, so far off the deep end. Unwavering support, even when the documentation and statements supported the "other" side. Here is the mythical place where kool aid is the only beverage served. One must drink freely and plenty.

Reflecting on what makes us different, I can only analogize that most of the liberal left is Harry Potter. The editors and kool aid consumers here are the Malfoys. Spoiled, pale, greedy. Led by their king Malfoy. They know no different. The world is their spoil. They will crush and take what is deemed "theirs".

If the MSM reports what it deems as newsworthy and does not promote the Malfoy way, then the MSM is biased. (right) The MSM only reports the "bad" stuff. We "never" get to see the good stuff. I'm sure that the "rest" of the world without a USA bias gets to see the "real" stuff. The stuff that Faux or the other media outlets dare NOT show to the American public. You know, real blood on hands kind of stuff.

Fear reigns king here. All civil liberties are sacrificial fodder. The ACLU is evil. The organization that sole purpose is to protect the civil liberties granted in our constitution. Bad ACLU, bad. The United Nations, bad. Bad, bad, bad. Unless we need them to promote OUR (and only our) point view.

Their view of Human Rights is the same view as Malfoy would take. What they deem is "right". We are free only in their definition of freedom.

Sadly, to me, the glaring issue misused here is the wanton overuse of religion making they're point of view justifiable. Jesus is on our side. Right Jeremiah? God will open a can o'whoop ass on them islamofacists. We're doing God's will. See they know God better than us. W has a one on one.

No, this site is not satirical. These loons really think this way.

Unbelievable.

I assure you this site is not satire. Scary, yes. But the editors are very assured in themselves they are correct.

If you draw out the "logic" of this post, only conservatives and libertarians are sutiable in defining a human "right."

SO somthing like healthcare, which should be a guaranteed right derived from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence.

But for society to honor this right would cost money, much less than invading Iraq, but nevertheless require some sacrafice on the part of everyone. This of course runs afoul of the profits of corporations and maintaining the prized huge gaps in wealth between rich and poor.

So demanding that people have adaquate healthcare especially for children becomes a desire of "socialist liberals" and "crazy lefty" contigent.

The reality is that protecting bottom dollars is a far more important "value" than the moral obligation to take care of all Americans.

It's really sad, but true.

Wade

Well, looks like the Canadians and liberals have proved that speech is still a right. At least if you're a liberal. I am disappointed once again in level of hatred evident in liberal posts.

Rights - speech, association, religion, self-protection, voting, protection from the state (from search and seizure for example). The right to travel. The right to work. The right to marry whom you please (yes – I don’t care about gay marriage – I think it’s OK to marry a tree if you so desire). That also means I think polygamy is OK. I believe that being able to own property is a right.

Laws – I think it is wrong to murder, kidnap, rob, and commit any violence against other people or destroy their property. I make an exception for self-defense. There are lots and lots of laws. Though all made (supposedly) for the common good – I reserve the right to disagree with some. I wonder how it was good for everyone for Ted Kennedy to stop all windmill projects in the country to keep the one in his neighborhood from being built. I question the myriad of weapons restrictions and gun bans – which appear to be mostly aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of blacks.

I don't think that health care, welfare, and even retirement are rights. Though they are certainly desirable. These added benefits have crept into government as legal entitlements. But they do require taxing others to pay for them. So, they are a form of wealth redistribution. I don’t like wealth redistribution – though I’m by no means rich. I see very rich politicians passing these laws, then making sure that they hide their money to avoid the taxes that pay for them.

Well, I guess that’s it. Gotta run – have to crap on some Korans and wipe my butt with the Canadian and French flag toilet paper I got at wal-mart.

After reading the commentary and response, I assumed this was a satire site.

So have a lot of people. I've entertained the notion myself several times--I mean, what rational person would actually believe this stuff? But, sadly, this site is most likely sincere. Noonan really does think his caveman analogy (although cavemen, of course, didn't really exist, as that is "Darwinist twaddle") about standing on a parcel of land with a club and a loud voice "proves" something.

Sure, the far-right-wing ridiculousness can be breathtaking at times, but it can also be quite humorous. As far as unintentional comedy goes, Noonan's been off the charts of late (this post is a good one--the "death of science one" is a hall of famer for sure), so once the "holy moly, did he actually say that and mean it?" shock wears off, take it as sublime comedy: out-Colberting Colbert without meaning to.

raker - what proof? You guys never post any. hell, it's hard to get you to admit to a position on anything except you're against whatever we are for. Seems to me that rather than FOX (faux in your world) News publishing crap we have seen documented proof that CBS published obviously forged documents to attack George Bush. (cons proof 1, lib proof - 0) We have seen the New York Times expose multiple intelligence programs to make it harder to fight our enemies. We have also seen that newspaper and several other LIBERAL papers lose reporters and even editors for just making stuff up.

Oh, and fearmongering? Hmmm - and the Democrats never did that with Social Securty? Bush proposed a solution almost identical to one proposed by Clinton. We were evil for opposing the Clinton Plan, and we were evil for supporting the same plan proposed by Bush? Please - the Democrats refused, AND STILL REFUSE, to put forth their own Social Security plan. Just how is that good? Same for medicare. Same for Energy.

I read this week stories criticizing George Bush, for implementing Clintons welfare reform laws? Give me a break. Tell ya what - indulge yourself. Go on a positioning rant. Tell us what you would do about Iraq -now. What you would do about Korea - now. Where you stand on abortion (just exactly what day in the prgancy does it stop being OK to kill the baby?)? What about Social Securty? Gun Control? Drugs? What else?

I've never seen YOU post anything but names and insults. Tell us or Raker - what do YOU stand for?

Your definitions are inaccurate and inane. A right belongs to everyone or none at all. As in the right of contract, e.g. a marriage contract. We all can marry another adult or none of us can. Gender literally has nothing to do with it. Procreation as all adults and most teenagers have noticed, can occur outside of marriage.

Your use of words and definitions shows you have never had to answer any critical feedback. The essence of science, by the way. And the search for the truth did not stop 200 years ago in science.

Canadian,

You're confusing two issues - my rights with my Christian duties (yeah, that "duties" thingy you liberal/left people are always forgetting about).

I have no right to claim sustenance from anyone - but I do have a duty to help those in need.

Raker,

Who, or what, is Malfoy?

Dan,

You don't have a right to contract - to contract, it takes the consent of at least one other person, and that means it can't possibly be a right.

By your definition, anything a human being does is a right - and that is absurd.

According to Gregg Jackson, the only rights Americans have are the ones named in the Constitution.

So I guess that means the 9th Amendment doesn't exist and the Constitution doesn't say that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Deleted - really asinine, and entirely off topic.

You forgot one of the major Rights espoused by the Left, Mark: the Right to say utterly stupid, insensitive, inflammatory, and otherwise non-factual things for simple political expediency.

Witness what has been said about people who cannot take care of themselves. Liberals espouse the Darwinian view, and freak out over "intelligent design." Yet, Darwin's theory relies heavily on survival of the fittest. Where does that fit in on taking care of those who are too blanking lazy to help themselves?

"Where does that fit in on taking care of those who are too blanking lazy to help themselves?"

Posted by William Teach at August 27, 2006 04:27 PM

William

Babies with severe disabilities that have not been aborted and will never be able to help themselves. Accident victims, those too ill to work, and on & on. Surely, you exclude cases like these. Not everything is as black & white as you state and not everyone is too blanking lazy to help themselves; there are legitimate exceptions.

CO,

Why be chicken? Rather than just coming here and insulting us, why not join the debate?

I've laid out what I consider to be a right, and why - give us your alternate. Defend yourself - don't just attack.

Are you capable of such a thing?

William,

Just more leftwing chickenheartedness...they are, I think, afraid to tell us what they really think...so, they just come here and insult...though our higher volume of really idiotic insults today is the result of an apparant Kos link...the looney bin has been informed, and the kooks are out in force.

Deleted my comment. HHMMM. And this isn't satire? I guess no one has the "right" to intelligent debate on this site.

You guys are doing wonderful work. And this is "on" topic.

Mr. Noonan:
Canadian Observer and his ilk don't share their views on ANY LIMITS because they know they don't sell. They want the government to take care of EVERYONE no matter the circumstances because we can't judge anyone...

The only rights these idiots (and I use idiots because they have been exposed to a different way) think should be limited are those rights that are guaranteed in the actual Constitution... like religious freedom (as long as they can teach evolution in schools and God isn't mentioned ANYWHERE ELSE BY ANYONE ELSE).

They fail to acknowledge that true charity comes from willingly giving, not from being jacked by the government to GIVE to those people who choose not to make their lives better. They refuse to except that FAITH is a key motivator for those who are charitable by nature.

Further, they have a holier than thou sense that they are enlightened and that conservatives are by nature neanderthals dragging their knuckles on the ground. They won't accept common courtesy as a way of actually using discourse because they believe that by shouting the loudest that's how you're heard, not by pursasiveness.

And finally, no one knows what is going to happen in November, but I can assure you if the polls and exit polls have been as accurate as they've been the last SIX years and Republicans keep the House and Senate, THEY WILL FIGURATELY EXPLODE... they'll rant like the leftist in Mexico, they'll start spouting idiotic drivel like Chavez...and they'll just slip further and further to the DailyKos's of the world.

You are right about these DailyKos fools. It'll only get worse until they DOS the site AGAIN, and then gloat about how their high school antics will teach those stupid conservative religo-fascists a lesson. Whatever floats their boat I suppose.

All too often, the left confuses a liberty with a right.

While we all do have certain rights, most of what we feel to be rights today are in reality liberties, which may be taken away for various reasons. Committing a crime may strip us of our liberties for a length of time. Our safety and security may necessitate restrictions of liberties. Many other reasons not listed as well.

In reality we have few rights, but a lot of liberties. Confusing the two can overburden society while actually denying others what they may feel are their rights.

Mark

I am not attacking anyone. I am pointing out that not everyone is able to help themselves. Some, through no fault of their own, must depend on others. There should be government assistance to aid them. To rely solely on charity is not an option. I am not talking about able-bodied individuals taking advantage of government programs.

Gender literally has nothing to do with it. Procreation as all adults and most teenagers have noticed, can occur outside of marriage.

DanA, here again, you have confused a right with a liberty. You claim gender has nothing to due with marriage because procreation can occur outside of marriage. While that is true, it cannot occur between two males or two females.

You also say a right is conferred on all or none. Since you wish to make gay marriage an argument for rights, I submit to you that we all currently enjoy the same exact right of marriage. Gay or straight, all share the same exact right to marry the opposite sex. Change that, you are creating a special right for a few, a right contrary to the very existence of nature.

Or, is marriage a liberty that carries with it responsibilities and can be restricted? If a right which no one can restrict, sibling marriage, polygamous marriage, bestial marriage, transgenerational marriage and much more could also be declared a right, detrimental to society.

Be very careful demanding rights. All too often, what is mistaken for a right, if granted openly, can cause more trouble than it's worth.

Nick,

You haven't the slightest right to comment here at all - it isn't your blog.

CO,

Are you kidding? Your first comment was essentially a claim that I don't care about the poor.

Why don't you tell us what you think a right is?

Well done Mark. I enjoy reading many of the comments on this blog, but have never believed that I have the "right" to post here. Just that if I am not overly offensive, and stay on topic, I am allowed to post here. If I want that as a right, I would have to buy my own blog site. And I do mean, buy.

Canadian, what Right do they have? None. There is no actual Right to life. What right to life does a mother or father have if their children are in a burning building?

It is not a right, but a duty, as Mark put it. We have certain Rights, assigned to us by our Founders. The Left talks about the "right" to an abortion, otherwise known as choice by the meely mouthed libs. I didn't realize that murder was a right.

With a few exceptions the mantra: Your rights end where my nose begins is a good mantra.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Gregg Jackson at August 27, 2006 11:47 AM

Wow, well said Gregg Jackson! I agree wholeheartedly!

With a few exceptions the mantra: Your rights end where my nose begins is a good mantra.

Thoughts?
Posted by: Georgia Frawg

Frawg,
I agree, unfortunately,it is not a mantra understood by many. The "entitlement mentality" is in full force in our country. Which essentially is the mantra: What's mine is mine, and what's your's is mine."

Mark, Pix: Harry Potter's nemesis Malfoy

Mark,
Malfoy is a figure from the Harry Potter books...
My daughter reads them.
She did though come up with a quote worth repeating, in this context it's rather clever.

"Troubling times are ahead, Harry(Reid)...Albus Dumbledore.

Not bad for a 13 year old...heh,heh

Freedom1,
Great link...I am not that good at links. The pic that you picked,no pun intended, was perfect!
You made me laugh...thanks!
Mary

Mary S, just jumping at the opportunity to post something from Harry Potter! heh. heh. Great series of movies. I can't wait for the next one!
:)

Canadian - I double dare you to tell us what YOUR opinion is on what a right is. Jeezzz, can't you guys EVER come clean on your positions honestly? Just tell us what you think. Convince us.

Freedom1,
Same here...can't beat Alan Rickman...he's great at playing "the bad guy" Have a great week!

...

Kahn,
I sure as hell hope you aren't holding your breath!LOL

...

Sadly, to me, the glaring issue misused here is the wanton overuse of religion making they're point of view justifiable.

Sadly, to me, the glaring issue here is the wanton misuse of the words there, their, and they're. Let me give you idiots a sentence that correctly uses all three:

There are a bunch of stupid libs who troll on B4B, spewing their redundant talking points ad nauseum, under the false pretense that they're impressing us.

Tomorrow, we'll go over too, to, and two. Tata...

Canadian - I double dare you to tell us what YOUR opinion is on what a right is. Jeezzz, can't you guys EVER come clean on your positions honestly? Just tell us what you think. Convince us.

Posted by: Kahn at August 27, 2006 09:04 PM

I think all of the 'dog eat dog' proponents on this site have the right to hold that opinion even though I may think it replusive. You have the right to think as you please but, was it your 'right' to invade and occupy an other nation? Since that nation did not attack you, did you have the 'right' to attack it?

CO,

Man, lay off the bone - gnawing it endlessly won't get you anywhere.

This is supposed to be a fun dicussion sort of thread...you know, I tell you what I believe, you tell me what you believe and we all have a lot of fun and learn a few things in the process.

For crying out loud, just tell us what you think, in theory, a right is.

Are there both natural rights and human created (and bestowed) rights? If not, which rights are the "real" ones? What's the difference?

wade,

If you will lay off the endless politics for just a moment, just how can health care be a right? Where do I get the right to force other's to do things for me?

Mark,

All politics aside, I do thank you for providing a forum to vent, er...debate our differences.

Honestly, thank you and Matt.

Psst, Mark, don't broadcast this, but CO does know what a right is, thats why its dancing around the answer.

GF, you used a statement from Benjamin Franklin, without proper notation. His descendants could sue you as you presented that saying as your own :)

Nate,

It is my view that a right cannot be human-created - anything created by one human can be undone by another with no actual violation of a first principle. This is why our Declaration of Independence puts it that we are endowed with self-evident rights by our Creator - rights which we do not need to prove and rights which cannot be taken away by human agency.

raker,

Our pleasure.

Porter,

Methinks you might be right about that.

Wow, civility from Raker......there is a God!!! LoL

Deleted my comment. HHMMM. And this isn't satire? I guess no one has the "right" to intelligent debate on this site.

You guys are doing wonderful work. And this is "on" topic.

Posted by: niCk(MemBeth) at August 27, 2006 05:34 PM

well nick, If this site truly was satire, they probably would have allowed your er.......as Mark put it, asinine comments. Aren't they missing you over at the daily chaos(KOS)?

I'm confused--I read these two parts of posts:

>> I can, as a living person, purchase, claim or conquer a bit of property.

>> With a few exceptions the mantra: Your rights end where my nose begins is a good mantra.

So, how do these fit together? If my rights end at the end of your nose, how do I have the right to conquer a bit of property that has someone else's nose on it? This doesn't sound like rights at all--rather it sounds like the person with the biggest weapon has the most rights. That doesn't sound like a right. That sounds like being a bully gives you power gives you whatever you want--rights of the nose-owner be damned.

I'm confused--I read these two parts of posts:

>> I can, as a living person, purchase, claim or conquer a bit of property.

>> With a few exceptions the mantra: Your rights end where my nose begins is a good mantra.

So, how do these fit together? If my rights end at the end of your nose, how do I have the right to conquer a bit of property that has someone else's nose on it? This doesn't sound like rights at all--rather it sounds like the person with the biggest weapon has the most rights. That doesn't sound like a right. That sounds like being a bully gives you power gives you whatever you want--rights of the nose-owner be damned.

Nate,

Just pointing out that property has come into a person's possession via conquest in the past - I prefer purchse, of course.

As for "rights end at my nose" - that is, in my view, just a weak-kneed dodge from someone who doesn't want to take a stand for what is right.

Personally, I think you are purposefully mis-using the word "right" to say that anything that is not a specifically spelled out "right" should not be provided or funded by the government. This is what is truly ridiculous.

For example, "education" is not enumerated as a "right" in the Constitution, yet the U.S. provides public schooling. Is that wrong? Should public schools be eliminated because Americans do not have a "right" to be educated?

How about museums, public parks, zoos, libraries...do I have a "right" to have the government fund these things or, in the alternative, are these simply projects and institutions that better the community and the country and are therefore worthy of government largesse?

In the same way, even if I do not claim a "right" to health care, it can be (and should be) argued that it is more economically efficient to have the government provide some kind of basic health care to its citizens. A single-payer system (that those of better means can opt out of) that deprives no one of doctor choice, but provides a basic safety net for sick people is hardly out of line. As it is, hospitals cannot refuse health care to sick patients with no insurance, so we're paying for it anyway. Why not properly fund it, eliminate the health care burden (for the most part) on corporations and do this thing right?

Not a "right," but certainly the right thing to do.

Kevin,

That is all well and good - but when someone says a person has a "right" to healthcare or education, then one is speaking an absurdity...you simply cannot have a right to something you can't at least potentially do on your own. Our rights are individual, not collective.

I’m not quite sure what you mean about a right being something that you should be able to “do on your own.” The Bill of Rights, for example, lists many things that you have a right to, including free speech, freedom of religion, etc. that are individual rights. But there are other rights listed that do not meet this description. For example, I have a right NOT to house soldiers in my dwelling. The Fifth Amendment gives me a right NOT to speak at my own trial. Does this mean I actually have rights NOT to do something? It does.

In addition, the Constitution grants me many rights that I cannot do “on my own.” I have a right to a speedy trial. (Can’t give MYSELF a speedy trial.) I have a right to be tried in front of a jury. I have a right to a reasonable bail. The government must protect me from poll taxes, unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishment.

These are things I could potentially do “on my own”? Hardly.