Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Florida governor: Obama hasn't called me
24 views
Skip to first unread message
burfordTjustice
Jun 14, 2016, 3:08:25 PM6/14/16
to
In the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, Rick Scott received phone calls from George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the Republican governor of Florida said Tuesday. He's still waiting on a call from President Barack Obama, however.
Speaking to Brian Kilmeade on "Fox & Friends" from Orlando, Florida, Scott shared details of both calls. During his call with the 43rd president, Scott said Bush told him that he and former first lady Laura Bush "were praying for us, and anything he could do, he would love to be helpful."
.
.
As far as Obama is concerned, Scott said, "He has not called us."
"A staffer has called, but no, he has not called," Scott added, after Kilmeade noted that Obama "was talking about guns yesterday," speculating that the president would talk more about that angle during his visit to the city scheduled for Thursday.
Trump also called him, the governor added. "He called to just ask how I was doing, you know, like everybody else is praying for us," Scott said of the presumptive Republican nominee, whom he endorsed following his victory in the state's March primary.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"The Second Amendment didn't kill anybody. Evil, radical Islam, ISIS, they killed," Scott said. "We have to start standing up for our country. We have to say, we're going to vet people before they come into our country. If you disagree with what our country believes in, why in the living daylights are you allowed in our country?"
Scott recalled being on a call with the White House following last November's attacks in Paris, saying that he asked the administration to share vetting information for anyone who comes into "my state, and they said no," with respect to refugees.
"They said, 'Oh, those people have privacy rights,'" Scott said. "What about our security rights? The security of making sure if you live in my state, you're going to be safe. I'm responsible for the safety of the people of my state. I'm fed up with the fact that we're not destroying ISIS, we're not vetting these people, we're not taking care of our own citizens."
Speaking to Brian Kilmeade on "Fox & Friends" from Orlando, Florida, Scott shared details of both calls. During his call with the 43rd president, Scott said Bush told him that he and former first lady Laura Bush "were praying for us, and anything he could do, he would love to be helpful."
.
.
As far as Obama is concerned, Scott said, "He has not called us."
"A staffer has called, but no, he has not called," Scott added, after Kilmeade noted that Obama "was talking about guns yesterday," speculating that the president would talk more about that angle during his visit to the city scheduled for Thursday.
Trump also called him, the governor added. "He called to just ask how I was doing, you know, like everybody else is praying for us," Scott said of the presumptive Republican nominee, whom he endorsed following his victory in the state's March primary.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"The Second Amendment didn't kill anybody. Evil, radical Islam, ISIS, they killed," Scott said. "We have to start standing up for our country. We have to say, we're going to vet people before they come into our country. If you disagree with what our country believes in, why in the living daylights are you allowed in our country?"
Scott recalled being on a call with the White House following last November's attacks in Paris, saying that he asked the administration to share vetting information for anyone who comes into "my state, and they said no," with respect to refugees.
"They said, 'Oh, those people have privacy rights,'" Scott said. "What about our security rights? The security of making sure if you live in my state, you're going to be safe. I'm responsible for the safety of the people of my state. I'm fed up with the fact that we're not destroying ISIS, we're not vetting these people, we're not taking care of our own citizens."
dangerous dan
Jun 14, 2016, 6:54:09 PM6/14/16
to
Republicans are Americans because we want the rights given us in the constitution and bill of rights, not what we get from some backroom deal made by liberal Democrats to enslave us. Democrats want to take away our freedoms to keep us safe (supposedly), where Republicans want to keep our freedoms to keep us free, able to defend ourselves.
We need a strong leader who's man enough to stand up for our country, our rights, and spit in someone's eye and talk shit if that's what it takes, instead of some democrat who's more worried about being disliked by other countries, so he gives and gives to other countries, and takes and takes from us, while we lose our rights and freedoms at their whim, while letting haters of America immigrate without restriction.
Democrats like to talk about how things are done in other countries, like they want us to do things that way. We live in the United States of America and need to do things the American way, and let other countries follow our example.
Democrats are suck ups who care more about other countries, than about our own country. They want people to blindly trust them instead of using our own brains to decide what's right for us.
Uncle Monster
Jun 14, 2016, 7:21:32 PM6/14/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Constitutional Monster
Davej
Jun 14, 2016, 7:59:39 PM6/14/16
to
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 2:08:25 PM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> He's still waiting on a call from President Barack Obama, however.
Who would want to talk to that jackass Rick Scott?
Uncle Monster
Jun 14, 2016, 8:58:46 PM6/14/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Horrible Monster
rbowman
Jun 14, 2016, 9:39:12 PM6/14/16
to
On 06/14/2016 05:21 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
To paraphrase Mao, rights come out of the barrel of a gun.
> Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
Uncle Monster
Jun 14, 2016, 10:58:56 PM6/14/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Second Monster
FromTheRafters
Jun 15, 2016, 5:44:55 AM6/15/16
to
After serious thinking Uncle Monster wrote :
Indeed. My half brother visited again yesterday, and again he thought
he was making a point by saying "You don't need an assault rifle to
hunt deer", I have explained to him on several occasions how lame that
liberal talking point is, and why. This time I just sighed dramatically
and gave up completely on attempting to make him understand that the
second amendment is not really about granting individual gun ownership.
He is 14 years my senior and I think he is going senile, he keeps
telling us the same stories over and over again. He has used that old
saw at least five times in the last year.
he was making a point by saying "You don't need an assault rifle to
hunt deer", I have explained to him on several occasions how lame that
liberal talking point is, and why. This time I just sighed dramatically
and gave up completely on attempting to make him understand that the
second amendment is not really about granting individual gun ownership.
He is 14 years my senior and I think he is going senile, he keeps
telling us the same stories over and over again. He has used that old
saw at least five times in the last year.
Stormin Mormon
Jun 15, 2016, 7:07:28 AM6/15/16
to
On 6/15/2016 5:44 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Indeed. My half brother visited again yesterday, and again he thought he
> was making a point by saying "You don't need an assault rifle to hunt
> deer", I have explained to him on several occasions how lame that
> liberal talking point is, and why. This time I just sighed dramatically
> and gave up completely on attempting to make him understand that the
> second amendment is not really about granting individual gun ownership.
>
> He is 14 years my senior and I think he is going senile, he keeps
> telling us the same stories over and over again. He has used that old
> saw at least five times in the last year.
I hope you told him that you don't need a television
> Indeed. My half brother visited again yesterday, and again he thought he
> was making a point by saying "You don't need an assault rifle to hunt
> deer", I have explained to him on several occasions how lame that
> liberal talking point is, and why. This time I just sighed dramatically
> and gave up completely on attempting to make him understand that the
> second amendment is not really about granting individual gun ownership.
>
> He is 14 years my senior and I think he is going senile, he keeps
> telling us the same stories over and over again. He has used that old
> saw at least five times in the last year.
to comment on political candidates.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.
FromTheRafters
Jun 15, 2016, 9:15:01 AM6/15/16
to
Stormin Mormon wrote :
I think his opinions on this topic form from his religious affiliation
and social circle which are one and the same. He doesn't research
anything to gather facts and form his own opinion, I believe it is just
fed to him and he gobbles it up.
When I asked him the last time, he couldn't even come close to reciting
the second amendment's very short text, let alone guess what it meant.
Then I told him it doesn't say 'A well regulated militia, being
necessary to deer hunting . . ." which got a chuckle from other family
members in the room.
IMO, if you don't even know what it says, you shouldn't have an opinion
about it at all.
Then again, I watched Tavis Smiley's program this morning and his guest
said practically the same thing. I changed the channel after that I was
so disgusted. I've heard it from Obama and Hillary too.
and social circle which are one and the same. He doesn't research
anything to gather facts and form his own opinion, I believe it is just
fed to him and he gobbles it up.
When I asked him the last time, he couldn't even come close to reciting
the second amendment's very short text, let alone guess what it meant.
Then I told him it doesn't say 'A well regulated militia, being
necessary to deer hunting . . ." which got a chuckle from other family
members in the room.
IMO, if you don't even know what it says, you shouldn't have an opinion
about it at all.
Then again, I watched Tavis Smiley's program this morning and his guest
said practically the same thing. I changed the channel after that I was
so disgusted. I've heard it from Obama and Hillary too.
rbowman
Jun 15, 2016, 9:47:22 AM6/15/16
to
On 06/15/2016 03:44 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Indeed. My half brother visited again yesterday, and again he thought he
> was making a point by saying "You don't need an assault rifle to hunt
> deer", I have explained to him on several occasions how lame that
> liberal talking point is, and why.
That's counterbalanced by some of the magazine articles promoting the
> Indeed. My half brother visited again yesterday, and again he thought he
> was making a point by saying "You don't need an assault rifle to hunt
> deer", I have explained to him on several occasions how lame that
> liberal talking point is, and why.
AR-15 as the greatest deer rifle even invented. RKBA isn't about hunting
Bambi.
rbowman
Jun 15, 2016, 9:49:22 AM6/15/16
to
On 06/15/2016 07:14 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Then again, I watched Tavis Smiley's program this morning and his guest
> said practically the same thing. I changed the channel after that I was
> so disgusted. I've heard it from Obama and Hillary too.
Obama knows what he's talking about. He's an accomplished skeet shooter,
> Then again, I watched Tavis Smiley's program this morning and his guest
> said practically the same thing. I changed the channel after that I was
> so disgusted. I've heard it from Obama and Hillary too.
remember?
trader_4
Jun 15, 2016, 9:53:24 AM6/15/16
to
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-4, burfordTjustice wrote:
> In the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, Rick Scott received phone calls from George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the Republican governor of Florida said Tuesday. He's still waiting on a call from President Barack Obama, however.
>
I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't see what his calling Gov Scott would
> In the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, Rick Scott received phone calls from George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the Republican governor of Florida said Tuesday. He's still waiting on a call from President Barack Obama, however.
>
accomplish. Scott isn't the victim, nor is there any reason to believe
that he needs some kind of regional assistance like he would with a
hurricane. I can see Obama calling the families. He's in fact doing
better, he's going to go to Orlando.
gfre...@aol.com
Jun 15, 2016, 11:14:06 AM6/15/16
to
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:50:47 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:
>Obama knows what he's talking about. He's an accomplished skeet shooter,
>remember?
I remember, what a joke. He was nowhere near a skeet range, trap
either. I think the SS just took him down the road a couple hundred
yards from the house at Camp David, handed him the shotgun and said
"the trigger is that curvy thing". It did look like a trap gun.
wrote:
>Obama knows what he's talking about. He's an accomplished skeet shooter,
>remember?
either. I think the SS just took him down the road a couple hundred
yards from the house at Camp David, handed him the shotgun and said
"the trigger is that curvy thing". It did look like a trap gun.
burfordTjustice
Jun 15, 2016, 11:23:27 AM6/15/16
to
trader_4
Jun 15, 2016, 11:32:03 AM6/15/16
to
to offer the support of the FBI, CIA, NSA to cooperate on the investigation
and also to find out what the president of France has to tell him about
the investigation, what they know, etc. In the case of FL, not so much,
because the FBI is there running the investigation with the assistance of
all the other federal agencies. Could he have called? Sure. But I don't
see it as some big probative thing that he didn't.
burfordTjustice
Jun 15, 2016, 11:39:30 AM6/15/16
to
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
After a major event Good presidents call the Gov. to
offer any assistance that may be needed.
Your messiah always fails, unless it is another
Socialist who is Gov.
offer any assistance that may be needed.
Your messiah always fails, unless it is another
Socialist who is Gov.
Oren
Jun 15, 2016, 11:47:33 AM6/15/16
to
Oren
Jun 15, 2016, 12:03:52 PM6/15/16
to
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 06:53:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't see what his calling Gov Scott would
>accomplish. Scott isn't the victim, nor is there any reason to believe
>that he needs some kind of regional assistance like he would with a
>hurricane. I can see Obama calling the families. He's in fact doing
>better, he's going to go to Orlando.
Moral support? Heck,he could have had Crazy Uncle Joe call and state
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't see what his calling Gov Scott would
>accomplish. Scott isn't the victim, nor is there any reason to believe
>that he needs some kind of regional assistance like he would with a
>hurricane. I can see Obama calling the families. He's in fact doing
>better, he's going to go to Orlando.
the America people offer support and condolences; regardless of party
affiliation.
Lee dorman
Jun 15, 2016, 12:04:30 PM6/15/16
to
FromTheRafters
Jun 15, 2016, 1:28:50 PM6/15/16
to
rbowman pretended :
Michelle: "Damn Barry, skeets for supper again? Why don't you go ice
fishing again?"
Barry: "You almost drowned from cooking what I brought home from the
last ice fishing trip"
fishing again?"
Barry: "You almost drowned from cooking what I brought home from the
last ice fishing trip"
FromTheRafters
Jun 15, 2016, 1:33:00 PM6/15/16
to
FromTheRafters
Jun 15, 2016, 1:35:04 PM6/15/16
to
trader_4 formulated on Wednesday :
I think Burford is trying to say "But where's the love?"
Gordon Shumway
Jun 15, 2016, 1:48:59 PM6/15/16
to
On second thought now I know why Bill was boinking Monika.
Frank
Jun 15, 2016, 2:28:24 PM6/15/16
to
Republicans and most of all Trump.
Stormin Mormon
Jun 15, 2016, 2:49:44 PM6/15/16
to
On 6/15/2016 9:48 AM, rbowman wrote:
>
> That's counterbalanced by some of the magazine articles promoting the
> AR-15 as the greatest deer rifle even invented. RKBA isn't about hunting
> Bambi.
Counter balanced? I'd say the deer hunting with AR-15
>
> That's counterbalanced by some of the magazine articles promoting the
> AR-15 as the greatest deer rifle even invented. RKBA isn't about hunting
> Bambi.
articles play right into the gun banners agenda.
Stormin Mormon
Jun 15, 2016, 2:50:33 PM6/15/16
to
On 6/15/2016 9:48 AM, rbowman wrote:
help from the government would you reply "Oh, yeah!
I MIGHT have to call 911 some day!"?
Gordon Shumway
Jun 15, 2016, 3:10:06 PM6/15/16
to
Micky
Jun 15, 2016, 3:11:53 PM6/15/16
to
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
But someone else posted this originally, I think:
I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
What it does do is give man duties. Duties with regard to God and
with regard to his fellow man. But duties are not rights.
The closest thing in the Bible to a right is indirect. If other
people have a duty not to murder you, then you sort of have a right to
live. Well, it's like you have a right to live. If others have a
duty not to steal, then it's like you have a right to your own
property. But there is no stated right to either of these things.
You can see this in criminal trials now. People are tried for their
own act of murder, not for violating the right to live of someone
else. They are tried for their acts of stealing, not for violating
the right of someone else to own property. The only trials involving
rights are related to recent laws, civil rights laws, voting rights
laws. But even most recent laws are not like those. People are sued
for violating their duty not to pollute the water or air, for their
acts, not for violating some right that other people might want to
have to drink clean water or breathe clean air.
In the version of the saying given at the top, it claims people have
rights when they are born, but it doesn't mention God and it gives no
other reason that would be true. It's an assertion with no evidence
and no apparent basis.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, how are
those rights of any value?
In fact, it's hard to distinguish having a right from not having one
by watching what happens. In most of the world for most of time, at
least Europe which I know more about, most people had few if any legal
rights and no absolute legal rights. Their tribal leaders, their
kings, their feudal lords had rights and the power to force their
underlings to do whatever the lord wanted them to do. A king or the
head of the Visigoths, for example, could even have someone killed at
his whim, no trial needed, and no crime even need be asserted.
And this was all true regardless of what rights people supposedly had
from God or when they were born. Now what good are rights when one
is treated as if he had none? Ask a slave being whipped in pre-Civil
War America if he has the rights he was born with or that God gave
him. Who knows? Who can tell? That's just one category of 100's of
millions of examples.
What separates our society from those earlier ones and others in other
parts of the world now is in fact the Constitution, mostly the Bill of
Rights, which provides *enforceable* rights. There are times when
those rights are violated, and when their implementation is delayed
for months, years, or forever, but in practice we have the benefit of
far, far more rights than most people did in most of the world for
most of time. And it's because of the Constitution and the fair laws
passed under it.
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
But someone else posted this originally, I think:
>> > Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
This version of this saying doesn't mention God, but the other ones
I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
What it does do is give man duties. Duties with regard to God and
with regard to his fellow man. But duties are not rights.
The closest thing in the Bible to a right is indirect. If other
people have a duty not to murder you, then you sort of have a right to
live. Well, it's like you have a right to live. If others have a
duty not to steal, then it's like you have a right to your own
property. But there is no stated right to either of these things.
You can see this in criminal trials now. People are tried for their
own act of murder, not for violating the right to live of someone
else. They are tried for their acts of stealing, not for violating
the right of someone else to own property. The only trials involving
rights are related to recent laws, civil rights laws, voting rights
laws. But even most recent laws are not like those. People are sued
for violating their duty not to pollute the water or air, for their
acts, not for violating some right that other people might want to
have to drink clean water or breathe clean air.
In the version of the saying given at the top, it claims people have
rights when they are born, but it doesn't mention God and it gives no
other reason that would be true. It's an assertion with no evidence
and no apparent basis.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, how are
those rights of any value?
In fact, it's hard to distinguish having a right from not having one
by watching what happens. In most of the world for most of time, at
least Europe which I know more about, most people had few if any legal
rights and no absolute legal rights. Their tribal leaders, their
kings, their feudal lords had rights and the power to force their
underlings to do whatever the lord wanted them to do. A king or the
head of the Visigoths, for example, could even have someone killed at
his whim, no trial needed, and no crime even need be asserted.
And this was all true regardless of what rights people supposedly had
from God or when they were born. Now what good are rights when one
is treated as if he had none? Ask a slave being whipped in pre-Civil
War America if he has the rights he was born with or that God gave
him. Who knows? Who can tell? That's just one category of 100's of
millions of examples.
What separates our society from those earlier ones and others in other
parts of the world now is in fact the Constitution, mostly the Bill of
Rights, which provides *enforceable* rights. There are times when
those rights are violated, and when their implementation is delayed
for months, years, or forever, but in practice we have the benefit of
far, far more rights than most people did in most of the world for
most of time. And it's because of the Constitution and the fair laws
passed under it.
Gordon Shumway
Jun 15, 2016, 3:57:06 PM6/15/16
to
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:11:43 -0400, Micky <NONONObobb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
><uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>But someone else posted this originally, I think:
>>> > Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
<Rambling snipped>
>On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
><uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>But someone else posted this originally, I think:
>>> > Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
I have no idea what you are trying to say so why don't you start over with these facts:
Here is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence I believe you were referencing:
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.
Here is the transcript of Amendment II to our constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
Try to keep it brief.
burfordTjustice
Jun 15, 2016, 4:45:16 PM6/15/16
to
of 50 gays....Tells a story right there.
Uncle Monster
Jun 15, 2016, 9:31:23 PM6/15/16
to
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/
[8~{} Uncle Savage Monster
rbowman
Jun 15, 2016, 10:13:49 PM6/15/16
to
On 06/15/2016 09:13 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> I remember, what a joke. He was nowhere near a skeet range, trap
> either. I think the SS just took him down the road a couple hundred
> yards from the house at Camp David, handed him the shotgun and said
> "the trigger is that curvy thing". It did look like a trap gun.
almost as funny as Obama's photo op were some of the observations that
> I remember, what a joke. He was nowhere near a skeet range, trap
> either. I think the SS just took him down the road a couple hundred
> yards from the house at Camp David, handed him the shotgun and said
> "the trigger is that curvy thing". It did look like a trap gun.
it was photoshopped because of the plume of smoke out the side and the
'shot' emerging from the muzzle.
rbowman
Jun 15, 2016, 10:16:47 PM6/15/16
to
On 06/15/2016 11:28 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Image:
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/zncqoza>
I certainly hope that car didn't have one of those nasty Confederate
flags on the roof. What would #BlackLiesMatter say?
> Image:
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/zncqoza>
I certainly hope that car didn't have one of those nasty Confederate
flags on the roof. What would #BlackLiesMatter say?
rbowman
Jun 15, 2016, 10:18:34 PM6/15/16
to
On 06/15/2016 07:53 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> He's in fact doing
> better, he's going to go to Orlando.
Take a swim in the Seven Seas Lagoon?
> He's in fact doing
> better, he's going to go to Orlando.
rbowman
Jun 15, 2016, 10:20:13 PM6/15/16
to
On 06/15/2016 10:04 AM, Lee dorman wrote:
>
> Obamas going to Disney land. He'll probably talk about how terrible it
> was that child was eaten by an alligator at Disney land.
Child was white; not a chance.
>
> Obamas going to Disney land. He'll probably talk about how terrible it
> was that child was eaten by an alligator at Disney land.
Muggles
Jun 16, 2016, 12:28:02 AM6/16/16
to
On 6/15/2016 2:11 PM, Micky wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
> <uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But someone else posted this originally, I think:
>>>> Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
> This version of this saying doesn't mention God, but the other ones
> I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
> major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
> there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
> person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
According to the Bible, if you're a child of God, as in, believe in God
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
> <uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But someone else posted this originally, I think:
>>>> Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
> This version of this saying doesn't mention God, but the other ones
> I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
> major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
> there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
> person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
and Jesus as Lord and savior, then that makes you a child of the king of
kings. As a child of the king of kings you do have rights.
> What it does do is give man duties. Duties with regard to God and
> with regard to his fellow man. But duties are not rights.
>
> The closest thing in the Bible to a right is indirect. If other
> people have a duty not to murder you, then you sort of have a right to
> live. Well, it's like you have a right to live. If others have a
> duty not to steal, then it's like you have a right to your own
> property. But there is no stated right to either of these things.
>
--
Maggie
Donald Duck
Jun 16, 2016, 4:39:30 AM6/16/16
to
On 06/15/2016 10:04 AM, Lee dorman wrote:
>
>
>
>
IIRC, I saw an alligator on Splash Mountain so if you take that ride keep your hands in the boat.
FromTheRafters
Jun 16, 2016, 5:19:42 AM6/16/16
to
rbowman pretended :
I thought the same thing when I saw that picture.
Also, you got the attribution wrong.
Also, you got the attribution wrong.
Micky
Jun 16, 2016, 2:35:54 PM6/16/16
to
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:28:04 -0500, Muggles
<cou...@wn2Independence.Day> wrote:
>On 6/15/2016 2:11 PM, Micky wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
>> <uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But someone else posted this originally, I think:
>>>>> Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
>
>> This version of this saying doesn't mention God, but the other ones
>> I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
>> major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
>> there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
>> person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
>
>According to the Bible, if you're a child of God, as in, believe in God
>and Jesus as Lord and savior, then that makes you a child of the king of
>kings. As a child of the king of kings you do have rights.
Does it say what you have in the last sentence? Or is that a
<cou...@wn2Independence.Day> wrote:
>On 6/15/2016 2:11 PM, Micky wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
>> <uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But someone else posted this originally, I think:
>>>>> Our rights were not given to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans already have those rights when we're born. Those documents affirm our rights. ^_^
>
>> This version of this saying doesn't mention God, but the other ones
>> I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
>> major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
>> there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
>> person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
>
>According to the Bible, if you're a child of God, as in, believe in God
>and Jesus as Lord and savior, then that makes you a child of the king of
>kings. As a child of the king of kings you do have rights.
conclusion from the first part? Does it say which or what rights?
Even if it does, I had assumed the rights the people in my first
paragraph were talking about were rights for everyone. Because they
say "Americans" or "People". They don't say "God-believing Americans"
or "faithful Christians". And the Dec. of Independence, which they
are likely to also revere says "all men are created equal" (which I
think even at the time included women and which certainly sounds like
it includes non-Christians, some of whom lived in the 13 colonies at
the time the Dec of Ind was written. ) So I think they would have
to be relying on something else. In fact they seem to be relying on
the authors of the Declaration of Independence, so I wonder what those
people were relying on.
If the rights are only for people who believe in God and Jesus, that
would be one more point of division in an already divided country.
Maybe people have rights as the child of the king of kings but
everyone else has the same rights?? If God chose to give rights to
anyone, there is nothing stopping him from giving the same rights to
those who believe in him and those who don't.
Many, maybe most or almost all parents bequeath as much money to the
children who don't like them as they do to the children who do. I can
think of 3 reasons for that which could apply to God and people and
rights as well. 1) They love their children regardless of how much
their children love them. 2) They want what's best for all their
children. 3) They suspect that it might be something they the parent
has done that makes some children not like them as much as the others
do.
Muggles
Jun 17, 2016, 12:07:10 AM6/17/16
to
On 6/16/2016 1:35 PM, Micky wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:28:04 -0500, Muggles
> <cou...@wn2Independence.Day> wrote:
>
>> On 6/15/2016 2:11 PM, Micky wrote:
>>> This version of this saying doesn't mention God, but the other ones
>>> I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
>>> major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
>>> there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
>>> person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
>> According to the Bible, if you're a child of God, as in, believe in God
>> and Jesus as Lord and savior, then that makes you a child of the king of
>> kings. As a child of the king of kings you do have rights.
> Does it say what you have in the last sentence? Or is that a
> conclusion from the first part? Does it say which or what rights?
According to the Bible, if you're a child of the king of kings then like
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:28:04 -0500, Muggles
> <cou...@wn2Independence.Day> wrote:
>
>> On 6/15/2016 2:11 PM, Micky wrote:
>>> This version of this saying doesn't mention God, but the other ones
>>> I've seen do. They say that God gave us rights, but for those whose
>>> major holy book is the Bible, if you look in the Bible, I don't think
>>> there is anywhere where it gives any person a right or asserts that a
>>> person has a right. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
>> According to the Bible, if you're a child of God, as in, believe in God
>> and Jesus as Lord and savior, then that makes you a child of the king of
>> kings. As a child of the king of kings you do have rights.
> Does it say what you have in the last sentence? Or is that a
> conclusion from the first part? Does it say which or what rights?
any child you have a "right" to a royal inheritance. That's just a
Reader's Digest summary, though, of what it describes as the "rights" a
child of the king of kings.
> Even if it does, I had assumed the rights the people in my first
> paragraph were talking about were rights for everyone. Because they
> say "Americans" or "People". They don't say "God-believing Americans"
> or "faithful Christians". And the Dec. of Independence, which they
> are likely to also revere says "all men are created equal" (which I
> think even at the time included women and which certainly sounds like
> it includes non-Christians, some of whom lived in the 13 colonies at
> the time the Dec of Ind was written. )
IMO, the reference to "all men are created equal" is a religious
> paragraph were talking about were rights for everyone. Because they
> say "Americans" or "People". They don't say "God-believing Americans"
> or "faithful Christians". And the Dec. of Independence, which they
> are likely to also revere says "all men are created equal" (which I
> think even at the time included women and which certainly sounds like
> it includes non-Christians, some of whom lived in the 13 colonies at
> the time the Dec of Ind was written. )
reference that directly refers to biblical "Creation" of mankind in
general, and doesn't refer to gender at all.
> So I think they would have
> to be relying on something else. In fact they seem to be relying on
> the authors of the Declaration of Independence, so I wonder what those
> people were relying on.
living God.
> If the rights are only for people who believe in God and Jesus, that
> would be one more point of division in an already divided country.
deeply help belief in the biblical Creation of mankind.
> Maybe people have rights as the child of the king of kings but
> everyone else has the same rights?? If God chose to give rights to
> anyone, there is nothing stopping him from giving the same rights to
> those who believe in him and those who don't.
belief in the Biblical Creation of mankind, as a "matter of fact"
because that's what the people believed to be fact - "We hold these
truths to be /self-evident/(meaning obvious), that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights", so they wrote it into the D.of Independence. They believed in
God, and God's Creation of mankind event.
[...]
--
Maggie
0 new messages