"We the sensible people of the United States, in an
attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of
promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of
NON-Rights."
>ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car,
>big screen TV, or any
>other form of wealth. More power to you if you can
>legally acquire them,
>but no one is guaranteeing anything.
>
> ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be
> offended. This country
> is based on freedom, and that means freedom for
> everyone -- not just
> you! You may leave the room, turn the channel,
> express a different
> opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and
> probably always will
> be.
>
> ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free
> from harm. If you
> stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more
> careful, do not expect
> the tool manufacturer to make you and all your
> relatives independently
> wealthy.
>
> ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food
> and housing.
> Americans are the most charitable people to be
> found, and will gladly
> help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing
> weary of subsidizing
> generation after generation of professional couch
> potatoes who achieve
> nothing more than the creation of another generation
> of professional
> couch potatoes.
>
> ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health
> care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're
> just not interested in public health care.
>
> ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically
> harm other people.
> If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill
> someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in
> the electric chair. "
>
> ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the
> possessions of others. If
> you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services
> of other citizens,
> don't be surprised if the rest of us get together
> and lock you away in a
> place where you still won't have the right to a big
> screen color TV or a
> life of leisure.
>
> ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job.
> All of us sure want
> you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in
> hard times, but we
> expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of
> education and
> vocational training laid before you to make yourself
> useful.
>
> ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness.
> Being an American
> means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness,
> which by the way, is
> a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over
> abundance of idiotic
> laws created by those of you who were confused by
> the Bill of Rights.
>
> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We
> don't care where you
> are from, English is our language. Learn it or go
> back to wherever you
> came from!
>
> (lastly....)
>
> ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our
> country's history or
> heritage. This country was founded on the belief in
> one true God. And
> yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any
> religion, any faith, or
> no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The
> phrase IN GOD WE TRUST
> is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
> uncomfortable with
> it, TOUGH!!!!
Originally posted by OmnislashThis is one of the biggest piles of garbage I have ever read. Where's No.1 when you need him?
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an
attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of
promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ...[text shortened]...
> is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
> uncomfortable with
> it, TOUGH!!!!
Originally posted by Omnislashsounds good to me ...f*&k what the rest of the liberal-socialists-freehandoutsforeverybody and welfare for life whackos think...they are thr reasons this country is mediocre, full of illegal immigrants who refuse to assimilate, taxes going up and out through the azzz....the greatest generation, that of the great depression, made it just fine without the social doo-gooders handing out subsidies. Hard work, sacrifice, belt tightening, melting of Hummers and SUVs in the scrap heap, and good work ethics along with provisions to stop the exodus of good jobs from leaving the US are what we need in this country....read dissolving NAFTA and CAFTA.....and oh yes, make it mandatory to learn English and become a US citizen within 5 years or GTF OUT!!!...and no dual citizenship crap either....where's a judicial/executive branch of gov't with balls enough to do this when we need them?....nowhere!!!!
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an
attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of
promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandc ...[text shortened]... d history, and if you are
> uncomfortable with
> it, TOUGH!!!!
I thought I might add, before stereotypical assumptions/assertions occur from the bleeding hearts, a little bit about myself.
I make less than 20k a year (I do not even own a car). I am the sole provider of a family of four. Every item I own and every meal I eat is paid for with my own money. I earn every dollar I spend. Although I qualify for a vast number of government subsidized hand outs (not the least of which amounts to me being able to live a higher quality of life if I were to give up working for a living and simply live off of the system), I have never received anything of the sort other than grants/loans for education and the like (a hand up, not a hand out). I grew up on the streets. Every thing I am and own I worked for. I have never gotten so much as a free lunch in this life.
So, if YOU have lived as I have, if YOU earn every meal you eat, then feel free to disagree with me here.
If you haven't.............
Best Regards,
Omnislash
edited so that I might still consider myself a gentlemen. 😉
Originally posted by OmnislashHi, Omni. Let me say first that I would be the last person on here foolish enough to stereotype you! (I mean that as a comliment.)
I thought I might add, before stereotypical assumptions/assertions occur from the bleeding hearts, a little bit about myself.
I make less than 20k a year (I do not even own a car). I am the sole provider of a family of four. Every ite ...[text shortened]... h
edited so that I might still consider myself a gentlemen. 😉
On a personal note, although I like to believe that I have earned my own way, so to speak (I have been blue-collar and white-collar, and I’m not sure, looking back on it, which were the more rewarding jobs, on a personal level), I have also been luckier in my life than you have. And that’s all it is: luck. And those who have simply been luckier than others have no right to be self-righteous about it—whether we are “bleeding-heart liberals” or “hard-headed conservatives.” I don’t harbor any resentment toward those who are luckier than me, either—as long as they are not self-righteous about it.
With that said, a couple of practical (totally non-ideological) comments on the last two articles of your post:
1. Re English-only: I think this is a lost debate, my friend. The private sector will, I believe, drive the public sector on this one. Banks and other businesses simply saw an opportunity to invite customers by offering second-language options (mostly Spanish where I live). I don’t think this was a matter of “being forced to” or of “caving in.” If one businessman sees his competitors insisting on English-only, it is simply smart business to offer an alternative. That’s how the marketplace works. Again, I suspect the private sector will drive this one, and that this will become a bilingual, if not multi-lingual nation.
BTW, my position is “English, but not English-only.” I have no problem with people of different cultural backgrounds living in their own sections of the community and maintaining their cultural heritage—the Italians have done it, the Greeks have done it, the Germans (my background) have done it, the Irish and Scotch-Irish have done it—on and on. People congregate around racial, religious, national, class and cultural factors. But people forget that to learn the primary language of the country in which you live is self-empowering. For instance, mill owners in the northeast used to import workers from different countries, encouraging them to live in language-separate enclaves, so that they could not readily communicate with one another—for fear they might organize unions, or just organize. It was a way of keeping them disempowered by “ghetto-izing” them.
2. Re history, heritage and God on money: It would be absurd revisionist history to deny the theistic foundations of most of the founders and framers (“Men are endowed by their Creator…” )—just as it would be absurd to claim that they were all Christians; some, such as Jefferson, were deists. History, however, is not static; history changes because people change and make changes. In a democracy, this hopefully comes after informed public debate.
Now, I happen to think that worrying about “In God We Trust” on money is trivial—just as I thought it trivial when a Christian once expressed some concern about that pyramid with the eye on the dollar bill, as some sort of symbol from an Egyptian mystery cult or something. Nevertheless, if enough people become concerned about it, they will change it. I was trying to come up with a good example of this, but there have been so many in our history—maybe women’s suffrage will do. Sometimes things change, then change back again—prohibition, for example.
Sometimes I find myself on the side of change, sometimes not. I didn’t for GWB, for example—but those people who had to tell some who didn’t vote for him, “Hey, he’s elected—get over it, move on!” were right (at least the second time around).
So, we simply argue our side of the debate, try to make changes where we think we should and hold the line elsewhere, thankful that we live under a system where we can do that.
Originally posted by OmnislashIn God We Trust on our money is part of our heritage and history, but money without In God We Trust is part of even older heritage and history. The U.S. only started putting the phrase on money after the Civil War.
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an
attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of
promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ...[text shortened]...
> is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
> uncomfortable with
> it, TOUGH!!!!
It should not be on there.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI didn't know that. Thanks.
In God We Trust on our money is part of our heritage and history, but money without In God We Trust is part of even older heritage and history. The U.S. only started putting the phrase on money after the Civil War.
It should not be on there.
Can we keep the "eye in the pyramid" though? I like it. 😉
Originally posted by OmnislashI can certainly understand your position on most of these items, and won't bother to state my opinion on those I understand; I'm sure others will have that covered, anyway. However, I must protest your non-articles X and XI:
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an
attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of
promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ...[text shortened]...
> is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
> uncomfortable with
> it, TOUGH!!!!
> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We
> don't care where you
> are from, English is our language. Learn it or go
> back to wherever you
> came from!
By rights, perhaps we should be speaking Ojibwe, or Cherokee? This comment of yours must be the most selfish, idiotic thing I have ever read. Granted, I would be very annoyed if everything was suddenly written and displayed in Spanish, but my annoyance does not determine right or wrong. Our ancestors spoke a myriad of different languages, and often the ruling party spoke a different language than the common peoplel below them. Our own founding fathers spoke a form of English that would probably be difficult for some modern people to follow. I myself often can't follow when teenagers say. My point is that laguage is constantly changing. Change with it of be left behind and out of the loop, and deservedly so.
> ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our
> country's history or
> heritage. This country was founded on the belief in
> one true God. And
> yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any
> religion, any faith, or
> no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The
> phrase IN GOD WE TRUST
> is part of our heritage and history, and if you are
> uncomfortable with
> it, TOUGH!!!![/b]
I agree that the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" is part of our heritage, but I must confess that I do not see how the country was founded on the belief in one true God. It was founded by people who believed in one true God, (and it seems quite obvious that freedom of religion was meant to mean freedom of Christian religion, but that is a different topic) but it was founded on the principles of stealing land from the original occupants, not paying taxes, and a basic "Government leave me alone" attitude. That attitude cumulated and was killed in the South during the civil war.
Wait. Now that I think about it, how can any of these topics be construed as a misreading of the Bill of Rights? There are some valid points listed here, or at least points that deserve examination, but the spirit of it seems childish and vindictive.
... --- ...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's right. They started putting it on coins for the first time during the Civil War, and didn't start putting it on currency until the Eisenhower administration. I have a "clean" dollar bill from 1935 which does not bear that divisive phrase. The theists all like to pretend that it's been there since the very beginning, but it hasn't. Nor should it be.
In God We Trust on our money is part of our heritage and history, but money without In God We Trust is part of even older heritage and history. The U.S. only started putting the phrase on money after the Civil War.
It should not be on there.
It is also worth noting that the phrase "Under god" was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance either. That, too, was grafted on during the Eisenhower administration. I definitely would have voted for Adlai Stevenson if I had been around for the '52 and '56 elections.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulOur ancestors spoke a myriad of different languages, and often the ruling party spoke a different language than the common peoplel below them.
I can certainly understand your position on most of these items, and won't bother to state my opinion on those I understand; I'm sure others will have that covered, anyway. However, I must protest your non-articles X and XI:
> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We
> don't care where you
> are from, English is our language. Learn ...[text shortened]... nts that deserve examination, but the spirit of it seems childish and vindictive.
... --- ...
Interestingly, that made me think of the resistance by the church to the use of the vernacular instead of Latin...
Originally posted by chancremechanicWell, I agree that Hummers, SUVs, and NAFTA should all be scrapped. But no amount of "hard work, sacrifice, and belt tightening" is going to stop the robber barons of this country from shipping all the decent paying jobs overseas.
sounds good to me ...f*&k what the rest of the liberal-socialists-freehandoutsforeverybody and welfare for life whackos think...they are thr reasons this country is mediocre, full of illegal immigrants who refuse to assimilate, taxes going up and out through the azzz....the greatest generation, that of the great depression, made it just fine without ...[text shortened]... dicial/executive branch of gov't with balls enough to do this when we need them?....nowhere!!!!
Originally posted by OmnislashWho cares? None of this gives you a greater insight to the truth. It only allows you to write some rap songs without getting laughed at. You can hang out with Eminem and tell us how tough it was growing up on the streets. But unlike Eminem, I don't think anybody will pay a dime for your story.
I thought I might add, before stereotypical assumptions/assertions occur from the bleeding hearts, a little bit about myself.
I make less than 20k a year (I do not even own a car). I am the sole provider of a family of four. Every item I own and every meal I eat is paid for with my own money. I earn every dollar I spend. Although I qualify for a vast n ...[text shortened]... .
Best Regards,
Omnislash
edited so that I might still consider myself a gentlemen. 😉
I'm 42 and have been working since I was 15. After working for a dozen+ years as a graphic artist I was laid off. I collected unemployment for a while until I took on a job as a temporary worker in a ball bearing plant, where I make $12/hr. They're in the process of closing the plant so they can ship the whole thing to a non-union plant in Iowa, where they can pay their workers even less.
So don't come crying to me about how tough your life is, or try to put yourself on some higher moral plateau because of it. I don't care. And I'll retain the right to disagree with every syllable you put into print from now until doomsday.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI do not disagree with your perception necessarily my friend. I would like to point out/clarify that the opening of the statement addresses the articles therein to people who believe they have a "right" to the contrary. This is not to say that they CAN'T do anything listed that way, but simply that they do not have a "right" to the converse, and if it is worded strongly it is to convey the absudity of such a claim. On the whole, it is intended to be whimsical and thought provoking. I understood when I posted it that it might offend some people. If such is the case, then I would convey that no personal disrespect was ever intended, but rather an expression of absudity of such claim to "rights" in my opinion.
I can certainly understand your position on most of these items, and won't bother to state my opinion on those I understand; I'm sure others will have that covered, anyway. However, I must protest your non-articles X and XI:
> AR ...[text shortened]... but the spirit of it seems childish and vindictive.
... --- ...
I hope this puts the statements into context for you.
Best Regards,
Omnislash