Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never understood why I need to show identification to TSA agents at the airport. As long as I've been checked and found not to be in possession of any sort of dangerous weapons or agents, why the hell should I have to provide the Government with my name and where I am headed?
Well, what about gun rights? For that matter... just say "Allahu Akbar" in public (free speech) as you show up with your gun (second amendment), and see what happens to "rights".
Which rights would those be? All rights? Some rights? Only rights? Clarify and you won't have such "problem".
A 'right' in the context of the original discussion (a right to a citizen of the United States) is a legal protection. We are not talking about existential human rights or anything of the sort.
Quote:
Correct. I thought I spelled it out in my post. But, unlike you, I see consequences of such society benefiting ALL individuals.
And unlike you, I realize the difference between the what benefits a nation as an object (defense, basic protections) and what the specific desires of individuals are. Federal welfare programs do NOT benefit the net 'welfare' of the nation. If anything, they detract from it.
Quote:
In other words, the government provides the means (or at least supposed to) to help the populace, the individuals within, rise and appreciate their freedoms. Now, at what point does money get to play a role here? Or, is it the idea that the more money you have, the more access to freedom and rights you must? It does work that way in political career of politicians, however, but was that the intention?
No, the government provides the freedom for people to help itself. Money plays no role, and I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. If you want more money, you are more than welcome to work harder, study harder, and earn more. No one is stopping you.
Quote:
In other words, you don't have access to that list. If you do, present it here.
Can't discuss this until you point out such things you claim to be specifically spelled out.
Are you serious? You can't find the constitution? OK, I can help with that. Here you go.
Quote:
That is your take on the subject, your limit to understanding of the subject, not mine.
So you have no answer because, what? You are more comfortable working a nice easy week and letting someone else take care of you? It is very convenient that you simply avoid answering certain questions. Let me ask again, and this is a yes or no question.
Do you think you hold the responsibility to take care of yourself? Please answer yes or no.
A 'right' in the context of the original discussion (a right to a citizen of the United States) is a legal protection. We are not talking about existential human rights or anything of the sort.
Well, if you wanted to stick with the context of original discussion, why were you being overly obsessive with health care being a right or not? And if you want to attach legal protection and rights together, then we must assume that legal protection is not afforded to people unless it is a right? I don't agree with that premise of yours. Was there a point to you tying the two?
Quote:
And unlike you, I realize the difference between the what benefits a nation as an object (defense, basic protections) and what the specific desires of individuals are. Federal welfare programs do NOT benefit the net 'welfare' of the nation. If anything, they detract from it.
Well, that is your problem. Spare me with the typical rhetoric.
Quote:
No, the government provides the freedom for people to help itself. Money plays no role, and I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. If you want more money, you are more than welcome to work harder, study harder, and earn more. No one is stopping you.
Ostrich syndrome dictates that money ain't a problem in government. Reality reveals the opposite. I'm sure it is merely a hobby of the lobbyists to throw away millions? Never mind, you would never complain about corruption in the government, now, would you?
Quote:
Are you serious? You can't find the constitution? OK, I can help with that. Here you go.
I was expecting more than challenging your ability to post a link. Here was the challenge, with emphasis:
"Can't discuss this until you point out such things you claim to be specifically spelled out."
Quote:
So you have no answer because, what? You are more comfortable working a nice easy week and letting someone else take care of you? It is very convenient that you simply avoid answering certain questions. Let me ask again, and this is a yes or no question.
Do you think you hold the responsibility to take care of yourself? Please answer yes or no.
I'm sure you run this question across to self, every morning, just to be sure of self. Don't worry about me... I've been thankful to the societies that has helped me achieve my goals. I couldn't have done without them. How about you? Do you operate in a vacuum? There, you've my answer.
Well, if you wanted to stick with the context of original discussion, why were you being overly obsessive with health care being a right or not? And if you want to attach legal protection and rights together, then we must assume that legal protection is not afforded to people unless it is a right? I don't agree with that premise of yours. Was there a point to you tying the two?
You really need to stop assuming the inverse of something. Just because all of a is in b does not mean all of b is in a. How is that so difficult to understand? You are saying that since all apples come from trees, all trees must be apple trees. Think for a second.
Quote:
Well, that is your problem. Spare me with the typical rhetoric.
How on earth is this rhetoric? The fact that you think that way is very concerning.
Quote:
Ostrich syndrome dictates that money ain't a problem in government. Reality reveals the opposite. I'm sure it is merely a hobby of the lobbyists to throw away millions? Never mind, you would never complain about corruption in the government, now, would you?
When did anyone ever mention lobbyists? Talk about coming out of the blue. The money of the individual citizens (you know, what we were talking about...) is not a concern of the federal government.
Quote:
I was expecting more than challenging your ability to post a link. Here was the challenge, with emphasis:
"Can't discuss this until you point out such things you claim to be specifically spelled out."
So do you want me to report the text of the constitution on an online forum? Are you not able to read it yourself?
Quote:
I'm sure you run this question across to self, every morning, just to be sure of self. Don't worry about me... I've been thankful to the societies that has helped me achieve my goals. I couldn't have done without them. How about you? Do you operate in a vacuum? There, you've my answer.
This is a major problem with many of your points (in many threads). You fail to see the separation between a social obligation and a legal mandate. You seem to think if something is socially good, the government should require people to perform that action. I am thankful for help society gives me, I do not take handouts or help from the federal government.
And yet again, you didn't answer my question (exactly as I said you wouldn't). Let me ask it again: Do you think you hold the responsibility to take care of yourself? Please answer yes or no.
I have never in my life blamed another person, group, or organization for failures or misfortune in my own life. Can you say the same? Or is it easier to blame corporations than it is to work harder to overcome your difficulties?
Since we don't know your relatives in FL, we can't help you there.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Rich taxpayers need to subsidize long-distance travel for those who can't afford it. The rich can take luxury vacations in Tahiti, the French Riviera, and Cancun, while the working and lower classes can't even visit their family members 1,500 miles away.
We need a program, ideally federally-funded, to pay for hotel stays, restaurant meals, and plane fares / gas / tranny fluid for those who can't afford it.
Please wait while I lookup the references to bicycle, horse and motor vehicle in the Constitution... or do you happen to have a quick link to back up this (until then) crap?
nice try, but you fail. we all know that in 1789 when the constitution was ratified, automobiles, buses, and airplanes did not exist, nor would they for at least 100 years. however bicycles and horses did exist, but you had to be able to BUY them in order to use them, thus there is NO right to travel by horse, bicycle, automobile, bus, train, plane, etc. if you do not have the money or the license to use those conveyances. if you could not afford to buy a horse, and you were to choose to ride one anyway, you could be arrested and hanged for the crime of horse theft because there is NO right to travel by horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
I've never understood why I need to show identification to TSA agents at the airport. As long as I've been checked and found not to be in possession of any sort of dangerous weapons or agents, why the hell should I have to provide the Government with my name and where I am headed?
again since there is NO right to travel by aircraft, you have to abide by what rules the government lays down in order to travel by such conveyance. if that means producing an ID in order to get on an airplane, then so be it. same with buying a ticket that discloses your destination.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Rich taxpayers need to subsidize long-distance travel for those who can't afford it. The rich can take luxury vacations in Tahiti, the French Riviera, and Cancun, while the working and lower classes can't even visit their family members 1,500 miles away.
why should the rich subsidize the poor for anything? we do too much of that now.
Well, what about gun rights? For that matter... just say "Allahu Akbar" in public (free speech) as you show up with your gun (second amendment), and see what happens to "rights".
Perhaps the NRA should do outreach to American Muslims to get them to join.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
