Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Where do rights come from? Evolution is the answer.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 2:11:39 AM8/29/12
to
right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>[nothing]
Again.
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>[nothing]
Again.
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 2:12:03 AM8/29/12
to
right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> [nothing]
And again.
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 2:12:22 AM8/29/12
to
right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> [bullshit]
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
Once again.
Gunner
Aug 29, 2012, 4:20:54 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 02:57:14 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:55:25PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:56:08 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:56:53PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:16:04 -0600, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 8/28/2012 2:28 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >> >> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j78k$t6r$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 8/28/2012 1:38 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >> >>> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j421$5n0$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >> >>>>>> You failed. You gave just 3 rights.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> We have way more than those, all from the state.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Where did the rest come from?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> THE CREATOR, you fucking idiot!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> What creator?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> The Creator which brought all of this and all of us into existence.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ===========================================
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Listening to those voices in your head again lunatic?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> No, just the framers:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "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. — That
>> >> >> to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
>> >> >> their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ===========================================
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Constitution is the basis of our government and it's law.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The First Amendment
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>> >> >
>> >> >The Declaration underlays the Constitution.
>> >> >
>> >> >The discussion is as to the origin of rights, not about religion and the
>> >> >state.
>> >> >
>> >> >Shabby attempt to decouple noted and rejected.
>> >> >
>> >> >next.
>> >>
>> >> Underlays...AH!...It prefaces it.
>> >
>> >Another way of putting it is a reality disconnect. Sadly common
>> >among idiot right-tards.
>> >
>> >
>> so Comrade...think you are going to ever get that pesky October
>> Revolution underway here in the good old USA?
>>
>> Good luck on that.
>>
>> Im curious..will you blow yourself up with a poorly made bomb, or
>> will some American blow your heart out while you are standing there
>> trying to figure out your device and then uses the bomb to scatter
>> your shit to the 4 winds?
>
>If my poor little body was scattered to the "4 winds" it would be a
>glorious moral victory for the cause. Are you trying to create a
>martyr?
Im sure someone would be more than happy to assist you.
Removing your head and hands really slows down that martyr ID thing
though.
Shrug.
But hey...Im just a harmless fuzzball that wouldnt harm a flea unless
it was trying to harm myself or another.
I cant speak for those keeping the List however.
Shrug again
Gunner
>
>
>
--
The essential differences between liberals and conservtives
is that liberals could not exist without conservtives to defend
their freedom and support them economicaly.
Conservatives on the other hand, can exist and
live quite well without liberals."
wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:55:25PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:56:08 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:56:53PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:16:04 -0600, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 8/28/2012 2:28 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >> >> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j78k$t6r$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 8/28/2012 1:38 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >> >>> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j421$5n0$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >> >>> On 8/28/2012 12:41 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>> >> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> >>>> Hash: SHA1
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On 2012-08-28, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> >> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> >>>> Hash: SHA1
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>> You failed. You gave just 3 rights.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> We have way more than those, all from the state.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Where did the rest come from?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> THE CREATOR, you fucking idiot!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> What creator?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> The Creator which brought all of this and all of us into existence.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ===========================================
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Listening to those voices in your head again lunatic?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> No, just the framers:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "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. — That
>> >> >> to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
>> >> >> their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ===========================================
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Constitution is the basis of our government and it's law.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The First Amendment
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>> >> >
>> >> >The Declaration underlays the Constitution.
>> >> >
>> >> >The discussion is as to the origin of rights, not about religion and the
>> >> >state.
>> >> >
>> >> >Shabby attempt to decouple noted and rejected.
>> >> >
>> >> >next.
>> >>
>> >> Underlays...AH!...It prefaces it.
>> >
>> >Another way of putting it is a reality disconnect. Sadly common
>> >among idiot right-tards.
>> >
>> >
>> so Comrade...think you are going to ever get that pesky October
>> Revolution underway here in the good old USA?
>>
>> Good luck on that.
>>
>> Im curious..will you blow yourself up with a poorly made bomb, or
>> will some American blow your heart out while you are standing there
>> trying to figure out your device and then uses the bomb to scatter
>> your shit to the 4 winds?
>
>If my poor little body was scattered to the "4 winds" it would be a
>glorious moral victory for the cause. Are you trying to create a
>martyr?
Im sure someone would be more than happy to assist you.
Removing your head and hands really slows down that martyr ID thing
though.
Shrug.
But hey...Im just a harmless fuzzball that wouldnt harm a flea unless
it was trying to harm myself or another.
I cant speak for those keeping the List however.
Shrug again
Gunner
>
>
>
--
The essential differences between liberals and conservtives
is that liberals could not exist without conservtives to defend
their freedom and support them economicaly.
Conservatives on the other hand, can exist and
live quite well without liberals."
Gunner
Aug 29, 2012, 4:23:46 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:29:17 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
>> >
>> >
>> >Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
>> >hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
>> >hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
>> hate speech
>> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
>
>Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
>requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
Sorry you biased, bigoted and bufffoonish Leftard. Its hate speech
clearly.
Else mine isnt either.
<VBG>
wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
>> >
>> >
>> >Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
>> >hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
>> >hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
>> hate speech
>> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
>
>Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
>requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
Sorry you biased, bigoted and bufffoonish Leftard. Its hate speech
clearly.
Else mine isnt either.
<VBG>
Gunner
Aug 29, 2012, 4:25:49 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:40:28 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:32:22 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:45:27PM -0400, Dano wrote:
>> >> "Seth F." wrote in message news:vwdNAI.8...@invalid.invalid...
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:00:13PM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> >> >On 8/28/2012 12:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> >> >>On 8/28/2012 11:56 AM, lib_duster wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>No gods and no governments required.
>> >> >>>>>>A state is. Without it you have no rights.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>The state can only defend rights, not grant them.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>It has and does grant them. In the US the bill of rights.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>You're jus playing semantics.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>That last sentence is the crux of the matter. Rights precede the state
>> >> >>(and government, the political implementation of the state.) States and
>> >> >>government are instituted in order to secure rights we already have;
>> >> >>they do not "grant" or "confer" or "give" the rights.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >That's it exactly!
>> >> >
>> >> >The CREATOR precedes ALL human life and ALL human institutions.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is pretty basic truth.
>> >>
>> >> This idiot probably deludes himself with the idea that he is the
>> >> manifestation of "God's" will on Earth, and therefore 'special'.
>> >>
>> >> I'll agree that he's special, just not in the way the asshole thinks.
>> >>
>> >> ===========================================
>> >>
>> >> The scary thing is this nut is probably allowed to walk free...vote...and
>> >> purchase firearms.
>> >
>> >Worse, he's likely a "breeder".
>>
>> You gays are always bitching about breeders
>
>I'm not making a subtle reference to Kim Deal's band, asshole. I knew
>someone would jump on that reference in exactly the way you did.
>"Breeder" is a slang term for idiots who miseducate their children for
>political purposes.
>
>
Sure you are. Ahuh. Oh hell yes. Fucking aye.
You gays are always bitching about breeders
wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:32:22 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:45:27PM -0400, Dano wrote:
>> >> "Seth F." wrote in message news:vwdNAI.8...@invalid.invalid...
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:00:13PM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> >> >On 8/28/2012 12:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> >> >>On 8/28/2012 11:56 AM, lib_duster wrote:
>> >> >>>On 8/28/2012 12:43 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>> >> >>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> >>>>Hash: SHA1
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>On 2012-08-28, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote:
>> >> >>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> >>>>Hash: SHA1
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>No gods and no governments required.
>> >> >>>>>>A state is. Without it you have no rights.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>The state can only defend rights, not grant them.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>It has and does grant them. In the US the bill of rights.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>You're jus playing semantics.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>"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.
>> >> >â€�€? >>That
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>"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.
>> >> >>>to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
>> >> >>>their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>That last sentence is the crux of the matter. Rights precede the state
>> >> >>(and government, the political implementation of the state.) States and
>> >> >>government are instituted in order to secure rights we already have;
>> >> >>they do not "grant" or "confer" or "give" the rights.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >That's it exactly!
>> >> >
>> >> >The CREATOR precedes ALL human life and ALL human institutions.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is pretty basic truth.
>> >>
>> >> This idiot probably deludes himself with the idea that he is the
>> >> manifestation of "God's" will on Earth, and therefore 'special'.
>> >>
>> >> I'll agree that he's special, just not in the way the asshole thinks.
>> >>
>> >> ===========================================
>> >>
>> >> The scary thing is this nut is probably allowed to walk free...vote...and
>> >> purchase firearms.
>> >
>> >Worse, he's likely a "breeder".
>>
>> You gays are always bitching about breeders
>
>I'm not making a subtle reference to Kim Deal's band, asshole. I knew
>someone would jump on that reference in exactly the way you did.
>"Breeder" is a slang term for idiots who miseducate their children for
>political purposes.
>
>
Sure you are. Ahuh. Oh hell yes. Fucking aye.
You gays are always bitching about breeders
mr_antone
Aug 29, 2012, 8:26:11 AM8/29/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:29:33 -0600, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out>
wrote:
>On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in news:19ednReSsdjzq6DNnZ2dnUVZ5t-
>>>> dn...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/28/2012 1:59 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>> news:BpOdnXUeJeaWsaDN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 1:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:9vCdnWGAuIxETKHN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 5:55 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:XZCdndc4fob5saHN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 6:57 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Y_ydnTl8is8ZYKbN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 3:54 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6_ednephRcuOf6bN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 1:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:I5CdnRk3Iq30t6TN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 10:50 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:bfOdndjM55qsbqXN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 8:39 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <y5ydncP785EtH6rN...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groupings that include tens of millions of people --
>>>>>>>>>>>> liberals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that people shouldn't have the _option_ of
>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selfish, while conservatives do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are
>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that people shouldn't have the option of choosing
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to donate to charity is to be totalitarian.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say "to a charity."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you didn't - you're totalitarian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Of *course* you are! What an absurd and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointless denial you just attempted!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you want the money to be *taken*, not donated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want everyone to be required to make an equitable
>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the common good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a totalitarian. "Required" - that's
>>>>>> totalitarianism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as "the common good." The
>>>>>>>> confiscations
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "contributions" - that you are advocating (because
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totalitarian) are not for any "common good" at all;
>>>> they're
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redistribute wealth to people you declare to be
>>>> deserving.
>>>>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declaration is based on totalitarian thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leftists are totalitarian.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you just see the world in intense black and white.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see totalitarian leftists like you for what you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you think you see something apparently has
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little to do with whether it actually exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a totalitarian statist - not in rational dispute.
>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confiscate value from people in order to serve a
>>>>>> totalitarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What rights do what people have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things of value, and who determines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People have complete and exclusive property rights to
>>>> things
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value they produce or acquire through voluntary exchange.
>>>> No
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "determines"those rights - no rights are societally
>>>>>> determined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? Society doesn't determine rights thru
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copyrights, patents, titles, trademarks, not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention the courts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are recognitions of rights. They are not the conferral
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who does the conferral of said rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of rights
>>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> con·ferredcon·fer·ring
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>
>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>
>> Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>
>>
>> mr_antone
>
>The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between man
>and his government.
Yet your proof is a government document. Go figure.
Do you believe this document applies to the rest of the world?
>
>You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
mr_antone
wrote:
>On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in news:19ednReSsdjzq6DNnZ2dnUVZ5t-
>>>> dn...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/28/2012 1:59 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>> news:BpOdnXUeJeaWsaDN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 1:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:9vCdnWGAuIxETKHN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 5:55 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:XZCdndc4fob5saHN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 6:57 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Y_ydnTl8is8ZYKbN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 3:54 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6_ednephRcuOf6bN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 1:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:I5CdnRk3Iq30t6TN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 10:50 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:bfOdndjM55qsbqXN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 8:39 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <y5ydncP785EtH6rN...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loosely speaking -- which is the only way to talk
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groupings that include tens of millions of people --
>>>>>>>>>>>> liberals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that people shouldn't have the _option_ of
>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selfish, while conservatives do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conservatives are correct, and the liberals are
>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that people shouldn't have the option of choosing
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to donate to charity is to be totalitarian.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say "to a charity."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you didn't - you're totalitarian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Of *course* you are! What an absurd and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointless denial you just attempted!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you want the money to be *taken*, not donated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want everyone to be required to make an equitable
>>>>>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the common good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a totalitarian. "Required" - that's
>>>>>> totalitarianism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as "the common good." The
>>>>>>>> confiscations
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "contributions" - that you are advocating (because
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totalitarian) are not for any "common good" at all;
>>>> they're
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redistribute wealth to people you declare to be
>>>> deserving.
>>>>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declaration is based on totalitarian thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leftists are totalitarian.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you just see the world in intense black and white.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see totalitarian leftists like you for what you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you think you see something apparently has
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little to do with whether it actually exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a totalitarian statist - not in rational dispute.
>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confiscate value from people in order to serve a
>>>>>> totalitarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What rights do what people have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things of value, and who determines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People have complete and exclusive property rights to
>>>> things
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value they produce or acquire through voluntary exchange.
>>>> No
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "determines"those rights - no rights are societally
>>>>>> determined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? Society doesn't determine rights thru
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copyrights, patents, titles, trademarks, not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention the courts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those are recognitions of rights. They are not the conferral
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who does the conferral of said rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of rights
>>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> con·ferredcon·fer·ring
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>>>
>>> "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. — That
>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>>>
>>> "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,
>>> to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
>>> their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
>>
>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>
>> Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>
>>
>> mr_antone
>
>The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between man
>and his government.
Yet your proof is a government document. Go figure.
Do you believe this document applies to the rest of the world?
>
>You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
mr_antone
mr_antone
Aug 29, 2012, 8:26:14 AM8/29/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:58:23 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The death penalty and life imprisonment are not not limits.
Sure they are.
>However..the laws against polygamy certainly are. And with luck,
>about the time gays are allowed to marry, they will have to gut the
>anti-poly laws as welll
You sound like a babbling brook.
>
>So you got one of out 3 correct.
>health and safety codes and quite a number of other similar laws.
Quite a few?
List some.
mr_antone
wrote:
Sure they are.
>However..the laws against polygamy certainly are. And with luck,
>about the time gays are allowed to marry, they will have to gut the
>anti-poly laws as welll
You sound like a babbling brook.
>
>So you got one of out 3 correct.
>
>>Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>
>Quite a few that have been alienated over the years. Housing codes,
>>Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>
>health and safety codes and quite a number of other similar laws.
Quite a few?
List some.
mr_antone
Mitchell Holman
Aug 29, 2012, 8:31:54 AM8/29/12
to
lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1jvij$6e4$3...@dont-email.me:
> On 8/28/2012 7:51 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1jjmc$f1t$1@dont-
email.me:
>> And the "right" to own slaves, as the author of
>> the above in fact did.
>
> The Thirteenth Amendment
> Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
>
> Section 1.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Section 2.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
> legislation.
>
An "inalienable right" that became alienable.
Just so............
> On 8/28/2012 7:51 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1jjmc$f1t$1@dont-
email.me:
>> the above in fact did.
>
> The Thirteenth Amendment
> Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
>
> Section 1.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Section 2.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
> legislation.
>
An "inalienable right" that became alienable.
Just so............
Mitchell Holman
Aug 29, 2012, 8:37:22 AM8/29/12
to
lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1juq5$1tt$8...@dont-email.me:
> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>> wrote:
>>
relinquished by southerners, it was taken away from
them.
The "inalienable" right to drink wasn't reliquished,
it was taken away - and then given back again.
Your rights don't seem to be very god-given after all...
> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>> news:19ednReSsdjzq6DNnZ2dnUVZ5t- dn...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>> news:19ednReSsdjzq6DNnZ2dnUVZ5t- dn...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who does the conferral of said rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> con·ferredcon·fer·ring
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>>>
>>> "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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> con·ferredcon·fer·ring
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>>>
>>> "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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are
>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
>>> the governed,"
>>
>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>
>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
>>> the governed,"
>>
>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>
>> Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mr_antone
>
> The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between
> man and his government.
The "inalienable" right to own slaves wasn't
>
> The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between
> man and his government.
relinquished by southerners, it was taken away from
them.
The "inalienable" right to drink wasn't reliquished,
it was taken away - and then given back again.
Your rights don't seem to be very god-given after all...
Mitchell Holman
Aug 29, 2012, 8:40:20 AM8/29/12
to
Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:j51r381sugk8guugr...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:20:36 -0500, mr_antone <ju...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>
at least five states so far and in many countries.
So where is the "gutting" of polygamy laws you
said would follow?
news:j51r381sugk8guugr...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:20:36 -0500, mr_antone <ju...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>
>>The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>
>
>>example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>
>
> The death penalty and life imprisonment are not not limits.
> However..the laws against polygamy certainly are. And with luck,
> about the time gays are allowed to marry, they will have to gut the
> anti-poly laws as welll
Gays already are ALREADY allowed to marry, in
> about the time gays are allowed to marry, they will have to gut the
> anti-poly laws as welll
at least five states so far and in many countries.
So where is the "gutting" of polygamy laws you
said would follow?
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 8:44:10 AM8/29/12
to
news:WMKory.1...@invalid.invalid...
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> In your case, it would be only fertilizer
>
> And no oil?
>
That would depend on how fat you are
Now wouldn't it.
But considering that human fat has little commercial or marketable value, no
one would care.
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:21:27PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:BWKFRA.8...@invalid.invalid...
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:55:25PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> >>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:56:08 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:56:53PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:16:04 -0600, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >On 8/28/2012 2:28 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >>>> >> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j78k$t6r$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On 8/28/2012 1:38 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >>>> >>> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j421$5n0$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >On 8/28/2012 2:28 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >>>> >> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j78k$t6r$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On 8/28/2012 1:38 PM, Dano wrote:
>> >>>> >>> "lib_duster" wrote in message news:k1j421$5n0$2...@dont-email.me...
>> >>>> >>> On 8/28/2012 12:41 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>> >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >>>> >>>> Hash: SHA1
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >>>> >>>> Hash: SHA1
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> On 2012-08-28, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>>> You failed. You gave just 3 rights.
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> We have way more than those, all from the state.
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> Where did the rest come from?
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> THE CREATOR, you fucking idiot!
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> What creator?
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>> The Creator which brought all of this and all of us into
>> >>>> >>> existence.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> ===========================================
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Listening to those voices in your head again lunatic?
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >> No, just the framers:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>> You failed. You gave just 3 rights.
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> We have way more than those, all from the state.
>> >>>> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>> Where did the rest come from?
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> THE CREATOR, you fucking idiot!
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> What creator?
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>> The Creator which brought all of this and all of us into
>> >>>> >>> existence.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> ===========================================
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Listening to those voices in your head again lunatic?
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >> No, just the framers:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of
>> >>>> >> America
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> "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. -
>> >>>> >> America
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> "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
>> >>>> >> That
>> >>>> >> to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
>> >>>> >> deriving
>> >>>> >> their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
>> >>>> >> deriving
>> >>>> >> their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
>> >>>> >>
>
> And no oil?
>
That would depend on how fat you are
Now wouldn't it.
But considering that human fat has little commercial or marketable value, no
one would care.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 8:45:18 AM8/29/12
to
"Mike Lovell" <dev....@b0h0.com> wrote in message
news:slrnk3r30n....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
>
>>> You obviously don't understand what a "right" is, look it up and get ack
>>> to me.
>>>
>>
>> Why don't you look it up and get back to us
>>
>>> You have no *right* to breath.
>>>
>>
>> Good
>> Then please stop ASAP.
>
> Why would I stop? You make no sense. I don't require a right to breath
> in order to breath.
>
> -----
So since you admit not having a right to breathe, you also admit that others
would have the right to stop you from breathing.
So in effect you do not have a right to life either.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 8:45:50 AM8/29/12
to
news:2TvUQL.3...@invalid.invalid...
Got it..
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
>> >
>> >
>> >Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
>> >hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
>> >hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
>> hate speech
>> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
>
> Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
> requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
>
Is that how you try to justify your hate speech ?
>> >
>> >
>> >Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
>> >hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
>> >hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
>> hate speech
>> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
>
> Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
> requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
>
Got it..
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 8:47:27 AM8/29/12
to
so typical of the left, is not hate speech either
Got it again
Gunner
Aug 29, 2012, 10:29:19 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:26:14 -0500, mr_antone <ju...@not.here> wrote:
>>>The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>>example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>
>>
>>The death penalty and life imprisonment are not not limits.
>
>Sure they are.
http://constitution.now77.com/
>>>The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>>example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>
>>
>>The death penalty and life imprisonment are not not limits.
>
>Sure they are.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/018.html
Lots more available
>
>>However..the laws against polygamy certainly are. And with luck,
>>about the time gays are allowed to marry, they will have to gut the
>>anti-poly laws as welll
>
>You sound like a babbling brook.
>
>>
>>So you got one of out 3 correct.
>>
>>>Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>
>>Quite a few that have been alienated over the years. Housing codes,
>>health and safety codes and quite a number of other similar laws.
>
>Quite a few?
>
>List some.
>
ObamaCare, Building codes, OSHA, Minimum Wage. I could be here a week
>>
>>So you got one of out 3 correct.
>>
>>>Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>
>>Quite a few that have been alienated over the years. Housing codes,
>>health and safety codes and quite a number of other similar laws.
>
>Quite a few?
>
>List some.
>
listing them
DOMA, which should tickle you. Now you can marry your highschool
sweetheart the football star.
There is a very very long list of such laws that if pushed..seatbelt
laws...would be found Unconstitutional. Motorcycle helmet laws
another. It just depends on which Constitutional Standard one
follows. The original one...or a later one. You of course should be
happy as can be, that Slavery was found Unconstitutional, yet for a
100 yrs or more..was very Constitutional...Dred Scott showed that
You really arent very smart are you? You must be a Democrat.
>
>mr_antone
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:39:56 AM8/29/12
to
news:slrnk3r360....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
>>>
>>
>> Only your stupidity does that.
>
> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
> matter what regardless of state.
>
As I stated, I am NOT responsible for your education
Nor am I bound in any to play your stupid game
Feel free to do some reading, on the history of how rights were defined over
time.
>
> Go on, fail to do so an make me look good again loser :-p
>
You can only look as good as any stupid parrot can
Come back when you've actually grown up
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You make the term meaningless.
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Only your stupidity does that.
>
> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
> matter what regardless of state.
>
As I stated, I am NOT responsible for your education
Nor am I bound in any to play your stupid game
Feel free to do some reading, on the history of how rights were defined over
time.
>
> Go on, fail to do so an make me look good again loser :-p
>
You can only look as good as any stupid parrot can
Come back when you've actually grown up
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:41:27 AM8/29/12
to
news:slrnk3r46a....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
>
> You say I have rights, not given to me by any state, I just have them.
>
> So what are these rights?
> '
One example has already been given
Apparently you're not even smart enough to realize that
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> You make the term meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only your stupidity does that.
>>>
>>> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
>>> matter what regardless of state.
>>
>> That does not follow.
>>>>> You make the term meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only your stupidity does that.
>>>
>>> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
>>> matter what regardless of state.
>>
>
> You say I have rights, not given to me by any state, I just have them.
>
> So what are these rights?
> '
One example has already been given
Apparently you're not even smart enough to realize that
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:43:30 AM8/29/12
to
news:slrnk3r38r....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
>>> Then I have the "right" by your definition to do anything
>>>
>>
>> In absolute terms yes
>> In a social context, no.
>> Since your rights are balanced against the rights of others.
>
> Balanced by whom?
>
DOH !
People more intelligent than you, obviously
> Who determines which rights take precedent, who determines what the
> rights are?
>
People who actually take some time to think on the subject,
Ignorati such as you do NOT qualify
> You don't know what they are, as demonstrated by your inability to list
> them - So who does?
>
I've already given you a couple of examples
I'm so sorry that they did not penetrate your haze of ignorance
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
>
>>> Then I have the "right" by your definition to do anything
>>>
>>
>> In absolute terms yes
>> In a social context, no.
>> Since your rights are balanced against the rights of others.
>
> Balanced by whom?
>
DOH !
People more intelligent than you, obviously
> Who determines which rights take precedent, who determines what the
> rights are?
>
People who actually take some time to think on the subject,
Ignorati such as you do NOT qualify
> You don't know what they are, as demonstrated by your inability to list
> them - So who does?
>
I've already given you a couple of examples
I'm so sorry that they did not penetrate your haze of ignorance
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:45:39 AM8/29/12
to
news:slrnk3r3b9....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
>>>> That does not make them disappear for all that.
>>>>
>>>> Same as you have the right to eat
>>>> But just because you are too lazy to provide for yourself, does not
>>>> mean
>>>> that you have lost that right
>>>
>>> Ha-ha, right to eat.... You guys really are scrapping the barrel now.
>>>
>>> Okay, please list all my rights here...
>>>
>>
>> Why ?
>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept, why
>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>
> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
> principal.
>
Why should I "list them on principal(sic)" ?
I already gave you some examples
I also defined to you how they are derived
You ignored both.
> <Yawn> I believe you <Pats SaPeIsMa on head>
>
I'm so sorry that you are both stupid and arrogant
It's not a good mix
>
> Come back to me when you don't destroy your own argument through failure
> to cite :-)
>
Cite what dummy ?
That you're a moron who is too stupid to even understand a simple example
given ?
That's your problem, not mine
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Then your rights have been infringed
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That does not make them disappear for all that.
>>>>
>>>> Same as you have the right to eat
>>>> But just because you are too lazy to provide for yourself, does not
>>>> mean
>>>> that you have lost that right
>>>
>>> Ha-ha, right to eat.... You guys really are scrapping the barrel now.
>>>
>>> Okay, please list all my rights here...
>>>
>>
>> Why ?
>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept, why
>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>
> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
> principal.
>
Why should I "list them on principal(sic)" ?
I already gave you some examples
I also defined to you how they are derived
You ignored both.
> <Yawn> I believe you <Pats SaPeIsMa on head>
>
I'm so sorry that you are both stupid and arrogant
It's not a good mix
>
> Come back to me when you don't destroy your own argument through failure
> to cite :-)
>
Cite what dummy ?
That you're a moron who is too stupid to even understand a simple example
given ?
That's your problem, not mine
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:48:38 AM8/29/12
to
news:slrnk3r42r....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
>
> Picking at grammar/spelling, the sign of a lost argument.
>
Is it ?
Maybe it's a demonstration of YOUR lack of education that you're not even
smart enough to know the difference
>> He may know them all, or he may not. You're just trolling. You have a
>> very good sense of what they are, even though you *are* too stupid to
>> understand the concept. You believe in inherent natural rights; you
>> know you do. You're just a trolling sophist.
>
> No, I really don't.
>
Actually your posts show that you're a trolling sophist
> I'd like to know what they are, then I can judge the validity of them
> for myself.
>
You don't have either the knowledge or the brains to make such a judgment
All you can do is post circular responses while you demonstrate your
sophistry
> You fail to provide the list.
>
Why should anyone provide a list just because you demand one like a 3
year-old ?
You have already been given a couple of examples that you ignored
What should we bother ?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> Why ?
>>>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept,
>>>> why
>>>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>>>
>>> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
>>> principal.
>>
>> Principle, not "principal".
>>>> Why ?
>>>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept,
>>>> why
>>>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>>>
>>> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
>>> principal.
>>
>
> Picking at grammar/spelling, the sign of a lost argument.
>
Is it ?
Maybe it's a demonstration of YOUR lack of education that you're not even
smart enough to know the difference
>> He may know them all, or he may not. You're just trolling. You have a
>> very good sense of what they are, even though you *are* too stupid to
>> understand the concept. You believe in inherent natural rights; you
>> know you do. You're just a trolling sophist.
>
> No, I really don't.
>
Actually your posts show that you're a trolling sophist
> I'd like to know what they are, then I can judge the validity of them
> for myself.
>
You don't have either the knowledge or the brains to make such a judgment
All you can do is post circular responses while you demonstrate your
sophistry
> You fail to provide the list.
>
Why should anyone provide a list just because you demand one like a 3
year-old ?
You have already been given a couple of examples that you ignored
What should we bother ?
james g. keegan jr.
Aug 29, 2012, 10:53:54 AM8/29/12
to
Bitch Holeman, lying squat-to-piss left-wing queer, lied:
>> Bitch Holeman, lying squat-to-piss left-wing queer, lied:
>>> [...]
Inalienable means nothing can be done that *removes* the right from you,
as it is inherent and unconditional in you. A regime might not
adequately protect the right, or the regime itself might even violate
it, but that doesn't mean you don't have the right. Look it up, Bitch.
>> Bitch Holeman, lying squat-to-piss left-wing queer, lied:
>>> [...]
>>> And the "right" to own slaves, as the author of
>>> the above in fact did.
>>
>> The Thirteenth Amendment
>> Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
>>
>> Section 1.
>> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
>> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
>> Section 2.
>> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
>> legislation.
>>
>
>
> An "inalienable right" that became alienable.
No. Clearly you don't understand what the word means, Bitch.
>>> the above in fact did.
>>
>> The Thirteenth Amendment
>> Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
>>
>> Section 1.
>> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
>> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
>> Section 2.
>> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
>> legislation.
>>
>
>
> An "inalienable right" that became alienable.
Inalienable means nothing can be done that *removes* the right from you,
as it is inherent and unconditional in you. A regime might not
adequately protect the right, or the regime itself might even violate
it, but that doesn't mean you don't have the right. Look it up, Bitch.
james g. keegan jr.
Aug 29, 2012, 10:55:21 AM8/29/12
to
Bitch Holeman, lying squat-to-piss left-wing queer, lied:
> lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1juq5$1tt$8...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bitch Holeman, lying squat-to-piss left-wing queer, lied:
slave violated slave's inalienable right to his own person.
You're clueless, Bitch - you don't understand the basic meaning of words.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:53:21 AM8/29/12
to
news:slrnk3r3id....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...
>>> I deal with reality, you deal with delusion.
>>
>> Was gravity a delusion, magnetism, radium?
>
> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>
Because in the case or gravity, Newton did the proof
Before Newton, it was NOT "describable"
Ditto for radium before the Curies
Ditto for magnetism
> You cannot describe what "the creator" is when asked.
>
It's irrelevant
The term is a generic for what you want to believe is the source of the
creation of an ordered universe
If you choose to believe it's blind luck, you are welcome to that
definition
>>>> Ready Michio Kaku's work on the multiverse.
>>>
>>> Read Harry Potter.
>>
>> This indicates just how juvenile you are.
>
> Just as much wisdom in there for you.
>
Only a juvenile would make such a comment, you juvenile,
>>> If I asked what a car was, I take it you'd just replied a mix between "a
>>> car" and "an automobile". I guess you would because you're that dim!
>>> :-p
>>
>> A car is man's creation, ergo reasonably easy to describe.
>>
>> The Creator is not of our creation, ergo more nebulous to detail.
>
> It might be, I don't know what creator you're talking about.
>
<yawn>
More circular sophistry
> As we have no evience of any Gods, religion and the Gods they describe
> can only be shown to be human inventions so far.
>
> So, you should be able to describe this creator.
>
Go read some theology
Clearly your education is lacking
You should spend more time improving it, instead of demonstrating it.
Enough of this shithead
<plink>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
>
>>> I deal with reality, you deal with delusion.
>>
>> Was gravity a delusion, magnetism, radium?
>
> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>
Because in the case or gravity, Newton did the proof
Before Newton, it was NOT "describable"
Ditto for radium before the Curies
Ditto for magnetism
> You cannot describe what "the creator" is when asked.
>
It's irrelevant
The term is a generic for what you want to believe is the source of the
creation of an ordered universe
If you choose to believe it's blind luck, you are welcome to that
definition
>>>> Ready Michio Kaku's work on the multiverse.
>>>
>>> Read Harry Potter.
>>
>> This indicates just how juvenile you are.
>
> Just as much wisdom in there for you.
>
Only a juvenile would make such a comment, you juvenile,
>>> If I asked what a car was, I take it you'd just replied a mix between "a
>>> car" and "an automobile". I guess you would because you're that dim!
>>> :-p
>>
>> A car is man's creation, ergo reasonably easy to describe.
>>
>> The Creator is not of our creation, ergo more nebulous to detail.
>
> It might be, I don't know what creator you're talking about.
>
<yawn>
More circular sophistry
> As we have no evience of any Gods, religion and the Gods they describe
> can only be shown to be human inventions so far.
>
> So, you should be able to describe this creator.
>
Go read some theology
Clearly your education is lacking
You should spend more time improving it, instead of demonstrating it.
Enough of this shithead
<plink>
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:55:38 AM8/29/12
to
"Gunner" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:683r385miraldd6j7...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:32:22 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:45:27PM -0400, Dano wrote:
>>> "Seth F." wrote in message news:vwdNAI.8...@invalid.invalid...
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:00:13PM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>>> >On 8/28/2012 12:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> >>On 8/28/2012 11:56 AM, lib_duster wrote:
>>> >>>On 8/28/2012 12:43 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:45:27PM -0400, Dano wrote:
>>> "Seth F." wrote in message news:vwdNAI.8...@invalid.invalid...
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:00:13PM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>>> >On 8/28/2012 12:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> >>On 8/28/2012 11:56 AM, lib_duster wrote:
>>> >>>On 8/28/2012 12:43 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>> >>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> >>>>Hash: SHA1
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Hash: SHA1
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>On 2012-08-28, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>No gods and no governments required.
>>> >>>>>>A state is. Without it you have no rights.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>The state can only defend rights, not grant them.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>It has and does grant them. In the US the bill of rights.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>You're jus playing semantics.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>>>>No gods and no governments required.
>>> >>>>>>A state is. Without it you have no rights.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>The state can only defend rights, not grant them.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>It has and does grant them. In the US the bill of rights.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>You're jus playing semantics.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>>> >>>
>>> >>>"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.
>>> >� >>That
>>> >>>
>>> >>>"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.
>>> >>>to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
>>> >>>deriving
>>> >>>deriving
>>> >>>their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
>>> >>
>>> >>That last sentence is the crux of the matter. Rights precede the state
>>> >>(and government, the political implementation of the state.) States
>>> >>and
>>> >>government are instituted in order to secure rights we already have;
>>> >>they do not "grant" or "confer" or "give" the rights.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >That's it exactly!
>>> >
>>> >The CREATOR precedes ALL human life and ALL human institutions.
>>> >
>>> >This is pretty basic truth.
>>>
>>> This idiot probably deludes himself with the idea that he is the
>>> manifestation of "God's" will on Earth, and therefore 'special'.
>>>
>>> I'll agree that he's special, just not in the way the asshole thinks.
>>>
>>> ===========================================
>>>
>>> The scary thing is this nut is probably allowed to walk
>>> free...vote...and
>>> purchase firearms.
>>
>>Worse, he's likely a "breeder".
>
> You gays are always bitching about breeders
>
Just jealousy on their part.
>>> >>
>>> >>That last sentence is the crux of the matter. Rights precede the state
>>> >>(and government, the political implementation of the state.) States
>>> >>and
>>> >>government are instituted in order to secure rights we already have;
>>> >>they do not "grant" or "confer" or "give" the rights.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >That's it exactly!
>>> >
>>> >The CREATOR precedes ALL human life and ALL human institutions.
>>> >
>>> >This is pretty basic truth.
>>>
>>> This idiot probably deludes himself with the idea that he is the
>>> manifestation of "God's" will on Earth, and therefore 'special'.
>>>
>>> I'll agree that he's special, just not in the way the asshole thinks.
>>>
>>> ===========================================
>>>
>>> The scary thing is this nut is probably allowed to walk
>>> free...vote...and
>>> purchase firearms.
>>
>>Worse, he's likely a "breeder".
>
> You gays are always bitching about breeders
>
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 10:56:52 AM8/29/12
to
news:P6OmfZ.p...@invalid.invalid...
Never heard that term applied to leftists
Although I have heard the term "stock" used to describe them by their
masters.
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
> I'm not making a subtle reference to Kim Deal's band, asshole. I knew
> someone would jump on that reference in exactly the way you did.
> "Breeder" is a slang term for idiots who miseducate their children for
> political purposes.
>
Damn
> someone would jump on that reference in exactly the way you did.
> "Breeder" is a slang term for idiots who miseducate their children for
> political purposes.
>
Never heard that term applied to leftists
Although I have heard the term "stock" used to describe them by their
masters.
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 11:29:25 AM8/29/12
to
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:18:52PM -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>>Bu frankly, who cares ?
> >>>>That you choose to stick your head up your ass is also YOUR "right"
> >>>>But don't expect us to come along and pull it out
> >>>> We have NO DUTY to you in that regard
> >>>
> >>>People who might hold some weight in this "rights evolved" theory.
> >>>
> >>>Not so much now I've shown it to be bullshit.
> >>
> >>You haven't.
> >
> >Blown to pieces.
>
> No.
"No" what?
> On 8/28/2012 9:09 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>How generous of you
> >>>>Bu frankly, who cares ?
> >>>>That you choose to stick your head up your ass is also YOUR "right"
> >>>>But don't expect us to come along and pull it out
> >>>> We have NO DUTY to you in that regard
> >>>
> >>>People who might hold some weight in this "rights evolved" theory.
> >>>
> >>>Not so much now I've shown it to be bullshit.
> >>
> >>You haven't.
> >
> >Blown to pieces.
>
> No.
"No" what?
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 11:48:02 AM8/29/12
to
rights are an evolutionary development in humans.
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 11:50:05 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:23:46AM -0700, Gunner wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:29:17 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> >>
> >> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
> >> >hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
> >> >hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
> >> hate speech
> >> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
> >
> >Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
> >requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
>
> Sorry you biased, bigoted and bufffoonish Leftard. Its hate speech
> clearly.
>
> Else mine isnt either.
>
> <VBG>
Still short on facts. You idiots ought to work on recapitulating the
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:29:17 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> >>
> >> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
> >> >hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
> >> >hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
> >> hate speech
> >> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
> >
> >Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
> >requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
>
> Sorry you biased, bigoted and bufffoonish Leftard. Its hate speech
> clearly.
>
> Else mine isnt either.
>
> <VBG>
definition of those inconvenient words so future generations won't be
unnecedssarily burdened with the potential of understanding what
meaning is about. Then you'll be free to melt all you want.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 11:27:39 AM8/29/12
to
On 8/28/2012 10:11 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>>> Still waiting for what we're supposed to have a closed mind on.
>>>
>>> Well?
>>
>> "we're"?
>>
>> Are you writing for a collective?
>>
>> The answer is the Creator, of course. Do pay attention.
>
> Another person was being called closed minded, you also called me closed
> mined.
Good grief, what a coincidence...
> I'm closed minded on the Creator? How so? You can't even tell me
> what/who it's supposed to be. So I cannot possibility be closed minded
> on it.
>
> If it's a God, then you'd need to tell me which one.
Nature's God, oh circular one.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 11:32:23 AM8/29/12
to
On 8/28/2012 10:17 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>>
>> Presently, in centuries past, not so.
>>
>
> Then poor examples they make.
There is no honesty in you.
They precisely make my case.
>>> You cannot describe what "the creator" is when asked.
>>
>
> That doesn't tell me anything.
Then you have a perceptual problem.
>>>>>> Ready Michio Kaku's work on the multiverse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read Harry Potter.
>>>>
>>>> This indicates just how juvenile you are.
>>>
>>> Just as much wisdom in there for you.
>>
>>
>> You are quickly boring me.
>
> No, but it's got as much to do with this creator as what you asked me to
> read.
Yes, you are boring me.
>>> It might be, I don't know what creator you're talking about.
>>
>>
>> This has become circular.
>
> Which was?
This discussion.
> Either you know or you don't. You're the one going around in circles,
> I'm just asking you the same questions and waiting for an actual answer.
You deny the answer you get, that is circular.
>>> As we have no evience of any Gods, religion and the Gods they describe
>>> can only be shown to be human inventions so far.
>>
>> is not uniformly provable.
>
> They cannot be shown to be from any Gods. So we have no reason to
> believe they are.
That is also a lie, we have vast bodies of writings and scrolls and tablets.
>>> So, you should be able to describe this creator.
>>
>
> No you have not at all. You've merely used various other terms to
> describe the act of creating.
>
> Not the agent we're talking about.
As previously stated, the present solid reality may not offer enough
levels of perception to adequately describe the Creator.
>>>>> If I asked you which car among hundreds you were talking about, would
>>>>> you reply "THE car"? I guess you would because you're that dim!
>>>>
>>>> You're only making yourself look childish and closed-minded, which was
>>>> of course inevitable.
>>>
>>> Sorry why am I closed-minded?
>>
>> Because you slap away definitions and nuances which do not fit your
>> preconceptions, and because, artless a ploy as it is, choose to do so
>> all in a rather poorly disguised grudge with religion.
>
> I'm still waiting for a what/who!
You've been exposed for your game.
> Going through various lists of what the term is supposed to mean doesn't
> tell me what agent you're talking about.
>
>
> Is this a God?
Your charade is over, find some religious adherent to goad.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 11:35:33 AM8/29/12
to
On 8/28/2012 10:24 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>> Sigh, what rights do we have? (all of them please)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Buy a civics book, or google them.
>>>
>>> Then those aren't rights that I'm born with! Geeez.
>>
>> I think you've become quite infantile now.
>>
>>> If you don't live in the US, you don't get those rights.
>>
>> No, you don't have them protected as well nor defined as cleanly.
>
> So you'll be able to list all the rights I have, regardless of state.
Why would I need to, you have been shown the core rights which branch
out to all others.
> If that's the list in your cite and that is *all* rights then say so.
If you want the same circular dog track you have with others, look
elsewhere, you bore me.
>>> So you're claiming that the bill of rights represents all my rights
>>> then? And is the basis for all human rights regardless of nation.
>>
>> If I were claiming that I'd have already done so.
>
> As you were responding to a request for *all* rights then yes that is
> your claim.
That is a lie.
>>>> No, I've got little time for fools like yourself.
>>>
>>> That's what a lot of people say when they can't back their shit up.
>>
>> That's what a lot of faith-baiters say when they can't provoke the
>> reaction they crave.
>
> The reaction I'm looking for is backing up your assertion.
No it's not.
> Futile I know.
You are indeed.
>>> That lists very few rights.
>>
>> It enumerates key and core rights which underlay all others.
>
> So it's a list of all rights then!
Your reading comprehension is laughable.
>>> Are you saying that layed down in that
>>> document are all my rights I have, regardless of where I live?
>>
>> If I were you'd be able to quote me as having done so.
>>
>> Have at.
>
> It was a question ;-)
That's a lie.
It was a leading question and an accusation.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 11:36:39 AM8/29/12
to
On 8/28/2012 10:32 PM, Olrik wrote:
I do.
> This is Usenet.
>
Go kill yourself, turd.
> Le 2012-08-28 19:19, lib_duster a écrit :
>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> On 8/28/2012 1:59 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>> news:BpOdnXUeJeaWsaDN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 1:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 1:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:9vCdnWGAuIxETKHN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 5:55 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2012 5:55 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:XZCdndc4fob5saHN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 6:57 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 6:57 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:Y_ydnTl8is8ZYKbN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 3:54 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2012 3:54 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6_ednephRcuOf6bN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 1:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 1:21 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:I5CdnRk3Iq30t6TN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 10:50 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2012 10:50 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who does the conferral of said rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of rights
>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> con·ferredcon·fer·ring
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of rights
>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> con·ferredcon·fer·ring
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>>
>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>
> Who the *fuck* cares about the USA in this instance?
>
I do.
> This is Usenet.
>
Go kill yourself, turd.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 11:41:11 AM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 6:26 AM, mr_antone wrote:
> Do you believe this document applies to the rest of the world?
Did I ever intimate it did?
> >
>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>
> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>
>
>
> mr_antone
The right to ridicule at my leisure.
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:29:33 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>> wrote:
>>>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "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. — That
>>>> 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,
>>>> to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
>>>> their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
>>>
>>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>
>>> Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>>
>>>
>>> mr_antone
>>
>> The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between man
>> and his government.
>
> Yet your proof is a government document. Go figure.
>>>
>>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>
>>> Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>>
>>>
>>> mr_antone
>>
>> The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between man
>> and his government.
>
> Do you believe this document applies to the rest of the world?
Did I ever intimate it did?
> >
>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>
> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>
>
>
> mr_antone
The right to ridicule at my leisure.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 11:42:02 AM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 6:37 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1juq5$1tt$8...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.n�t> wrote in
> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1juq5$1tt$8...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> news:19ednReSsdjzq6DNnZ2dnUVZ5t- dn...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who does the conferral of said rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> con�ferredcon�fer�ring
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who does the conferral of said rights?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>>>>
>>>> "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. � That to secure these rights, Governments are
>>>>>>>>>>>> The dictionary will not help you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then where do they come from?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere. They inhere in people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
>>>>
>>>> "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
>>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
>>>> the governed,"
>>>
>>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>
>>> Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>>
>>>
>>> mr_antone
>>
>> The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between
>> man and his government.
>
>
> The "inalienable" right to own slaves
Why did you delete my reference to the 13th amendment?
>>>> the governed,"
>>>
>>> The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>> example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>
>>> Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>>
>>>
>>> mr_antone
>>
>> The basic rights remain, what man does to relinquish them is between
>> man and his government.
>
>
> The "inalienable" right to own slaves
Are you a gutless puke?
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 11:52:26 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:25:49AM -0700, Gunner wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:40:28 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
mean that there are no other slang definitions. And I own much of the
"underground" English lexicon
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:40:28 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Gunner wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:32:22 +0000, Seth F. <sf89...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:45:27PM -0400, Dano wrote:
> >> >> "Seth F." wrote in message news:vwdNAI.8...@invalid.invalid...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:00:13PM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
> >> >> >On 8/28/2012 12:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> >> >>On 8/28/2012 11:56 AM, lib_duster wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:45:27PM -0400, Dano wrote:
> >> >> "Seth F." wrote in message news:vwdNAI.8...@invalid.invalid...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:00:13PM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
> >> >> >On 8/28/2012 12:58 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> >> >>On 8/28/2012 11:56 AM, lib_duster wrote:
> >> >> >>>On 8/28/2012 12:43 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> >> >> >>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >> >>>>Hash: SHA1
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >> >>>>Hash: SHA1
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>On 2012-08-28, skink on sink<l...@ar.ds> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>No gods and no governments required.
> >> >> >>>>>>A state is. Without it you have no rights.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>The state can only defend rights, not grant them.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>It has and does grant them. In the US the bill of rights.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>You're jus playing semantics.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>No gods and no governments required.
> >> >> >>>>>>A state is. Without it you have no rights.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>The state can only defend rights, not grant them.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>It has and does grant them. In the US the bill of rights.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>You're jus playing semantics.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>"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.
> >> >> >â€�€? >>That
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>"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.
> >> >> >>>to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
> >> >> >>>their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>That last sentence is the crux of the matter. Rights precede the state
> >> >> >>(and government, the political implementation of the state.) States and
> >> >> >>government are instituted in order to secure rights we already have;
> >> >> >>they do not "grant" or "confer" or "give" the rights.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's it exactly!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The CREATOR precedes ALL human life and ALL human institutions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is pretty basic truth.
> >> >>
> >> >> This idiot probably deludes himself with the idea that he is the
> >> >> manifestation of "God's" will on Earth, and therefore 'special'.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll agree that he's special, just not in the way the asshole thinks.
> >> >>
> >> >> ===========================================
> >> >>
> >> >> The scary thing is this nut is probably allowed to walk free...vote...and
> >> >> purchase firearms.
> >> >
> >> >Worse, he's likely a "breeder".
> >>
> >> You gays are always bitching about breeders
> >
> >I'm not making a subtle reference to Kim Deal's band, asshole. I knew
> >someone would jump on that reference in exactly the way you did.
> >"Breeder" is a slang term for idiots who miseducate their children for
> >political purposes.
> >
> >
> Sure you are. Ahuh. Oh hell yes. Fucking aye.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>That last sentence is the crux of the matter. Rights precede the state
> >> >> >>(and government, the political implementation of the state.) States and
> >> >> >>government are instituted in order to secure rights we already have;
> >> >> >>they do not "grant" or "confer" or "give" the rights.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's it exactly!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The CREATOR precedes ALL human life and ALL human institutions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This is pretty basic truth.
> >> >>
> >> >> This idiot probably deludes himself with the idea that he is the
> >> >> manifestation of "God's" will on Earth, and therefore 'special'.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll agree that he's special, just not in the way the asshole thinks.
> >> >>
> >> >> ===========================================
> >> >>
> >> >> The scary thing is this nut is probably allowed to walk free...vote...and
> >> >> purchase firearms.
> >> >
> >> >Worse, he's likely a "breeder".
> >>
> >> You gays are always bitching about breeders
> >
> >I'm not making a subtle reference to Kim Deal's band, asshole. I knew
> >someone would jump on that reference in exactly the way you did.
> >"Breeder" is a slang term for idiots who miseducate their children for
> >political purposes.
> >
> >
>
> You gays are always bitching about breeders
Gays have appropriated the term for their own purposes. That doesn't
> You gays are always bitching about breeders
mean that there are no other slang definitions. And I own much of the
"underground" English lexicon
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 11:56:04 AM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> Blown to pieces.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> "No" what?
>
> No, the low-time-value fuckwit has not blown to pieces the theory that
> rights are an evolutionary development in humans.
Sorry, I did. You've demonstrated this by cutting all the questions you
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> Blown to pieces.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> "No" what?
>
> No, the low-time-value fuckwit has not blown to pieces the theory that
> rights are an evolutionary development in humans.
can't answer. You "theory" was easily to demolish.
So sorry for your loss, thanks for playing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+O5AACgkQRuP0ePfiZW41JwP/eNQ+iGCQFBp/IK0YsPbDnvWh
XcXH3nwg6ynYTTtXAAwl8e3fn1jlG+fGstt5tPWljHn/cT6ZYhbtjGFGoJJ2d0IR
7wddLcVSZkrM0WacX/DSWqhKlTN2HQxyHRiS6mzXJ5zkYUpOSQjdL0baLFexe23/
c/eT08rjY+b3gDUeYUo=
=JRmw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:03:15 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Was gravity a delusion, magnetism, radium?
>>
>> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>>
>
> Because in the case or gravity, Newton did the proof
> Before Newton, it was NOT "describable"
> Ditto for radium before the Curies
> Ditto for magnetism
Yes it was describable. It was not explainable.
>>> Was gravity a delusion, magnetism, radium?
>>
>> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>>
>
> Because in the case or gravity, Newton did the proof
> Before Newton, it was NOT "describable"
> Ditto for radium before the Curies
> Ditto for magnetism
I'm not looking for an explanation as to what the creator is, I want to
know what/who it is.
If we're talking about a God then stop dancing around and tell me which
one - Because there are hundreds (thousands?) of proposed Gods.
>> You cannot describe what "the creator" is when asked.
>>
>
> It's irrelevant
> The term is a generic for what you want to believe is the source of the
> creation of an ordered universe
> If you choose to believe it's blind luck, you are welcome to that
> definition
that there is a source of the creation of the Universe.
If the rights come from whatever I believe, what if I believe in "Zog,
the raping and murdering God?"
Does that give me the right to rape and murder?
>>>>> Ready Michio Kaku's work on the multiverse.
>>>>
>>>> Read Harry Potter.
>>>
>>> This indicates just how juvenile you are.
>>
>> Just as much wisdom in there for you.
>>
>
> Only a juvenile would make such a comment, you juvenile,
Is as valid as...
What/who is the creator? Read a book on the multiverse
Neither answer my question ;-)
>>>> If I asked what a car was, I take it you'd just replied a mix between "a
>>>> car" and "an automobile". I guess you would because you're that dim!
>>>> :-p
>>>
>>> A car is man's creation, ergo reasonably easy to describe.
>>>
>>> The Creator is not of our creation, ergo more nebulous to detail.
>>
>> It might be, I don't know what creator you're talking about.
>>
>
><yawn>
> More circular sophistry
You seem to think it's implied that it just is. Not the case.
>> As we have no evience of any Gods, religion and the Gods they describe
>> can only be shown to be human inventions so far.
>>
>> So, you should be able to describe this creator.
>>
>
> Go read some theology
> Clearly your education is lacking
> You should spend more time improving it, instead of demonstrating it.
Ho-ho-ho.... Of course!
> Enough of this shithead
>
><plink>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+PT8ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW57vAP9Hv83eW8JimyznHLGzxFZqkqu
6fvG2MOylyCHAbN8C3zvIC9cqhEqzSEfR2xjPR126C3e6a0ayxSErhapUN5S4I22
KqGbozOCMC6wguWcngQ3GeoMQz2C65JpXthbis1R7BuwzdFbizmOFe83fvRd/Bqx
1jC4Epx3PiiNLbAfJo8=
=8E0E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:06:57 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why ?
>>>>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept,
>>>>> why
>>>>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>>>>
>>>> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
>>>> principal.
>>>
>>> Principle, not "principal".
>>
>> Picking at grammar/spelling, the sign of a lost argument.
>>
>
> Is it ?
> Maybe it's a demonstration of YOUR lack of education that you're not even
> smart enough to know the difference
Yep, it is. You guys lose. You think I can't go back and read all your
>>>>> Why ?
>>>>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept,
>>>>> why
>>>>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>>>>
>>>> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
>>>> principal.
>>>
>>> Principle, not "principal".
>>
>> Picking at grammar/spelling, the sign of a lost argument.
>>
>
> Is it ?
> Maybe it's a demonstration of YOUR lack of education that you're not even
> smart enough to know the difference
posts and find a spelling or grammar mistake?
I would not be so cocky if I were you ;-)
>> No, I really don't.
>>
>
> Actually your posts show that you're a trolling sophist
>> I'd like to know what they are, then I can judge the validity of them
>> for myself.
>>
>
> You don't have either the knowledge or the brains to make such a judgment
> All you can do is post circular responses while you demonstrate your
> sophistry
>> You fail to provide the list.
>>
>
> Why should anyone provide a list just because you demand one like a 3
> year-old ?
> You have already been given a couple of examples that you ignored
> What should we bother ?
suddenly, as if by magic, new rights appear to support your argument.
And the reason this happens is you're just making them up as you go
along. So, to prove this isn't the case, and so all is out in the
open...
List them, all of them...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+Ph0ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4/uAQAoRfkqnCMRFlVfikPj1eDyqJ4
q4TnDAXGzUVvXikZFh/XuZ60o/WzNH+iN4xgc4h0YZSCk1EWKRDwzYpSXj7ej+ug
vzurk48blfCQthq6jSYV0RRfadB2EC5gU7tNLLiWXr0ly8WrqCKmkPowChLL3+n2
/2/Vnyto2+8VpZkLihQ=
=cLGk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:09:41 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why ?
>>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept, why
>>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>>
>> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
>> principal.
>>
>
> Why should I "list them on principal(sic)" ?
> I already gave you some examples
> I also defined to you how they are derived
> You ignored both.
Good, good. Then humor me and give me them again - I must be able to
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why ?
>>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept, why
>>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>>
>> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
>> principal.
>>
>
> Why should I "list them on principal(sic)" ?
> I already gave you some examples
> I also defined to you how they are derived
> You ignored both.
determine *all* rights from this list/definition.
Or prove me right again and come up with some excuse for not listing
them.
>> <Yawn> I believe you <Pats SaPeIsMa on head>
>>
>
> I'm so sorry that you are both stupid and arrogant
> It's not a good mix
applies.
If showing you up is stupid and arrogant, so be it :-)
>> Come back to me when you don't destroy your own argument through failure
>> to cite :-)
>>
>
> Cite what dummy ?
> That you're a moron who is too stupid to even understand a simple example
> given ?
> That's your problem, not mine
enough.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+PsEACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7JGgQApWbMrkuzPzfpbbzpTKFGvA4i
gCM6OB3flw13I9jIBzH/5aVwH9XiF151iGltV0AlY+/nSpVIva1GznZmDZjB59h4
lOesUzcR2WE3IkeUQQff1wXXeQihMcTjLzjL9OF8GA5s00UcJNdCViT3k8vC0RID
fTq/0hGJwvE9j745QDQ=
=JbYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:13:40 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Then I have the "right" by your definition to do anything
>>>>
>>>
>>> In absolute terms yes
>>> In a social context, no.
>>> Since your rights are balanced against the rights of others.
>>
>> Balanced by whom?
>>
>
> DOH !
> People more intelligent than you, obviously
People, right.
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Then I have the "right" by your definition to do anything
>>>>
>>>
>>> In absolute terms yes
>>> In a social context, no.
>>> Since your rights are balanced against the rights of others.
>>
>> Balanced by whom?
>>
>
> DOH !
> People more intelligent than you, obviously
So I have the right to do *anything*, rendering your use of the word
right totally useless.
Then people balance these "rights" to determine what I can do.
Of course, in the real world people give me these rights via the state,
and determine their limits.
>> Who determines which rights take precedent, who determines what the
>> rights are?
>>
>
> People who actually take some time to think on the subject,
> Ignorati such as you do NOT qualify
>
>> You don't know what they are, as demonstrated by your inability to list
>> them - So who does?
>>
>
> I've already given you a couple of examples
> I'm so sorry that they did not penetrate your haze of ignorance
making up new rights to support your dead theory.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+P7AACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7gqgP/VsHLstx/V20LcA6NRFXXKJmy
BVQTt960VHwwN3yOChryuAS3B2Ri13W1q/lXzJvRxFLEnRxeBOfdrp9Lch1hSviC
pdHmGhawDLdEaVAjkvv/4nl2NALufFfWRQ8PwaUkZGwvuiHmQu5spR1lDINxBq7E
jlTZSt4SKN7U2obSnwE=
=OnLd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:14:30 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You make the term meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only your stupidity does that.
>>>>
>>>> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
>>>> matter what regardless of state.
>>>
>>> That does not follow.
>>
>> You say I have rights, not given to me by any state, I just have them.
>>
>> So what are these rights?
>> '
>
> One example has already been given
> Apparently you're not even smart enough to realize that
Did I ask for one example? No. I want all of these rights listed.
>>>>>> You make the term meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only your stupidity does that.
>>>>
>>>> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
>>>> matter what regardless of state.
>>>
>>> That does not follow.
>>
>> You say I have rights, not given to me by any state, I just have them.
>>
>> So what are these rights?
>> '
>
> One example has already been given
> Apparently you're not even smart enough to realize that
Apparently *you're* not even smart enough to realize *that* :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+P+MACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4+KgP/dosqLt+pxUuZD2Z/9SV8RRbH
IS3ibPPtnd6W/aheBkO8/O5FTfidKa5RhNd46NzUBaWJnIW5Z0jeaRTNps5ZZkWB
N0hzJrkSBkTEAsuf1/VK6k500mQ5W9VeiI41kV3E7QhE1AfyFkCUZCDgGi6DWGBj
tng6yaGUs2CmdWtM7uU=
=a/Cb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:17:08 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You make the term meaningless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only your stupidity does that.
>>
>> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
>> matter what regardless of state.
>>
>
> As I stated, I am NOT responsible for your education
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You make the term meaningless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only your stupidity does that.
>>
>> Then you'll be able to list the rights I have then, automatically no
>> matter what regardless of state.
>>
>
> Nor am I bound in any to play your stupid game
>
> Feel free to do some reading, on the history of how rights were defined over
> time.
Ha-ha, the excuses continue.
You "obviously" know them of course, we all believe that <snicker> but
you won't list them for:
List excuses here:
_________________
_________________
Another good one is, you're getting bored of talking about it. Try that
one next.
>> Go on, fail to do so an make me look good again loser :-p
>>
>
> You can only look as good as any stupid parrot can
> Come back when you've actually grown up
Thank you, you didn't disappoint, I come out on top again.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+QIAACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5KawP/ZhjMrrYFRNUOvrZmqjMBbAu8
eZglFUR/zfBMGejP279NYkUHKMobps0xkGJKBUC1fVfb67M7aE9KWp7p/ips+Gzd
HocbqjWFB7E0misvH1k0UQ/Q2VMj6wdhEvlxVpMhMFvLpgEo6VQnrspglCHymGaD
HoP3lDVPvJ0ZTeebNwY=
=14UI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:18:37 PM8/29/12
to
>>>> You obviously don't understand what a "right" is, look it up and get ack
>>>> to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you look it up and get back to us
>>>
>>>> You have no *right* to breath.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good
>>> Then please stop ASAP.
>>
>> Why would I stop? You make no sense. I don't require a right to breath
>> in order to breath.
>>
>> -----
>
> So since you admit not having a right to breathe, you also admit that others
> would have the right to stop you from breathing.
> So in effect you do not have a right to life either.
Of course not, I have the right to life. If others try and stop me
breathing they attempt to violate that right.
The right given to me by the state.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+QNsACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5Q9AQArOvuAZTLNKtCaZxoYT0lMnUP
3siN7/+VOGfzRtHUzN3nEll70Jy30eOTGMVFoYJvKTGJ880KM2kieiTbfA91A6gr
e6VPz4gVY9cJF8qq+CHCDSnC3irwImuPsDKxzZEuNdewStH7eQCAKSzVffYLwDKs
teWgGqLjag6pyQOS5tU=
=fiVn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you look it up and get back to us
>>>
>>>> You have no *right* to breath.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good
>>> Then please stop ASAP.
>>
>> Why would I stop? You make no sense. I don't require a right to breath
>> in order to breath.
>>
>> -----
>
> So since you admit not having a right to breathe, you also admit that others
> would have the right to stop you from breathing.
> So in effect you do not have a right to life either.
Of course not, I have the right to life. If others try and stop me
breathing they attempt to violate that right.
The right given to me by the state.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+QNsACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5Q9AQArOvuAZTLNKtCaZxoYT0lMnUP
3siN7/+VOGfzRtHUzN3nEll70Jy30eOTGMVFoYJvKTGJ880KM2kieiTbfA91A6gr
e6VPz4gVY9cJF8qq+CHCDSnC3irwImuPsDKxzZEuNdewStH7eQCAKSzVffYLwDKs
teWgGqLjag6pyQOS5tU=
=fiVn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:19:02 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
Hash: SHA1
>> Hash: SHA1
>> [bullshit]
>
> Once again.
Concession noted, concession accepted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+QPQACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7hhQQA4o6LLMrTJexD110/KeHWWALj
1GDm+57+1Y6OYCfVUuVhZvpQV0QQVWz9d5zlL5uIpy293D7jqGwgtxfvlVSht1DV
aZ20qOx09bzI3IXFtXEJXbUNcRwPsQrwXoktxJS0hSIlobPQn38Et6zzTf+nIn++
Nq45RNSN1ibRneOSBdg=
=axG0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:19:20 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> [nothing]
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>
> And again.
Concession noted, concession accepted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
yrc6MRhbIIZucLvnAxo4gF/f3zWt81EfndNWHNmv+mvqldepI7YDfsQttzctDSCc
04Vk+BmGM5ayBqMCnLEpXagHfHNZRHc1jgI/M/yp5vEJbvIXoQdKTetVGOs500jB
mQKHuqtQofWbJdrM32U=
=yIin
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 12:08:56 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:45:50AM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2TvUQL.3...@invalid.invalid...
>
> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> >>
> >>"Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
> >>>hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
> >>>hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
> >>hate speech
> >> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
> >
> >Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
> >requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
> >
>
> Is that how you try to justify your hate speech ?
> >>
> >>"Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
> >>>hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
> >>>hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post as
> >>hate speech
> >> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
> >
> >Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
> >requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
> >
>
> Got it..
Right-tard may be derrogatory, but it's not in the same class of
insult in which you might label someone as crazy, when in fact you are
doing so to incite others to commit acts of violence. Right-tard
merely defines someone who is stupid, i.e.: retard-like.
And what could be more stupid than someone who believes in
propositions that are counterfactual and in conflict with reality?
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 12:24:17 PM8/29/12
to
have semantic equivalence. So, a 'goatfucker' could be a 'breeder'.
You'll note the inherent dehumanization inherent in referring to a
child as a goat, psychologically important for people who abuse their
children.
Would you like to know what a 'ratfucker' might be? Hint: it has
nothing to do with zoophilia.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 12:35:00 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 9:52 AM, Seth F. wrote:
> And I own much of the
> "underground" English lexicon
>
Bullshit, you're a rank egomaniac.
> And I own much of the
> "underground" English lexicon
>
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 12:35:41 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:08 AM, Seth F. wrote:
> Right-tard may be derrogatory,
And you may be a pile of dog crap, really.
> Right-tard may be derrogatory,
And you may be a pile of dog crap, really.
mr_antone
Aug 29, 2012, 12:36:01 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:41:11 -0600, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out>
It's your proof, bonehead.
Are you claiming these "unalienable" rights stop at the border?
>
>> >
>>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>>
>> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> mr_antone
>
>The right to ridicule at my leisure.
When you exercise your right to jerk your knees, do your jerk them
simultaneously or alternate?
mr_antone
Are you claiming these "unalienable" rights stop at the border?
>
>> >
>>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>>
>> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> mr_antone
>
>The right to ridicule at my leisure.
simultaneously or alternate?
mr_antone
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:35:16 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> So you'll be able to list all the rights I have, regardless of state.
>
> Why would I need to, you have been shown the core rights which branch
> out to all others.
Okay, list them again on their own and we'll see what we can make
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> So you'll be able to list all the rights I have, regardless of state.
>
> Why would I need to, you have been shown the core rights which branch
> out to all others.
from those core rights.
I bet you it won't go the way you want it.
>> If that's the list in your cite and that is *all* rights then say so.
>
> If you want the same circular dog track you have with others, look
> elsewhere, you bore me.
>>>> So you're claiming that the bill of rights represents all my rights
>>>> then? And is the basis for all human rights regardless of nation.
>>>
>>> If I were claiming that I'd have already done so.
>>
>> As you were responding to a request for *all* rights then yes that is
>> your claim.
>
> That is a lie.
If that wasn't all the rights, why did you respond as if it was.
>>>> That's what a lot of people say when they can't back their shit up.
>>>
>>> That's what a lot of faith-baiters say when they can't provoke the
>>> reaction they crave.
>>
>> The reaction I'm looking for is backing up your assertion.
>
> No it's not.
>> Futile I know.
>
> You are indeed.
>>>> That lists very few rights.
>>>
>>> It enumerates key and core rights which underlay all others.
>>
>> So it's a list of all rights then!
>
> Your reading comprehension is laughable.
>>>> Are you saying that layed down in that
>>>> document are all my rights I have, regardless of where I live?
>>>
>>> If I were you'd be able to quote me as having done so.
>>>
>>> Have at.
>>
>> It was a question ;-)
>
> That's a lie.
>
> It was a leading question and an accusation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+RMAACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5E3QQA0tWbFMXZgKMmFgB6ujbaS0S2
B6YBvNNex+717hhcoX0ovoEMjWbVp/XDEs0uJbTyjUNsXJr0Io3JW4BxAwU2N8ii
M0WgMwyAVFjhXzU1OLjviUgOkKruj7CP+X8QgmkGEoImzZlu/FZ3AYuYrMo3nz2Y
rTHPpBS6ulNl4rZZNOo=
=ItR5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 12:36:24 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:24 AM, Seth F. wrote:
> Would you like to know what a 'ratfucker' might be?
Kin to you?
> Would you like to know what a 'ratfucker' might be?
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 12:39:53 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:35 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> So you'll be able to list all the rights I have, regardless of state.
>>
>> Why would I need to, you have been shown the core rights which branch
>> out to all others.
>
> Okay, list them again on their own and we'll see what we can make
> from those core rights.
No.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> So you'll be able to list all the rights I have, regardless of state.
>>
>> Why would I need to, you have been shown the core rights which branch
>> out to all others.
>
> Okay, list them again on their own and we'll see what we can make
> from those core rights.
They were posted almost a dozen times.
GO back and re-read them until you understand them, child.
> I bet you it won't go the way you want it.
>>> If that's the list in your cite and that is *all* rights then say so.
>>
>> If you want the same circular dog track you have with others, look
>> elsewhere, you bore me.
>
> Nope, just an answer to me question.
>>>>> So you're claiming that the bill of rights represents all my rights
>>>>> then? And is the basis for all human rights regardless of nation.
>>>>
>>>> If I were claiming that I'd have already done so.
>>>
>>> As you were responding to a request for *all* rights then yes that is
>>> your claim.
>>
>> That is a lie.
>
> I asked you for all rights. You responded.
But liars like you do that a lot.
> If that wasn't all the rights, why did you respond as if it was.
>>>>> That's what a lot of people say when they can't back their shit up.
>>>>
>>>> That's what a lot of faith-baiters say when they can't provoke the
>>>> reaction they crave.
>>>
>>> The reaction I'm looking for is backing up your assertion.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
> Sure is. Just looking for those rights.
>>> Futile I know.
>>
>> You are indeed.
>
> Concession noted
>>>>> That lists very few rights.
>>>>
>>>> It enumerates key and core rights which underlay all others.
>>>
>>> So it's a list of all rights then!
>>
>> Your reading comprehension is laughable.
>
> You're just dancing for me now.
>>>>> Are you saying that layed down in that
>>>>> document are all my rights I have, regardless of where I live?
>>>>
>>>> If I were you'd be able to quote me as having done so.
>>>>
>>>> Have at.
>>>
>>> It was a question ;-)
>>
>> That's a lie.
>>
>> It was a leading question and an accusation.
>
> I'll leave that to your own paranoia.
you need to believe that.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 12:41:52 PM8/29/12
to
> Are you claiming these "unalienable" rights stop at the border?
>>
>>> >
>>>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>>>
>>> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mr_antone
>>
>> The right to ridicule at my leisure.
>
> When you exercise your right to jerk your knees, do your jerk them
> simultaneously or alternate?
>
> mr_antone
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:42:08 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>>>
>>> Presently, in centuries past, not so.
>>
>> Then poor examples they make.
>
> There is no honesty in you.
>
> They precisely make my case.
You cannot describe the creator, those things can be described, and
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>>>
>>> Presently, in centuries past, not so.
>>
>> Then poor examples they make.
>
> There is no honesty in you.
>
> They precisely make my case.
could be described when they were known about - Not explained but
described.
So it not only doesn't make your case, it destroys your own case! :-)
>>>> You cannot describe what "the creator" is when asked.
>>>
>>> I already have, that which has generated us and our environment.
>>
>> That doesn't tell me anything.
>
> Then you have a perceptual problem.
this creator I wouldn't need to ask.
>>>>>>> Ready Michio Kaku's work on the multiverse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read Harry Potter.
>>>>>
>>>>> This indicates just how juvenile you are.
>>>>
>>>> Just as much wisdom in there for you.
>>>
>>> It's hardly on a par with string theory or the multiverse.
>>>
>>> You are quickly boring me.
>>
>> No, but it's got as much to do with this creator as what you asked me to
>> read.
>
> Yes, you are boring me.
>> Either you know or you don't. You're the one going around in circles,
>> I'm just asking you the same questions and waiting for an actual answer.
>
> You deny the answer you get, that is circular.
>>> No, they can be shown to be described by humans, the "invention" thesis
>>> is not uniformly provable.
>>
>> They cannot be shown to be from any Gods. So we have no reason to
>> believe they are.
>
> That is also a lie, we have vast bodies of writings and scrolls and tablets.
Really? Well you better list said documents that can be shown to come
from God, I don't know of any.
This is a amazing day, you've proved God exists (apparently) --- Lets
just wait for said proof which I'm sure will satisfy everyone.
>> No you have not at all. You've merely used various other terms to
>> describe the act of creating.
>>
>> Not the agent we're talking about.
>
> As previously stated, the present solid reality may not offer enough
> levels of perception to adequately describe the Creator.
You just don't want to, afraid to show your hand perhaps?
>>> Because you slap away definitions and nuances which do not fit your
>>> preconceptions, and because, artless a ploy as it is, choose to do so
>>> all in a rather poorly disguised grudge with religion.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for a what/who!
>
> You've been exposed for your game.
>> Going through various lists of what the term is supposed to mean doesn't
>> tell me what agent you're talking about.
>>
>>
>> Is this a God?
>
> Your charade is over, find some religious adherent to goad.
No wonder I touched a nerve, people who live their lives by blind faith
are very touchy on logic and reason.
It's no surprise you kept you beliefs hidden, shame will do that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+RlwACgkQRuP0ePfiZW79bQQApqywhAgFx6JUzqBq8PLw4dqa
swBmH+Oqa3D9hi9ecQ2Ne8+UW+sxO5Q0ovjAQe+f64Zv05TZdlsSQGPFJ8dWIzT1
pUeYieW6VTz5f67TvOjG25GFKCCJDFRh2QORlWc8pKM90jo81VRCxDqkI8yCWOvP
rD/VxQE/ls7W5iXXERo=
=3SXY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:46:30 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> Another person was being called closed minded, you also called me closed
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> mined.
>
> Good grief, what a coincidence...
>
>> I'm closed minded on the Creator? How so? You can't even tell me
>> what/who it's supposed to be. So I cannot possibility be closed minded
>> on it.
>>
>> If it's a God, then you'd need to tell me which one.
>
> Nature's God, oh circular one.
That doesn't answer the question, here's some incomplete lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God
Which one are you talking about?
Do we get an answer, oh one ashamed and embarrassed by his own
God!
Too right you're ashamed, you've done your best to hide. But the circle
is clear, and it's your circle not mine.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+R2IACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7+nwP/Zg9nmrt/MUXtIzqMMn9q5Yoj
ERxi5+bcVRAdko3G7Vt0OpHCpvvArsMiFtN+RwrJORTZghZLUBKnVGo9NV3vchjl
Z60OkIdhuERJTpmW8n0LNvY4bIDaYfI9q9j1VSigFrHjvyWsAWXBLahIE21VZThV
e7MoYMVFxSrPj7r06VU=
=2hmu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
mr_antone
Aug 29, 2012, 12:49:04 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:29:19 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:26:14 -0500, mr_antone <ju...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>>>The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>>>example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The death penalty and life imprisonment are not not limits.
>>
>>Sure they are.
>
>http://constitution.now77.com/
>
>http://www.thisnation.com/question/018.html
>
>Lots more available
The death penalty and life imprisonment are constitutional.
That puts a limit on those "unalienable" rights.
>
>>
>>>However..the laws against polygamy certainly are. And with luck,
>>>about the time gays are allowed to marry, they will have to gut the
>>>anti-poly laws as welll
>>
>>You sound like a babbling brook.
>
>You sound like a drunken gay troll.
>>
>>>
>>>So you got one of out 3 correct.
>>>health and safety codes and quite a number of other similar laws.
>>
>>Quite a few?
>>
>>List some.
>>
>ObamaCare, Building codes, OSHA, Minimum Wage. I could be here a week
>listing them
Go ahead.
>
>You really arent very smart are you? You must be a Democrat.
Still waiting for you to list some more "unalienable" rights.
mr_antone
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:26:14 -0500, mr_antone <ju...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>>>The death penalty, life imprisonment, laws against polygamy(for
>>>>example) are constitutional limits to those "unalienable" rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>Sure they are.
>
>http://constitution.now77.com/
>
>http://www.thisnation.com/question/018.html
>
>Lots more available
The death penalty and life imprisonment are constitutional.
That puts a limit on those "unalienable" rights.
>
>>
>>>However..the laws against polygamy certainly are. And with luck,
>>>about the time gays are allowed to marry, they will have to gut the
>>>anti-poly laws as welll
>>
>>You sound like a babbling brook.
>
>You sound like a drunken gay troll.
>>
>>>
>>>So you got one of out 3 correct.
>>>
>>>>Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>>
>>>Quite a few that have been alienated over the years. Housing codes,
>>>>Got any other "unalienable" rights laying around?
>>>
>>>health and safety codes and quite a number of other similar laws.
>>
>>Quite a few?
>>
>>List some.
>>
>ObamaCare, Building codes, OSHA, Minimum Wage. I could be here a week
>listing them
Go ahead.
>
>You really arent very smart are you? You must be a Democrat.
Still waiting for you to list some more "unalienable" rights.
mr_antone
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:50:19 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> Why would I need to, you have been shown the core rights which branch
>>> out to all others.
>>
>> Okay, list them again on their own and we'll see what we can make
>> from those core rights.
>
> No.
>
> They were posted almost a dozen times.
>
> GO back and re-read them until you understand them, child.
That's strange, because when I ask nobody lists them, they just insist
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> Why would I need to, you have been shown the core rights which branch
>>> out to all others.
>>
>> Okay, list them again on their own and we'll see what we can make
>> from those core rights.
>
> No.
>
> They were posted almost a dozen times.
>
> GO back and re-read them until you understand them, child.
they either won't or already have.
And when I ask them to point them out...
.... SHOCK or SHOCKS
They can't. It's so odd! LOL
>> I bet you it won't go the way you want it.
>
> I bet your agenda is becoming clear now to all but the most ardent atheists.
theories. Yep.
>>>> As you were responding to a request for *all* rights then yes that is
>>>> your claim.
>>>
>>> That is a lie.
>>
>> I asked you for all rights. You responded.
>
> You misrepresented me and I corrected you.
>
> But liars like you do that a lot.
>> If that wasn't all the rights, why did you respond as if it was.
>
> To disabuse your crass misrepresentation.
>>> You are indeed.
>>
>> Concession noted
>
> Oh, have you conceded, fine.
>>> Your reading comprehension is laughable.
>>
>> You're just dancing for me now.
>
> You're just misrepresenting to amuse yourself now.
>>>> It was a question ;-)
>>>
>>> That's a lie.
>>>
>>> It was a leading question and an accusation.
>>
>> I'll leave that to your own paranoia.
>
> I'll accept that your intellectual mendacity is such a core value that
> you need to believe that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+SEcACgkQRuP0ePfiZW6srgQAmVs3Ks0iQTwKztZ6f/Pg33Z0
HJSWa9jaIHErb1CPeDhFmD5k/fb/cybW5hDxE9DUoWseMIAFEGy6BcZKo7OKK5gm
a9XCqCOWJGqWr7OUEs60cSifXjmWUc9Gk9lro76Oz9pJD+0le0Gi2TPsB4c0KSXq
tXPdZaSxY4gjVMES1pg=
=/wuf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 12:59:19 PM8/29/12
to
conditioned to lack, which invariably leads you into trouble. It's
the same sort of delusion that leads people to believe that smooth
fast-talking deception equates with intelligence.
Incidentally, 'cleaning' is a euphemism for undertaking a coverup,
especially if it involves the murder of witnesses.
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 1:07:59 PM8/29/12
to
They don't even like the way I feel.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 1:12:01 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:42 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>>>>
>>>> Presently, in centuries past, not so.
>>>
>>> Then poor examples they make.
>>
>> There is no honesty in you.
>>
>> They precisely make my case.
>
> You cannot describe the creator,
Not in terms that you can grasp, obviously, that's what this entire
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>> They can be described if I ask someone what they are.
>>>>
>>>> Presently, in centuries past, not so.
>>>
>>> Then poor examples they make.
>>
>> There is no honesty in you.
>>
>> They precisely make my case.
>
> You cannot describe the creator,
circular discussion has been about.
> those things can be described, and
> could be described when they were known about - Not explained but
> described.
So now we're going to parse when the Creator was "known about" vs.
whether it can be explained (to your satisfaction)?
So at what point was radium "known about" vs. a mining byproduct?
When was magnetism first observed in a lodestone vs. described as a force?
When did gravity escape Aristotle's misunderstanding and become
Galileo's scientific fascination?
You walked right into this - man has always had forces beyond his
comprehension at any given time, forces which could only be described in
then very elemental terms.
Ergo, positing the Creator as a universal generative force is no less
apt then noting the lodestone attracts certain objects or that all
objects might fall at a set rate.
> So it not only doesn't make your case, it destroys your own case! :-)
We have had atoms since the dawn of time, yet only in the past 100 years
been able to begin to describe them.
You utter fool.
>>>>> You cannot describe what "the creator" is when asked.
>>>>
>>>> I already have, that which has generated us and our environment.
>>>
>>> That doesn't tell me anything.
>>
>> Then you have a perceptual problem.
>
> No,
> you have a problem answering a simple question.
> If I could perceive this creator I wouldn't need to ask.
Learn to meditate, they may improve.
>>>>>>>> Ready Michio Kaku's work on the multiverse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read Harry Potter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This indicates just how juvenile you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as much wisdom in there for you.
>>>>
>>>> It's hardly on a par with string theory or the multiverse.
>>>>
>>>> You are quickly boring me.
>>>
>>> No, but it's got as much to do with this creator as what you asked me to
>>> read.
>>
>> Yes, you are boring me.
>
> Getting your ass kicked isn't usually boring.
>>> Either you know or you don't. You're the one going around in circles,
>>> I'm just asking you the same questions and waiting for an actual answer.
>>
>> You deny the answer you get, that is circular.
>
> What answer, I haven't got an answer to the question?
>>>> No, they can be shown to be described by humans, the "invention" thesis
>>>> is not uniformly provable.
>>>
>>> They cannot be shown to be from any Gods. So we have no reason to
>>> believe they are.
>>
>> That is also a lie, we have vast bodies of writings and scrolls and tablets.
>
> That can be shown to have come from God?
They can be said to have been "revealed" to those who wrote them.
> Really? Well you better list said documents that can be shown to come
> from God, I don't know of any.
> This is a amazing day, you've proved God exists (apparently) --- Lets
> just wait for said proof which I'm sure will satisfy everyone.
to, no proof could ever suffice.
>>> No you have not at all. You've merely used various other terms to
>>> describe the act of creating.
>>>
>>> Not the agent we're talking about.
>>
>> As previously stated, the present solid reality may not offer enough
>> levels of perception to adequately describe the Creator.
>
> As your previously stated examples prove, actually you can.
CERN may hold better promise soon however.
> You just don't want to, afraid to show your hand perhaps?
>>>> Because you slap away definitions and nuances which do not fit your
>>>> preconceptions, and because, artless a ploy as it is, choose to do so
>>>> all in a rather poorly disguised grudge with religion.
>>>
>>> I'm still waiting for a what/who!
>>
>> You've been exposed for your game.
>
> No game here, just a simple question you can't answer.
Even the "God particle" is but a theoretical posit thus far.
>>> Going through various lists of what the term is supposed to mean doesn't
>>> tell me what agent you're talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this a God?
>>
>> Your charade is over, find some religious adherent to goad.
>
> Should we take that as a yes? :-)
speaking.
> That you're talking about a God.
I can neither confirm nor deny who you might view as "a God", but your
prior references to Thor and Zeuss give me an idea on that.
Suffice to say our framers referred to "The Creator", which for now is
adequate to my sense of what came before us.
> No wonder I touched a nerve, people who live their lives by blind faith
> are very touchy on logic and reason.
hearing and touch.
It troubles me not if your own faithless senses are sufficiently dulled
not to be able to discern the presence of a Creator.
> It's no surprise you kept you beliefs hidden, shame will do that.
is your intellectual and spiritual intolerance and confusion.
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 1:11:07 PM8/29/12
to
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 1:16:03 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:46 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> Another person was being called closed minded, you also called me closed
>>> mined.
>>
>> Good grief, what a coincidence...
>>
>>> I'm closed minded on the Creator? How so? You can't even tell me
>>> what/who it's supposed to be. So I cannot possibility be closed minded
>>> on it.
>>>
>>> If it's a God, then you'd need to tell me which one.
>>
>> Nature's God, oh circular one.
>
> That doesn't answer the question, here's some incomplete lists:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God
>
> Which one are you talking about?
The Creator, of course - but there are several names on those lists
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> Another person was being called closed minded, you also called me closed
>>> mined.
>>
>> Good grief, what a coincidence...
>>
>>> I'm closed minded on the Creator? How so? You can't even tell me
>>> what/who it's supposed to be. So I cannot possibility be closed minded
>>> on it.
>>>
>>> If it's a God, then you'd need to tell me which one.
>>
>> Nature's God, oh circular one.
>
> That doesn't answer the question, here's some incomplete lists:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God
>
> Which one are you talking about?
which, depending on the culture one is from, seem apt as well.
> Do we get an answer, oh one ashamed and embarrassed by his own
> God!
> Too right you're ashamed, you've done your best to hide. But the circle
> is clear, and it's your circle not mine.
elevate your perceptual skills.
In the final analysis all I've succeeded in is allowing you to devolve
to increasingly rude levels of mockery.
By real world measures than, an initial "plonk" would have been far more
apropos, and wasted less of my or the other readers' time.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 1:16:54 PM8/29/12
to
You hairdressers are so emotional.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 1:53:06 PM8/29/12
to
news:RryMu8.I...@invalid.invalid...
>> >>>> >� >>That
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 1:55:46 PM8/29/12
to
news:I1pU4y.A...@invalid.invalid...
Do you work in a cinema ?
> And what could be more stupid than someone who believes in
> propositions that are counterfactual and in conflict with reality?
>
>
The idiot (like you who makes such stupid projections on others, would
definitely qualify
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:45:50AM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2TvUQL.3...@invalid.invalid...
>> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> >>
>> >>"Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
>> >>>hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
>> >>>hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post
>> >>as
>> >>hate speech
>> >> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
>> >
>> >Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
>> >requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
>> >
>>
>> Is that how you try to justify your hate speech ?
>> Got it..
>
> Right-tard may be derrogatory, but it's not in the same class of
> insult in which you might label someone as crazy, when in fact you are
> doing so to incite others to commit acts of violence. Right-tard
> merely defines someone who is stupid, i.e.: retard-like.
>
Projecting again, I see
>>
>> "Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2TvUQL.3...@invalid.invalid...
>> >On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:20:12PM -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> >>
>> >>"Seth F." <sf89...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:9cX46I.o...@invalid.invalid...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Poor little right-tard. Exposed, and able to do nothing but spew
>> >>>hate. (FYI, identifiying right-tard extremism in concret terms is not
>> >>>hate, even if I also personally despise your weak mind.)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>The very fact that you use such derogatory labels qualifies your post
>> >>as
>> >>hate speech
>> >> Bit of a hypocrite there, seth
>> >
>> >Sorry, but it's called a value judgement. Hate speech generally
>> >requires aspersions without merit or basis in reality.
>> >
>>
>> Is that how you try to justify your hate speech ?
>> Got it..
>
> Right-tard may be derrogatory, but it's not in the same class of
> insult in which you might label someone as crazy, when in fact you are
> doing so to incite others to commit acts of violence. Right-tard
> merely defines someone who is stupid, i.e.: retard-like.
>
Do you work in a cinema ?
> And what could be more stupid than someone who believes in
> propositions that are counterfactual and in conflict with reality?
>
>
definitely qualify
Seth F.
Aug 29, 2012, 2:07:11 PM8/29/12
to
> >And what could be more stupid than someone who believes in
> >propositions that are counterfactual and in conflict with reality?
>
> The idiot (like you who makes such stupid projections on others, would
> definitely qualify
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 2:23:06 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 8:56 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> Blown to pieces.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> "No" what?
>>
>> No, the low-time-value fuckwit has not blown to pieces the theory that
>> rights are an evolutionary development in humans.
>
> Sorry, I did.
No.
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 2:24:26 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 9:06 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>>>>>> Why ?
>>>>>> If you're too stupid or ignorant to know or understand the concept,
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> should I waste my time educating you ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha-ha, yes, yes. You know them all you just won't list them on
>>>>> principal.
>>>>
>>>> Principle, not "principal".
>>>
>>> Picking at grammar/spelling, the sign of a lost argument.
>>>
>>
>> Is it ?
>> Maybe it's a demonstration of YOUR lack of education that you're not even
>> smart enough to know the difference
>
> Yep, it is.
Yep, it's a demonstration of YOUR lack of education that you're not even
smart enough to know the difference.
Concession noted. Time for you to move on to some new time-wasting
endeavor.
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 2:25:40 PM8/29/12
to
right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
>>
>> Once again.
>
> I already conceded defeat.
We noticed.
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> [bullshit]
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Once again.
>
> I already conceded defeat.
We noticed.
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 2:26:28 PM8/29/12
to
right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> [nothing]
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> And again.
>
> Once again, I concede defeat.
No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 29, 2012, 2:24:29 PM8/29/12
to
news:Reejwr.x...@invalid.invalid...
No, I meant a cinema
Do you even know the difference ?
And the reason I mean cinema, was because you project so much, you would
qualify as a projector.
<Have to explain everything to these poor pinkies.>
>> >And what could be more stupid than someone who believes in
>> >propositions that are counterfactual and in conflict with reality?
>>
>> The idiot (like you) who makes such stupid projections on others, would
No big surprise there
Do you even know the difference ?
And the reason I mean cinema, was because you project so much, you would
qualify as a projector.
<Have to explain everything to these poor pinkies.>
>> >And what could be more stupid than someone who believes in
>> >propositions that are counterfactual and in conflict with reality?
>>
>> definitely qualify
>
> You're merely proving that you have no idea how to read.
>
>
So that was ALSO beyond you ken.
>
> You're merely proving that you have no idea how to read.
>
>
No big surprise there
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 2:38:01 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> Nature's God, oh circular one.
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question, here's some incomplete lists:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God
>>
>> Which one are you talking about?
>
> The Creator, of course - but there are several names on those lists
> which, depending on the culture one is from, seem apt as well.
Good, name these several names then.
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> Nature's God, oh circular one.
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question, here's some incomplete lists:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God
>>
>> Which one are you talking about?
>
> The Creator, of course - but there are several names on those lists
> which, depending on the culture one is from, seem apt as well.
>> Do we get an answer, oh one ashamed and embarrassed by his own
>> God!
>
> What embarrassment need there be?
>> Too right you're ashamed, you've done your best to hide. But the circle
>> is clear, and it's your circle not mine.
>
> My only shame, and it is a minor one, was in wasting the time to try and
> elevate your perceptual skills.
>
> In the final analysis all I've succeeded in is allowing you to devolve
> to increasingly rude levels of mockery.
>
> By real world measures than, an initial "plonk" would have been far more
> apropos, and wasted less of my or the other readers' time.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+YYYACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4tEQP/Z4Tn2cSxApHq55tlmAf7shmV
Q6EQpaahjrhtUWNQUmM5Kalo7bcSmV2e5xWmBUPESV3Jjf2lq7YI0SoL3Sv9P2fu
9y0C3uuX3X52EzgjYeV9/okNBmaHhatJSzBPiQ4BlWlAEaIMXCUbN3/pfQpUXWZm
EYw///8pakZivH7+gwE=
=wKGF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 2:48:26 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> You cannot describe the creator,
>
> Not in terms that you can grasp, obviously, that's what this entire
> circular discussion has been about.
No, you haven't even tried.
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>> You cannot describe the creator,
>
> Not in terms that you can grasp, obviously, that's what this entire
> circular discussion has been about.
>> those things can be described, and
>> could be described when they were known about - Not explained but
>> described.
>
> Oh hang on...did a set of goal posts just move?
> [...]
> You walked right into this - man has always had forces beyond his
> comprehension at any given time, forces which could only be described in
> then very elemental terms.
Nope, I did not. They could describe these things, just not explain
> comprehension at any given time, forces which could only be described in
> then very elemental terms.
them.
You couldn't describe this creator fo rme.
> Ergo, positing the Creator as a universal generative force is no less
> apt then noting the lodestone attracts certain objects or that all
> objects might fall at a set rate.
>> So it not only doesn't make your case, it destroys your own case! :-)
>
> You're one of the most intellectually deceitful ones I have seen here yet.
>
> We have had atoms since the dawn of time, yet only in the past 100 years
> been able to begin to describe them.
>
> You utter fool.
You posit this creator exists, therefore describe it.
>> If I could perceive this creator I wouldn't need to ask.
>
> So your perceptual deficits are my responsibility?
>
> Learn to meditate, they may improve.
Either you don't know yourself, or you have something to hide.
You assert there is a creator, you back it up.
>> What answer, I haven't got an answer to the question?
>
> You have, you merely deny it.
>>> That is also a lie, we have vast bodies of writings and scrolls and tablets.
>>
>> That can be shown to have come from God?
>
> Define "shown".
>
> They can be said to have been "revealed" to those who wrote them.
>> Really? Well you better list said documents that can be shown to come
>> from God, I don't know of any.
>
> Yes you do, you simply deny them.
That is a concession that there are none, or you're embarrassed to say.
>> This is a amazing day, you've proved God exists (apparently) --- Lets
>> just wait for said proof which I'm sure will satisfy everyone.
>
> For those who believe, no proof is necessary, and for those who wish not
> to, no proof could ever suffice.
Oh, you were about to make history for a moment there.
>>> As previously stated, the present solid reality may not offer enough
>>> levels of perception to adequately describe the Creator.
>>
>> As your previously stated examples prove, actually you can.
>
> That is incorrect, for now.
>
> CERN may hold better promise soon however.
You cannot.
>> You just don't want to, afraid to show your hand perhaps?
>
> My hands are open.
>> No game here, just a simple question you can't answer.
>
> Only in as much as strictly human terminology is inadequate at this time.
>
> Even the "God particle" is but a theoretical posit thus far.
so. If you won't tell me what you're talking about.
>>>> Is this a God?
>>>
>>> Your charade is over, find some religious adherent to goad.
>>
>> Should we take that as a yes? :-)
>
> You will do so regardless of the truth, as that is your core deceit
> speaking.
>> That you're talking about a God.
>
> "A God" implies the possibility of multiple.
> I can neither confirm nor deny who you might view as "a God", but your
> prior references to Thor and Zeuss give me an idea on that.
> Suffice to say our framers referred to "The Creator", which for now is
> adequate to my sense of what came before us.
it?
>> No wonder I touched a nerve, people who live their lives by blind faith
>> are very touchy on logic and reason.
>
> A blind man lives his unsighted faith with increased acuity of smell,
> hearing and touch.
>
> It troubles me not if your own faithless senses are sufficiently dulled
> not to be able to discern the presence of a Creator.
>> It's no surprise you kept you beliefs hidden, shame will do that.
>
> It's no surprise you have devolved into mockery, for the greater shame
> is your intellectual and spiritual intolerance and confusion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+Y/MACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5GYwP/dBowXpriJVL8Vu6nPqgAMKXV
HkQ/BgoEFaPeMv7AX5anTT4KGNSVglJoxlEHab/d74YTOmiQnDML2dvTV02RcDoC
WY3BN/tl2iWivkop8ZY2UPY5I72e6Mcfo1CQlec2nO80JZAG2iG3BiBYVOn3zYb6
BigHD78wgJQCQebbYlA=
=N1ao
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 3:05:57 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> And again.
>>
>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>
> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
Ooooo, modifying quotes now.
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> And again.
>>
>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>
> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
The ultimate lying.
Lets keep that example of your dishonesty top of the pile.
Thanks for that demonstration.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+aBIACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5F5wP/XjX0Iomq+72wadPRFy9jx/p2
8i/ix477cfH+vfjnjBTkfHMOESEzcYzY8ENGULKLfp1Nx/lIgEpvNEFCRo/ewIp7
c95aROTw8EUTsd9DsN2ZChPF3us3xJDgl05DhQkx0kSTipu2XWAU4baS9SCFefjm
RZrDEWRbcRGfsyKGcKI=
=FKHJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
mr_antone
Aug 29, 2012, 3:11:58 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:41:52 -0600, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out>
Ooooh, lil_dink is upset.
>
>> Are you claiming these "unalienable" rights stop at the border?
>
>If I did, please cite me, put it here:____________________________.
Where's your proof people living beyond the US borders have
"unalienable" rights.
>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>>>>
>>>> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mr_antone
>>>
>>> The right to ridicule at my leisure.
>>
>> When you exercise your right to jerk your knees, do your jerk them
>> simultaneously or alternate?
>>
>> mr_antone
>
>When I lampoon you I barely need flex my wrist.
The only flexing you do with your wrist is exercising your right to
stroke it.
mr_antone
>
>> Are you claiming these "unalienable" rights stop at the border?
>
>If I did, please cite me, put it here:____________________________.
"unalienable" rights.
>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>>>>
>>>> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mr_antone
>>>
>>> The right to ridicule at my leisure.
>>
>> When you exercise your right to jerk your knees, do your jerk them
>> simultaneously or alternate?
>>
>> mr_antone
>
>When I lampoon you I barely need flex my wrist.
stroke it.
mr_antone
duke
Aug 29, 2012, 3:12:16 PM8/29/12
to
Mike Lovell <dev....@b0h0.com> wrote:
> Ooooo, modifying quotes now.
>
> The ultimate lying.
>
> Lets keep that example of your dishonesty top of the pile.
>
> Thanks for that demonstration.
>
Religion looks forward to the destruction of the world…. Perhaps half
> Ooooo, modifying quotes now.
>
> The ultimate lying.
>
> Lets keep that example of your dishonesty top of the pile.
>
> Thanks for that demonstration.
>
aware that its unsupported arguments are not entirely persuasive, and
perhaps uneasy about its own greedy accumulation of temporal power and
wealth, religion has never ceased to proclaim the Apocalypse and the day
of judgment.
u4z
Aug 29, 2012, 3:13:00 PM8/29/12
to
"SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're merely proving that you have no idea how to read.
> >
> >
>
> So that was ALSO beyond you ken.
> No big surprise there
>
>
The Yorkshire Rapier "was on a divine mission and felt he had been
> > You're merely proving that you have no idea how to read.
> >
> >
>
> So that was ALSO beyond you ken.
> No big surprise there
>
>
chosen to hear the word of GOD (JESUS)." Reported the Flint Journal. He
murdered 11 girls.
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 3:48:43 PM8/29/12
to
right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> And again.
>>>
>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>
>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>
> Ooooo,
No need to moan, either. Just let it go, and find something useful to
>>>> And again.
>>>
>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>
>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>
> Ooooo,
do with your admittedly low-value time.
For starters, why don't you get rid of the PGP bullshit? It clutters up
your already junky and shitty posts.
Mike Lovell
Aug 29, 2012, 3:54:41 PM8/29/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
> - wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> And again.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>>
>>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>>
>> Ooooo,
>
> No need to moan, either. Just let it go, and find something useful to
> do with your admittedly low-value time.
>
> For starters, why don't you get rid of the PGP bullshit? It clutters up
> your already junky and shitty posts.
Moan? I'm happy that you show what a liar and coward you are.
> right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
> - wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> And again.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>>
>>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>>
>> Ooooo,
>
> No need to moan, either. Just let it go, and find something useful to
> do with your admittedly low-value time.
>
> For starters, why don't you get rid of the PGP bullshit? It clutters up
> your already junky and shitty posts.
You did it above when you changed a quote to make it look like I said
something I didn't. And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
debate.
Like pretty much 99% of posts!
Keep up the good work making yourself look bad.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA+c30ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7kYwQAkKu+aoWJVYERw9sX7CSttpZU
E0P1L7nHLz9JVAJoa/D7eWYBJdDkYiYA96b29cai5uPb9M8UmRDEXAnmnHi11Jv3
0Bzzo4T/2K4lU9HEK/8CgKQTMl1wO7N9FXcpVIINC6z90cqGfilDK3ybKRc4h5d4
K/y5RfjV3cFq6hBJcWg=
=Noym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mitchell Holman
Aug 29, 2012, 4:19:47 PM8/29/12
to
lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1le05$u2m$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 8/29/2012 6:37 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1juq5$1tt$8@dont-
email.me:
>> The "inalienable" right to own slaves
>
> Why did you delete my reference to the 13th amendment?
The right to own property is "inalienable",
until the government decides that ownership (drugs,
some weaponry, slaves) is suddenly illegal.
Do explain.
> On 8/29/2012 6:37 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1juq5$1tt$8@dont-
email.me:
>>
>>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>> news:19ednReSsdjzq6DNnZ2dnUVZ5t- dn...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/28/2012 4:55 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> Delvin Benet<DB@nbc.nýt> wrote in
>>>>>> news:19ednReSsdjzq6DNnZ2dnUVZ5t- dn...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Why did you delete my reference to the 13th amendment?
The right to own property is "inalienable",
until the government decides that ownership (drugs,
some weaponry, slaves) is suddenly illegal.
Do explain.
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 4:42:25 PM8/29/12
to
right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
>> - wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> And again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>>>
>>>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>>>
>>> Ooooo,
>>
>> No need to moan, either. Just let it go, and find something useful to
>> do with your admittedly low-value time.
>>
>> For starters, why don't you get rid of the PGP bullshit? It clutters up
>> your already junky and shitty posts.
>
> Moan?
Yes, moan: "Ooooo" is moaning. You're really not much of a serious
- wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> right on cue, time-wasting low-time-value sophist Mike Lovell - a prick
>> - wasted some more of his low-value time and wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> And again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>>>
>>>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>>>
>>> Ooooo,
>>
>> No need to moan, either. Just let it go, and find something useful to
>> do with your admittedly low-value time.
>>
>> For starters, why don't you get rid of the PGP bullshit? It clutters up
>> your already junky and shitty posts.
>
> Moan?
contributor here.
Why don't you ditch the stupid PGP bullshit?
George Plimpton
Aug 29, 2012, 4:48:20 PM8/29/12
to
Bitch Holeman, dainty squat-to-piss fairy, squealed:
>> Bitch Holeman, dainty squat-to-piss fairy, squealed:
> until [bullshit snipped]
No, it's inalienable, full stop. The government might violate the
right, but that doesn't mean *you* relinquished it.
Contrast that with a positive "right" or entitlement, say that the
government tells you you can have free cheese from some surplus dairy
products warehouse they maintain. Now the cheese supply is exhausted,
and when you go to get some, there's none available. Were your rights
violated? Of course not. Were they "alienated"? Of course not - the
"right" created by the dairy products giveaway was not an inalienable
right in the first place.
You're simply much to stupid for this kind of issue, Bitch.
>> Bitch Holeman, dainty squat-to-piss fairy, squealed:
>>> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1juq5$1tt$8@dont-
> email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bitch Holeman, dainty squat-to-piss fairy, squealed:
> email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/2012 6:20 PM, mr_antone wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:19:48 -0600, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
No, it's inalienable, full stop. The government might violate the
right, but that doesn't mean *you* relinquished it.
Contrast that with a positive "right" or entitlement, say that the
government tells you you can have free cheese from some surplus dairy
products warehouse they maintain. Now the cheese supply is exhausted,
and when you go to get some, there's none available. Were your rights
violated? Of course not. Were they "alienated"? Of course not - the
"right" created by the dairy products giveaway was not an inalienable
right in the first place.
You're simply much to stupid for this kind of issue, Bitch.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:19:29 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:59 AM, Seth F. wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:35:00AM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 9:52 AM, Seth F. wrote:
>>> And I own much of the
>>> "underground" English lexicon
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit, you're a rank egomaniac.
>
> At least I understand my own limitations.
If you did, you'd not still be here, turd.
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:35:00AM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 9:52 AM, Seth F. wrote:
>>> And I own much of the
>>> "underground" English lexicon
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit, you're a rank egomaniac.
>
> At least I understand my own limitations.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:19:56 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 11:07 AM, Seth F. wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:35:41AM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 10:08 AM, Seth F. wrote:
>>> Right-tard may be derrogatory,
>>
>> And you may be a pile of dog crap, really.
>
> Oh, are the 'dogs' going to eat me?
Depends how hungry they are, turd.
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:35:41AM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 10:08 AM, Seth F. wrote:
>>> Right-tard may be derrogatory,
>>
>> And you may be a pile of dog crap, really.
>
> Oh, are the 'dogs' going to eat me?
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:20:13 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 11:11 AM, Seth F. wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:36:24AM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 10:24 AM, Seth F. wrote:
>>> Would you like to know what a 'ratfucker' might be?
>>
>> Kin to you?
>
> Maybe,
Definitley, turd.
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:36:24AM -0600, lib_duster wrote:
>> On 8/29/2012 10:24 AM, Seth F. wrote:
>>> Would you like to know what a 'ratfucker' might be?
>>
>> Kin to you?
>
> Maybe,
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:23:28 PM8/29/12
to
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:29:02 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 12:38 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>> Nature's God, oh circular one.
>>>
>>> That doesn't answer the question, here's some incomplete lists:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God
>>>
>>> Which one are you talking about?
>>
>> The Creator, of course - but there are several names on those lists
>> which, depending on the culture one is from, seem apt as well.
>
> Good, name these several names then.
It depends on which culture you're living in.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>> Nature's God, oh circular one.
>>>
>>> That doesn't answer the question, here's some incomplete lists:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God
>>>
>>> Which one are you talking about?
>>
>> The Creator, of course - but there are several names on those lists
>> which, depending on the culture one is from, seem apt as well.
>
> Good, name these several names then.
For Christians Yaweh and Elohim work.
What's your culture?
>>> Do we get an answer, oh one ashamed and embarrassed by his own
>>> God!
>>
>> What embarrassment need there be?
>
> You tell me, you're the one getting so cagey about.
and definitives.
>>> Too right you're ashamed, you've done your best to hide. But the circle
>>> is clear, and it's your circle not mine.
>>
>> My only shame, and it is a minor one, was in wasting the time to try and
>> elevate your perceptual skills.
>>
>> In the final analysis all I've succeeded in is allowing you to devolve
>> to increasingly rude levels of mockery.
>>
>> By real world measures than, an initial "plonk" would have been far more
>> apropos, and wasted less of my or the other readers' time.
>
> Or just answered the question rather than dancing around it ;-)
You're the one who prefers to dance.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:42:40 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> You cannot describe the creator,
>>
>> Not in terms that you can grasp, obviously, that's what this entire
>> circular discussion has been about.
>
> No, you haven't even tried.
That's a naked lie.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>> You cannot describe the creator,
>>
>> Not in terms that you can grasp, obviously, that's what this entire
>> circular discussion has been about.
>
> No, you haven't even tried.
There really is no point proceeding if all you do is lie.
>>> those things can be described, and
>>> could be described when they were known about - Not explained but
>>> described.
>>
>> Oh hang on...did a set of goal posts just move?
>
> Nope.
>
>> [...]
And that is intellectual deceit disguised as a deletion.
Ruin and hide.
>> You walked right into this - man has always had forces beyond his
>> comprehension at any given time, forces which could only be described in
>> then very elemental terms.
>
> Nope, I did not. They could describe these things, just not explain
> them.
>
> You couldn't describe this creator fo rme.
>> Ergo, positing the Creator as a universal generative force is no less
>> apt then noting the lodestone attracts certain objects or that all
>> objects might fall at a set rate.
>
> A creator you cannot describe.
yours.
>>> So it not only doesn't make your case, it destroys your own case! :-)
>>
>> You're one of the most intellectually deceitful ones I have seen here yet.
>>
>> We have had atoms since the dawn of time, yet only in the past 100 years
>> been able to begin to describe them.
>>
>> You utter fool.
>
> And know they existed ;-)
> You posit this creator exists, therefore describe it.
>>> If I could perceive this creator I wouldn't need to ask.
>>
>> So your perceptual deficits are my responsibility?
>>
>> Learn to meditate, they may improve.
>
> No, your inability to answer a simple question is.
> Either you don't know yourself, or you have something to hide.
> You assert there is a creator, you back it up.
>>> What answer, I haven't got an answer to the question?
>>
>> You have, you merely deny it.
>
> There was no answer to deny.
This is now pointless.
>>>> That is also a lie, we have vast bodies of writings and scrolls and tablets.
>>>
>>> That can be shown to have come from God?
>>
>> Define "shown".
>>
>> They can be said to have been "revealed" to those who wrote them.
>
> Then you should be able to list them all.
scroll, or written testimony.
Use the internet.
>>> Really? Well you better list said documents that can be shown to come
>>> from God, I don't know of any.
>>
>> Yes you do, you simply deny them.
>
> Absence of list of documents noted.
> That is a concession that there are none, or you're embarrassed to say.
to try and capsulize in a discussion format.
Start with the Bible.
>>> This is a amazing day, you've proved God exists (apparently) --- Lets
>>> just wait for said proof which I'm sure will satisfy everyone.
>>
>> For those who believe, no proof is necessary, and for those who wish not
>> to, no proof could ever suffice.
>
> So, you don't have any long story short.
> Oh, you were about to make history for a moment there.
It would be historic, yes.
>>>> As previously stated, the present solid reality may not offer enough
>>>> levels of perception to adequately describe the Creator.
>>>
>>> As your previously stated examples prove, actually you can.
>>
>> That is incorrect, for now.
>>
>> CERN may hold better promise soon however.
>
> They can describe what they are looking for, and what they've found.
They can describe a possible field effect, not much more. Even the title
"God particle" is at best a clumsy generality.
> You cannot.
Nature's God.
>>> You just don't want to, afraid to show your hand perhaps?
>>
>> My hands are open.
>
> They are closed and in them sits this creator.
or fully contained within this vibratory construct.
>>> No game here, just a simple question you can't answer.
>>
>> Only in as much as strictly human terminology is inadequate at this time.
>>
>> Even the "God particle" is but a theoretical posit thus far.
>
> Lots of information on that. But the ambiguous "creator" not so much
> so. If you won't tell me what you're talking about.
>>>>> Is this a God?
>>>>
>>>> Your charade is over, find some religious adherent to goad.
>>>
>>> Should we take that as a yes? :-)
>>
>> You will do so regardless of the truth, as that is your core deceit
>> speaking.
>
> Well if you're too ashame to answer, then fine. I have to infer.
nothing more.
>>> That you're talking about a God.
>>
>> "A God" implies the possibility of multiple.
>
> Yep.
>> I can neither confirm nor deny who you might view as "a God", but your
>> prior references to Thor and Zeuss give me an idea on that.
>
> They have been described as Gods.
Are you Grecian?
>> Suffice to say our framers referred to "The Creator", which for now is
>> adequate to my sense of what came before us.
>
> Which is as you've indicated above a single God, so which single God is
> it?
potential for other beings to have created , here and elsewhere.
>>> No wonder I touched a nerve, people who live their lives by blind faith
>>> are very touchy on logic and reason.
>>
>> A blind man lives his unsighted faith with increased acuity of smell,
>> hearing and touch.
>>
>> It troubles me not if your own faithless senses are sufficiently dulled
>> not to be able to discern the presence of a Creator.
>
> That's not faith ;-)
>>> It's no surprise you kept you beliefs hidden, shame will do that.
>>
>> It's no surprise you have devolved into mockery, for the greater shame
>> is your intellectual and spiritual intolerance and confusion.
>
> I have no choice, your shame is clear.
skink on sink
Aug 29, 2012, 5:43:25 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 1:05 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> And again.
>>>
>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>
>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>
> Ooooo, modifying quotes now.
>
> The ultimate lying.
>
> Lets keep that example of your dishonesty top of the pile.
Oh look, you chafe at your own flaws cast back upon you.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-29, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> And again.
>>>
>>> Once again, I concede defeat.
>>
>> No need to keep groveling over it. Just move on.
>
> Ooooo, modifying quotes now.
>
> The ultimate lying.
>
> Lets keep that example of your dishonesty top of the pile.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:45:55 PM8/29/12
to
How sad.
>>
>>> Are you claiming these "unalienable" rights stop at the border?
>>
>> If I did, please cite me, put it here:____________________________.
>
> Where's your proof people living beyond the US borders have
> "unalienable" rights.
You failed.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>> You're not very smart mr_antone, even for a hairdresser...
>>>>>
>>>>> List a few more of these "unalienable" rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> mr_antone
>>>>
>>>> The right to ridicule at my leisure.
>>>
>>> When you exercise your right to jerk your knees, do your jerk them
>>> simultaneously or alternate?
>>>
>>> mr_antone
>>
>> When I lampoon you I barely need flex my wrist.
>
> The only flexing you do with your wrist is exercising your right to
> stroke it.
>
> mr_antone
are, even amongst hair dressers.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:47:33 PM8/29/12
to
Useless in this medium anyway.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:48:14 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 1:54 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
> debate.
You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
> debate.
lib_duster
Aug 29, 2012, 5:48:54 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 2:19 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1le05$u2m$1...@dont-email.me:
That's not an answer, you lying troll.
> lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote in news:k1le05$u2m$1...@dont-email.me:
§pamßušter
Aug 29, 2012, 3:27:53 PM8/29/12
to
GOOD ONE FOR KILLFILE
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
"SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k1k1t2$i3q$4...@dont-email.me...
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
"SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k1k1t2$i3q$4...@dont-email.me...
§pamßušter
Aug 29, 2012, 3:27:55 PM8/29/12
to
--
news:k1ju09$bi5$1...@panix2.panix.com...
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:k1ju09$bi5$1...@panix2.panix.com...
§pamßušter
Aug 29, 2012, 3:27:58 PM8/29/12
to
--
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
"Jim T." <x@y.z> wrote in message news:l51r38pv08q39125j...@4ax.com...
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
§pamßušter
Aug 29, 2012, 3:28:09 PM8/29/12
to
--
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
"Fred" <rep...@scientology.org> wrote in message
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
news:db6dnXWMStDGFaDN...@posted.sonicnet...
§pamßušter
Aug 29, 2012, 3:28:10 PM8/29/12
to
--
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
news:S9GdnQbtuer6FqDN...@giganews.com...
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages