Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/7/2004 5:28:56 PM EST
I'm watching comedy central and Mahr shifted his routine talking about gun control.

he mentions that the 2nd amendment was in the constitution to keep the government from getting uppity.

then he mentions how .gov has apaches\ napalm etc and we dont have a chance so we should change the constitution...

liberals. even when they are comedians they cant make me laugh.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:32:43 PM EST
Mahr's an idiot. I hadn't watched his tv show in years when he got pulled. He's most concerned with the government not dictating what drugs he ingests and who or what he can stick his dick into. Otherwise, his politics are very conventional moderate liberal ones.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:46:10 PM EST


Maher, Franken, Garafalo etc are all popular with the intelligent, college-educated crowd.

In fact, some of the STUPIDEST people I ever met have highly advanced degrees and sky-high IQs.


Never ever EVER mistake "intelligence" for "wisdom".

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:12:01 PM EST
I wish someone would superglue Maher's Asscheeks together so I wouldn't have to listen to him talk.

SG
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:13:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
I'm watching comedy central and Mahr shifted his routine talking about gun control.

he mentions that the 2nd amendment was in the constitution to keep the government from getting uppity.

then he mentions how .gov has apaches\ napalm etc and we dont have a chance so we should change the constitution...

liberals. even when they are comedians they cant make me laugh.



This reminds me of the SoCal ACLU policy statement to the effect that it is difficult to pick a line between weapons that should be generally available to all persons, and those that should be available to only the military, then we should not try to draw a bright line between them and ban personal weaponry. They went on to say that the people would not have a chance against our mighty armed forces, and that was an additional reason for banning weapons because the origninal purpose of the Second Amendment was frustrated.

Well, I would have to agree, seeing that the Soviets are still in Afghanistan, we are still in Somalia and Viet Nam, the Russians have pacified Chechnya, the Serbs took over Croatia and Bosnia/Herzogovinia, the Brits continue to occupy all of Ireland and India and 1/3rd of Africa, the Italians subdued Ethiopia, the Libyans are still in Chad, the Tamil Tigers have all but disappeared from Sri Lanka, the Shining Path was wiped out in Peru, Colombia no longer exports cocaine ...

I just wonder how I missed all this news.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:25:10 PM EST
Mahr must think the government would have no trouble using napalm or Apaches on civilians. Why? Because if he were in charge that's exactly what HE would do.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:26:52 PM EST
Bill Mahr sucks penis! I hate even seeing that arrogant POS!

His ramblings are so full of holes it's ridiculous.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:37:09 PM EST
What I wouldn't do to run into that guy in a dark alley.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:38:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Maher, Franken, Garafalo etc are all popular with the intelligent, college-educated crowd.

In fact, some of the STUPIDEST people I ever met have highly advanced degrees and sky-high IQs.





Im with you on that. I have had to deal with several people with advanced degrees who were so stupid that they should go drink drain cleaner and do the world a favor.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 6:45:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
...then he mentions how .gov has apaches\ napalm etc and we dont have a chance so we should change the constitution...



What? did he forget to mention that more then 500 U.S. troops have died since Bush declared major operation over in Iraq? Or do the Iraqis have a hidden stockpile of Apaches and Napalm that we haven't heard about. Fuckin liberals make me sick.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:29:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Fuckin liberals make me sick.



First of all, it's "Maher."

Second of all, he's a Libertarian. He bitches about liberals and conservatives alike all the time. He supports the death penalty and he can constantly be heard bitching about how horrible communism is. He also hated Gore just as much as he hates Bush. And he's not anti-war either. He supported Vietnam and supports the war on terror. He even goes so far as to say that racial profiling is necessary in order to win the war on terror. Doesn't sound like a liberal to me.

He may support some regulation of guns, but he's by no means a "fuckin liberal." After expressing that he supports some sort of gun control, he also said: "I don't think people who live in Beverly Hills, and don't have problems with crime, should be able to say, 'No, no, you can't have a gun in your house!'"

Maher has his good sides and his bad sides. I don't think many people agree with him on ALL of his issues, but he is definatly worthy of respect.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:47:09 PM EST
[Steve Martin] Well excuuuuusse me [Steve Martin]

I've listened to him enough to know I can't stand him. He's a jackass. He's definitely a liberal, despite what he says he is.

This is what these comedian types do. They bash certain liberals to appear fair to those who might be offended otherwise.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:49:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:
but he is definatly worthy of respect.


you could NOT be more wrong. bill maher is a waste of good oxygen.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:55:31 PM EST
Agreed, Good thing our forefathers didnt think the same.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:03:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 8:04:59 PM EST by The_Neutral_Observer]

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Fuckin liberals make me sick.



First of all, it's "Maher."

Second of all, he's a Libertarian. He bitches about liberals and conservatives alike all the time. He supports the death penalty and he can constantly be heard bitching about how horrible communism is. He also hated Gore just as much as he hates Bush. And he's not anti-war either. He supported Vietnam and supports the war on terror. He even goes so far as to say that racial profiling is necessary in order to win the war on terror. Doesn't sound like a liberal to me.

He may support some regulation of guns, but he's by no means a "fuckin liberal." After expressing that he supports some sort of gun control, he also said: "I don't think people who live in Beverly Hills, and don't have problems with crime, should be able to say, 'No, no, you can't have a gun in your house!'"

Maher has his good sides and his bad sides. I don't think many people agree with him on ALL of his issues, but he is definatly worthy of respect.



He's a douchebag. Did you see the episode of his show where he stated he'd kill a retarded child before a dog? He's a first class POS. The only problem is that he runs his mouth so much that probability takes his side and he gets things right (very rarely) on accident. Don't mistakenly attribute that to intelligence.

EDIT: The Libertarian Party has disowned him, by the way. It was on their website a while back.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:04:49 PM EST
CloningBagels...

First of all, it's "Maher."

Second of all, he's a Libertarian.



... and I'm the Easter Bunny. Can I interest you in some chocolate? It's the same color as the shit that Bill Maher tries to pass off as an enlightened Libertarian opinion.

A Libertarian who favors gun control... now that's rich!!!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:07:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Fuckin liberals make me sick.



First of all, it's "Maher."

Second of all, he's a Libertarian.......

..........Maher has his good sides and his bad sides. I don't think many people agree with him on ALL of his issues, but he is definatly worthy of respect.




Why should I respect this ass master? Because he has an opinion and gets air time on TV? Sorry, I don't agree with YOU or Maher. Show me one good side of Maher.... Please, I beg of you. Because everytime I've tried to tune into I can't make it to the first break without turning the channel. Like I said before, he's a Liberal ass hat!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:08:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 8:12:42 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:
And he's not anti-war either. He supported Vietnam and supports the war on terror...


"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, that’s not cowardly."
~ Bill Maher,
Sept. 17, 2001 - his FIRST broadcast after 9-11.


The he followed it up with this non-apology:

"In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong,''

So it's not HIS fault you see - HE was correct in what he said about US being "cowards" - it's just that WE were the ones "who took it wrong". He's not saying HE was wrong - he's saying that WE took it wrong.

Fucking asshole.


Originally Posted By CloningBagels:
he is definatly worthy of respect.

No.

No he's not. Not one bit.

He's a braindead contrarian asshole who thinks criticism of everyone and everything is a sign of intellect.

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:10:30 PM EST
Go easy on her, guys. She's a young lady. The Neutral Observer is guilty of this too, but try to tone down the profanity when you respond to her.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:12:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, that’s not cowardly."
~ Bill Maher,
Sept. 17, 2001 - his FIRST broadcast after 9-11.




The Neutral Observer had forgotten about that. Yeah, Bill Mahrhrerhrhrhr-whatever is an asshole.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:16:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
Go easy on her, guys. She's a young lady. The Neutral Observer is guilty of this too, but try to tone down the profanity when you respond to her.



Fuck shit mother fucker cocksucker piss cunt whore...Did I miss anything? Thanks though Neutral Observer.

But anyway, Bill Maher is awesome. Next to Chris Rock, he's the best comedian out there. I can't stand some of the things he says, but he's funny as hell. And no, I still won't call him a liberal.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:20:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:
But anyway, Bill Maher is awesome.... he's funny as hell.

De gustibus non est disputandum.



Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:21:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
Go easy on her, guys. She's a young lady. The Neutral Observer is guilty of this too, but try to tone down the profanity when you respond to her.



Fuck shit mother fucker cocksucker piss cunt whore...Did I miss anything? Thanks though Neutral Observer.

But anyway, Bill Maher is awesome. Next to Chris Rock, he's the best comedian out there. I can't stand some of the things he says, but he's funny as hell. And no, I still won't call him a liberal.



i dont have the words right now.
I'm going to watch Adult swim and reflect a while..
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:29:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 8:31:59 PM EST by NYPatriot]
Billy Boy's Libertarian lie exposed...

dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html

Care to comment Bagels?
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:37:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
Billy Boy's Libertarian lie exposed...

dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html

Care to comment Bagels?



Nice try, but I've visited that exact website many times before actually. He's more Libertarian than Liberal. I'm a Liberal and I only agree with about 20% of the things Maher says. I just think he's hilarious. He doesn't take shit from anyone and he says what he wants. That, in my eyes, is very respectful. Similarly, I think John McCain is the biggest asshat the world has ever seen, but I respect him for the same reason. He speaks his mind.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:43:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:
He's more Libertarian than Liberal.


do you even know what a libertarian is?
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:45:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:
He's more Libertarian than Liberal.


do you even know what a libertarian is?



limited government intervention
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:45:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Taxman:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Maher, Franken, Garafalo etc are all popular with the intelligent, college-educated crowd.

In fact, some of the STUPIDEST people I ever met have highly advanced degrees and sky-high IQs.





Im with you on that. I have had to deal with several people with advanced degrees who were so stupid that they should go drink drain cleaner and do the world a favor.



feeling a little jealous and inferior, are we?
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:48:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 8:50:40 PM EST by NYPatriot]
www.wga.org/craft/interviews/moore.html


Maher: Let me ask you one more question about guns, since that's what this was about. Why, oh, why can't people who love guns admit that they just love guns? Why do they have to make it about freedom or the outdoors or the Constitution when it's plainly such bullshit? I mean the arguments that they use for guns, that we need to have guns to stave off an overpowering federal government, like we could stave off the Apache helicopter and the 30,000 nuclear weapons with our squirrel guns. Why can't they just admit it and say it's like booze or tobacco? It's a vice that's bad for you, but we like it. We like our guns. We play with them. We polish them. We just love them. Did you run into anyone who would have balls enough to say that?

Moore: No. Nobody will say that.



This POS views our God given right to bear arms as "bullshit", and "a vice that's bad for you"!!! Yup... Libertarian to the core, that Bill Maher.

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:53:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

...our God given right to bear arms ...




Yeah, sure. I support the 2nd Amendment and hate the AWB just as much as you guys, but I wasn't aware that God wrote the Constitution.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:58:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:01:11 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

...our God given right to bear arms ...


Yeah, sure. I support the 2nd Amendment and hate the AWB just as much as you guys, but I wasn't aware that God wrote the Constitution.

Umm... our rights are not derived from the Constitution.

They are endowed by our Creator - does that expression sound familiar?

We had a RKBA loooooooong before we had a 2nd Amendment. If you don't understand that - then I can see why you think Bill Maher is so "awesome".



Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:59:02 PM EST
Would somebody PLEASE enlighten this naive little girl as to the philosophical underpinnings of our once great Republic!

I'm really losing my patience....
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:59:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
CloningBagels...

First of all, it's "Maher."

Second of all, he's a Libertarian.



... and I'm the Easter Bunny. Can I interest you in some chocolate? It's the same color as the shit that Bill Maher tries to pass off as an enlightened Libertarian opinion.

A Libertarian who favors gun control... now that's rich!!!



I was going to say if he's a libertarian, I'm santa claus.

He's not a libertarian, he's a libertine. The problem for cloning bagels is that she doesn't see it because she's a liberal as well.

Bill maher isn't worthy of respect. He's not funny, his only claim to fame other than 'politically incorrect' is making horribly bad movies for nearly 20 years.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:02:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:
...his only claim to fame other than 'politically incorrect' is making horribly bad movies for nearly 20 years.



"Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death" was great!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:06:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:08:12 PM EST by doorgunner84]
Sorry, it takes a lot more for me to respect someone then just that. But then again I guess when you make a living by running your trap that's all ya got.

How about Bill Cosby, Robin Williams, early Eddie Murphy, Abbott and Costello, Richard Pryor, and Benny Hill, and the list goes on. Again, sorry....... but there are far more talented comedians.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:11:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:12:24 PM EST by NYPatriot]
Against my better judgement...

Bagels, where do you think that we derive our unalienable rights from... some piece of paper???

The 2nd. Amendment merely acknowledges in words, a preexisting & innate right to bear arms in our defense!

Some choose to call the source of these rights "natural law", while others prefer to use the concept of God. In either case, the result is the same...

A right is something more than a liberty or privilege that the state can offer or revoke. It is literally something that is intrinsic to our state of being.

In short, we retain the right to bear arms, regardless of the existence of the Bill of Rights!

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:11:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

...our God given right to bear arms ...




Yeah, sure. I support the 2nd Amendment and hate the AWB just as much as you guys, but I wasn't aware that God wrote the Constitution.



Then maybe you should do some real, honest to goodness constitutional research before you spout ignorant comments online.

The bill of rights, meaning the first ten amendments to the constitution, are held as inalieble rights. Look to the declaration of independence for the founders' though process behind this. Here's a brief start from yahoo on natural law:

education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=33355


NATURAL RIGHTS

political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God. With the growth of the idea of individualism, especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings, have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society. Perhaps the most famous formulation of this doctrine is found in the writings of John Locke. Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract. The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights theory a powerful justification for revolution. The classic expressions of natural rights are the English Bill of Rights (1689), the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (1948).



and here's a little more info for you from a document you should know about:


When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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;



So before you go laughing out loud and mocking someone who made a correct comment, perhaps you should learn something about the subject matter first.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:21:44 PM EST
Bagel, you are certainly entitled to your opinions & POV, but I have to ask...

Where do you believe that our rights come from???

Does the Constitution grant them to us? Do we obtain them from the Government?

To get real handle on the issue, an understanding of the fundamental principles of our government system is a must. First and foremost is the rationale of the founding fathers of the U.S. in establishing this nation. Their ideas on government and individual liberty are clearly revealed in our Declaration of Independence.

Quoting from that document...


"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;"


Note the following:

- That we are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights!


ENDOW : To enrich or furnish with any gift, quality or faculty; to indue. Man is endowed by his maker with reason. [Websters 1828]


This idea, that human rights are the gift of God and not government, separates the U.S. from many other nations who hold that these rights are granted by government, and are in fact owned by government.

He who grants rights may also take rights away! Do you really want to attribute the source of your rights to some imperfect human source that could strip you of them on a whim???



UNALIENABLE - Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights. [Websters 1828]


As applied to our understanding of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights neither allows nor disallows any rights, nor claims the authority to grant human rights. It merely acknowledges in words, preexisting & innate rights that are inherent to the human condition.



Bagel, our Constitution does a number of things. Among them, it creates and defines our government, it grants certain powers to that government, and it severely restricts our government to those powers enumerated within it. Furthermore, it reserves all other powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to the States or the People.

What it most certainly does not do is claim to be the source of our rights!

So I ask again... Where do you believe that our rights come from???

More over, why do you mock my statement "God given right to bear arms"???

I'm only echoing the words & beliefs of our founding fathers!!!


"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence."

-Charles Austin Beard, 1874 - 1948

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:24:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

...our God given right to bear arms ...




Yeah, sure. I support the 2nd Amendment and hate the AWB just as much as you guys, but I wasn't aware that God wrote the Constitution.



Then maybe you should do some real, honest to goodness constitutional research before you spout ignorant comments online.

The bill of rights, meaning the first ten amendments to the constitution, are held as inalieble rights. Look to the declaration of independence for the founders' though process behind this. Here's a brief start from yahoo on natural law:

education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=33355


NATURAL RIGHTS

political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God. With the growth of the idea of individualism, especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings, have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society. Perhaps the most famous formulation of this doctrine is found in the writings of John Locke. Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract. The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights theory a powerful justification for revolution. The classic expressions of natural rights are the English Bill of Rights (1689), the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (1948).



and here's a little more info for you from a document you should know about:


When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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;



So before you go laughing out loud and mocking someone who made a correct comment, perhaps you should learn something about the subject matter first.



So, the writers of the Constitution say that "God has given you these rights," so that makes it so? Hell no! MAN wrote it...MAN wrote everything that you just quoted above. MAN wrote the Bible. MAN is incapable of understanding God. If you think that any human being has ever understood God, then you are a sheep. The higher power is beyond human understanding. How do you know that God says something? Because a human being told you he did? That is fucking bullshit.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:30:05 PM EST
Everyone knows Alanis Morissette is god......... duh! don't you people watch movies?
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:39:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:42:08 PM EST by NYPatriot]
Bagels, I fully respect your right to live your life by whatever guiding principals & beliefs that you see fit. You obviously have an extreme bias against the notion of a Supreme Being, and that's fine! To each their own.

I will not however, shy away from the traditional American paradigm which teaches that Man, (the individual), is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because they are bestowed by his Creator!

You may be content to remain willfully ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but it is an undeniable historical fact (and a source of great pride, IMHO) that our governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept.

God-given rights are sometimes called "Natural Rights"... those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy.

As stated previously, this is the meaning of "unalienable." Thus, man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable…because of their Divine origin.


Now you may choose not to believe in any of this Bagel, but please refrain from implying that I am somehow "out to lunch" or full of shit for simply acknowledging the traditional American philosophy that infused our founders with the courage & moral justification to give birth to the grand American experiment!



"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"

-Thomas Jefferson ("Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782)


"The Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."


-Alexander Hamilton (An essay, "The Farmer Refuted," 1775)



For what it's worth...

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:42:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:43:55 PM EST by CloningBagels]

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
You obviously have an extreme bias against the notion of a Supreme Being, and that's fine! To each their own.




I believe very strongly in God. VERY strongly. I also know that our founding fathers were just as human as the rest of us. God is so great that no human, including them, will ever be able to understand him.

Edited to add: I love the GD Forum. Only here can an innocent post about Bill Maher turn into a debate about a higher power. Thanks. It's always interesting in here.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:42:50 PM EST

So, the writers of the Constitution say that "God has given you these rights," so that makes it so? Hell no! MAN wrote it...MAN wrote everything that you just quoted above. MAN wrote the Bible. MAN is incapable of understanding God. If you think that any human being has ever understood God, then you are a sheep. The higher power is beyond human understanding. How do you know that God says something? Because a human being told you he did? That is fucking bullshit.


cloning bagels, your ignorance is showing. And a little anger, too. Not sure where that's coming from.

However, the whole dog and pony show that "man is incapable of understanding God" not withstanding (a nice little attempt to distract from the issue at hand, btw), one thing remains clear. I'll try to connect the dots for you:

1. The founding fathers are responsible for creating the united states of america.
2. Those same founders are responsible for creating the documents and the ideals behind those documents that we live under.
3. Those founding fathers created those documents we live under based on their ideals that the basic human rights we do have, as outlined in the bill of rights, which include the seconde amendment, are granted by GOD, not man.
4. As such, those rights are to be held as god given rights. Why? Because the people who wrote the documents that we live under believed that NO MAN (or woman) could take away those rights, because they are given to every human being as a virtue of being born.

The rights, as stated in the DOI, are endowed to us by our creator. It doesn't take a libearal arts degree or years studying to "Understand God" to accept the belief that we all have basic human rights.

So in summary, you are wrong, you are angry about something (maybe about being wrong and not knowing what you think you know). Your diatribe about "the higher power is beyond human understanding" is just a smokescreen to cover your ignorance about the constitution and its genesis.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:49:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:50:51 PM EST by CloningBagels]

Originally Posted By bastiat:
The rights, as stated in the DOI, are endowed to us by our creator.



And how do you know that? I repeat: Because a human being has told you so. I'm angry because it is blasphemous to say such things. I do not take it lightly when someone pretends that they understand God.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:02:38 PM EST
CloningBagels=Brick wall??
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:06:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
The rights, as stated in the DOI, are endowed to us by our creator.



And how do you know that? I repeat: Because a human being has told you so. I'm angry because it is blasphemous to say such things. I do not take it lightly when someone pretends that they understand God.



Your'e angry because you're wrong. Learn the truth, accept it, and stand by the truth, then you might not be so angry.

Forget it mentions God at all for a moment. It's not absolutely necessary to understanding the philosphy behind it.

The belief is based that all human beings have certain inaliable rights. That's the philosphy behind the bill of rights. It doesn't matter if God or Gaia or liberace granted them. What DOES matter is that by virtue of being born, you now have those rights. And because you have those rights bestowed on you just by being born, no human being can take those rights away. They are unaliable. They are yours until you leave this earth, or prove yourself, as an individual, incapable of having those rights and not infringing on the rights of others (and therefore get yourself thrown in prison and have those rights taken away from you by other people acting together to protect their rights).

Now if you want to throw god into this mix: It doesn't matter if you understand God. It doesn't matter if you believe in God. What matters is that the men, who wrote the constitution, did believe in God. Specifically they refered to God as the 'Creator'. Not much to understand beyond the fact that they thought God created both the world and Man. And that they believe God created life. And that they believe that when your life was created, you were given these rights. It doesn't require blasphemy to believe that you were created by God or that you have basic human rights by virtue of being born. And this is all that's about.

Or don't you believe in basic human rights? Do youthink we could hold a vote to cancel the first amendment in order to deny you the right to free speech? Or do you believe that no matter people vote or the constitution says, you still have to right to practice free speech?

If you believe the latter, then you believe in natural rights. And that's what this thing called the bill of rights is all about.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:08:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By 455SD:
CloningBagels=Brick wall??



CB= 19 year old liberal female.

So yea, probably for now, until reality hits.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:08:41 PM EST

because they are given to every human being as a virtue of being born.




I'm going to give Cloning the benefit of the doubt and assume she's just being put off by the use of the word "God".

Read the statement above cloning. Our rights are a VIRTUE OF BEING BORN. They are not a gift, they are not a priveledge! It takes nothing more than common sense to understand this.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:09:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By CloningBagels:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
The rights, as stated in the DOI, are endowed to us by our creator.



And how do you know that? I repeat: Because a human being has told you so. I'm angry because it is blasphemous to say such things. I do not take it lightly when someone pretends that they understand God.



No, it's blasphemous to say that the word of God is bullshit written by men.

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:10:42 PM EST
Bill Mahr is a peter duster extraordinaire. 'Nuff said.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:17:42 PM EST
So back to the topic at hand: That liberal idiot bill maher. Here's his film / tv acting resume resume:

Tomcats (2001) (uncredited) .... Carlos
Bimbo Movie Bash (1997)
Say What? (1992) (TV) .... Host
Pizza Man (1991) .... Elmo Bunn
"Charlie Hoover" (1991) TV Series .... Elliot
Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989) .... Jim
... aka Jungle Heat (1989/II) (USA)
... aka Piranha Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989) (USA)
Out of Time (1988) (TV) .... Maxwell Taylor
"Hard Knocks" (1987) TV Series
House II: The Second Story (1987) .... John
Rags to Riches (1986) (TV) .... Freddie
... aka Foley and the Girls From St. Mags (1986) (TV) (USA: alternative title)
Ratboy (1986) .... Party Guest
Club Med (1986) (TV) .... Rick
"Sara" (1985) TV Series .... Marty Lang
D.C. Cab (1983) .... Bill
... aka Street Fleet (1983)

Obviously he's qualified to be a respected political talk show host
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top