This is acceptable?????

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]
groups.com>,
 "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jan 5, 2:41 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The moral link to rule/law making is via "natural rights."
Stunningly, you then say there are no rights and all that matters are
the  privileges the governing body grants the subjects .  And thatis
covered by the doctrine of legal positivism, and decidedly not the
doctrine of natural law/rights.

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

Quoted message said:

Let's not get too weepy about natural rights.   Everybody has
their own idea of what "natural" is.  Even Stalin thought he
was the best placed to guarantee the rights of man in the
ideal society that would arise after they'd finished breaking
the eggs.  Therefore, you are a COMM1E !!1!

Quoted message said:

In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
been conveniently enumerated.  Know your rights,
all three of them:

Quoted message said:

http://londonsburning.org/lyrcombat rock.html

Quoted message said:

The WADA Code is entirely consistent with this
formulation.  Know your rights, please know your rights.

Human rights come out of the barrel of a gun.
                             -- Chairman Mao

--
Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, that's one he's right on. He understood that coercion, and force
stand behind everything.
Bill C

Tom Kunich said:

Do you suppose that they could take a measurement of total testosterone
per rider each race and chart them? Do you suppose that there's already
a good profile of that? After all, they've only been able to identify
and follow total testosterone in the blood for over 50 years and all that.

I suppose they COULD do that but I'd bet they don't. It's too
methodical. The current enforcement regime seems too much like a bunch
of grandstanding Keystone Cops to do anything that sensible.

Bill C said:

Michael Press said:

Human rights come out of the barrel of a gun.
-- Chairman Mao

Quoted message said:

Yep, that's one he's right on. He understood that coercion, and force
stand behind everything.

Second Amendment - Right to keep and bear arms.
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.

Yeah, so when I get my two guns, I'll "coerce" a robber (by force)
into not stealing my property and harming my person and family.

Green is red.

"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
--- George Orwell, "1984"

Whose rights were violated? What rights? Why?

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

On Jan 6, 9:02 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
been conveniently enumerated.

You think you're kidding, and your joke has nothing to do with
anything in this thread. Anyway...

Under the US federal law, and more importantly american theory of
governance, the totality of rights are unenumerated, which is another
way of saying they are unlimited in number. Of course, it is a
standing fact that you don't like the american theory of governance.
Why do you hate the constitution, including the 9th?

9th:
/The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people./

"LET ANY ONE MAKE WHAT COLLECTION OR ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS HE PLEASES,
I WILL IMMEDIATELY MENTION TWENTY OR THIRTY MORE RIGHTS NOT CONTAINED
IN IT." -- James Iredell

Luftmensch,

I don't dislike the american theory of governance.
I think I have a different interpretation of it than
you do. Now back to the rights question: in _principle_
I agree with you about (the lack of) enumeration.
Practice is another story. I do think it's funny
that you who are constantly upset about the injustice
of taxation are seemingly sanguine about the
availability of unenumerated rights.

Remember when Robert Bork said "The right to privacy
is not written in the Constitution"? The average judge
now has some views not hugely different from Bork's then.
(Bork _now_ is yet another story, as he has gone completely
round the bend - which suggests either that he became
bitter after being Borked, or that the people who Borked
him were right on the money first time round.)

That is all.

Ben

Quoted message said:

I don't dislike the american theory of governance.

Commie. Capitalist. Or whatever, but it must be bad!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't dislike the american theory of governance.

Ted van de Weteringe said:

Commie. Capitalist. Or whatever, but it must be bad!

Don't worry, you can't walk anywhere without tripping
over an agent of change.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't dislike the american theory of governance.

Ted van de Weteringe said:

Commie. Capitalist. Or whatever, but it must be bad!

Don't worry, you can't walk anywhere without tripping
over an agent of change.