Natural Rights-God Granted

[nWo]

Its not all that inconsistent. Many of them did not believe that slaves were men, ergo, they did not have any natural rights.

As per the constitution of the United States we were only counted as 3/5 of a person.

[True blue (and gold)]

He didn't. He says we "cling" to them because we have no hope, when we should be "clinging" to government.

 

He specifically said that we should "cling" to the government?

[Hatz]

Its not all that inconsistent. Many of them did not believe that slaves were men, ergo, they did not have any natural rights.

 

It's not inconsistent to their thinking. It is however inconsistent with "truth."

[5wide]

Yeah, I'm with you....as far as the right to bear arms, I'm still looking in the Bible for the commandment that says, "Thou shalt bear arms", or the beatitude that says, "Blessed be the armed".

 

See...I'm searching Old and New Testaments.

 

What about the Catechism?

 

 

 

All in fun, all in fun...

[rockmom]

What about the Catechism?

 

 

 

All in fun, all in fun...

 

I know the Catechism pretty much forward and back, so I felt confident that it wasn't there. :lol:

 

I'm compiling a list of works by the likes of St. Thomas Acquinas, St. Thomas Merton, et al, that I will peruse as well. I've exhausted Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. There's nothing there. :lol:

[Hearsay]

He specifically said that we should "cling" to the government?

 

He said that the Clinton Adminsitrations and Bush Aministrations had failed to regenerate jobs in the small communities, and as a result, and out of bitterness, the people in those communities cling to guns, religions, anti-black, anti-immigrant sentiments. The clear implication of his comments was that if the government provides them with jobs, they won't need those things.

[Jim Schue]

As per the constitution of the United States we were only counted as 3/5 of a person.

 

Right, but if I'm not mistaken, that came later (1820s?) as a means to address the growing imbalance between slave states and non-slave states for congressional representation purposes. The mentality of viewing blacks as sub-human didn't change much in the minds of many white Americans of the time because of the 3/5 compromise.

[Covercorner]

Its not all that inconsistent. Many of them did not believe that slaves were men, ergo, they did not have any natural rights.

 

 

No it's not inconsistent, I must agree with you. I just that in the light of history, they weren't completly correct. At the same time that shouldn't diminish thier work, but I don't thik we should overlook whatever faults they might have had either.

[the mathemagician]

Absolutely great post! As a matter of fact imo this is the best post of any thread to date on this forum throughout this election year.

 

Great job bball, JMO but Obama wants nothing more than to take the Holy Bible and our rights away....not just the right to bear arms but ALL of them.

BaCrock Winfrey Obama is imo a danger to our American way of life as we know it.

 

 

I haven't seen one scintilla of evidence that he wants to take the Bible away. He has worshiped in the Christian faith for over 20 years.

[bballfamily]

Right, but if I'm not mistaken, that came later (1820s?) as a means to address the growing imbalance between slave states and non-slave states for congressional representation purposes. The mentality of viewing blacks as sub-human didn't change much in the minds of many white Americans of the time because of the 3/5 compromise.

 

Please check Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The 3/5's Compromise was iThe ncluded in this part of the Constitution.

The compromise was purely political. The South wanted slaves to count as a whole person to gain more representatives in the House, the North countered with the proposal to allow them to vote. The North really wanted this new document so went with the 3/5's Compromise.

[Jim Schue]

Please check Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The 3/5's Compromise was iThe ncluded in this part of the Constitution.

The compromise was purely political. The South wanted slaves to count as a whole person to gain more representatives in the House, the North countered with the proposal to allow them to vote. The North really wanted this new document so went with the 3/5's Compromise.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I haven't studied that stuff for nearly 20 years, and I've killed a lot of brain cells since that time, so details sometimes are foggy.

[True blue (and gold)]

He said that the Clinton Adminsitrations and Bush Aministrations had failed to regenerate jobs in the small communities, and as a result, and out of bitterness, the people in those communities cling to guns, religions, anti-black, anti-immigrant sentiments. The clear implication of his comments was that if the government provides them with jobs, they won't need those things.

 

So...he did NOT say that people should cling to the government.

[AcesFull]

Like Heresay said, the implication was clear. According to Obama, government's failure to replace jobs was the reason small town Americans harbor racist attitudes, cling to Bibles, and clutch their guns.

 

Obama's remedy for failed liberal policies is to spend more money on government services. The belief that failed liberal programs have failed only because of underfunding is not a new idea. Obama's proposals do not constitute a change in liberals' collective vision of our federal government.

[rockmom]

Question, I can see the right to defend oneself as inherent. Now, the means by which one is able to do so is what's at debate. I don't believe that "guns" are an inherent right. It's a means by which one chooses to exercise the right, but not the inherent right in and of itself.

[True blue (and gold)]

Like Heresay said, the implication was clear. According to Obama, government's failure to replace jobs was the reason small town Americans harbor racist attitudes, cling to Bibles, and clutch their guns.

 

Obama's remedy for failed liberal policies is to spend more money on government services. The belief that failed liberal programs have failed only because of underfunding is not a new idea. Obama's proposals do not constitute a change in liberals' collective vision of our federal government.

 

I like to be able to make my own interpretation based on what the candidate actually said. Nothing more, nothing less.