THE NEW BILL OF RIGHTS

Published on May 18, 2006 By Moderateman In US Domestic

We the people that are citizens of the United States have declared that we have the following rights.

1. The right to not spend our tax dollars supporting people that have broken the law to come to America ILLEGALLY.

2. The right to have English as our national language.

3. The right to Protect ourselves from criminals with no legal reprisal.

4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people.

5. The right to defend out borders without a foreign power interfering.

6. The right to VOTE on if we send our tax dollars overseas to help countries that never appreciate it.

7. The right to recall any politician from any state that fails in his duty: example Drunken Ted Kennedy.

8. The right to worship or not worship God in public if we so choose.

9.The right to freedom from government interference in our private lives.

10.The right to not to have to support lazy bums that refuse to work for a living.

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

"1. The right to not spend our tax dollars supporting people that have broken the law to come to America ILLEGALLY.

I don't have a problem with that. I tend to think you'd be less gung-ho if you had to be the one in the emergency room telling the people they can't have care without a green card. People talk big, but when they have to look at another human being and decide it doesn't get food or treatment today, they might not feel so bold.

2. The right to have English as our national language.

An insipid idea I have addressed elsewhere. It's just a cultural supremacist statement from someone in a non-culture who can't be satisfied until they turn everyone into wonderbread. When you tell people how to speak when you are the majority you give them the right to tell you how to speak when they are.

You wouldn't tolerate that, so you are a hypocrite. Today it is English, tomorrow it is what words I'm allowed to use within English, the next day it's something worse. You speak what you want, and I'll speak what I want, and lets just keep our noses out of other people's business. If you can't order a hamburger, maybe you should find a new restaurant.

3. The right to Protect ourselves from criminals with no legal reprisal.

We already have that. If you mean using deadly force against 'criminals', then you are either opening a huge loophole for people to abuse to commit murder, or you haven't sufficiently defined 'criminal'. You can use whatever means necessary right now to protect your or your family's life. Dunno what more you want.

"4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people."

Which would give your political opponents the right to vote in new amendments without some conservative judge overturning the will of the people. That you wouldn't tolerate for a minute. They get a majority and push through an amendment abridging your freedoms you'd be screaming for a judge to look out for you.

"5. The right to defend out borders without a foreign power interfering."

We already have that in terms of government, Bush is just a puss in this regard. If you are talking about private citizens defending the borders, it's insipid to pretend they aren't anything more than vigilantes. If they want to patrol their land, fine, but I have as much respect for them as I have for bounty hunters.

People like that need to get over their childish need to play cop or military, and either do it for real or leave it to the people who voters deem proper to do it. Private citizens "protecting our borders" have no oversight from voters, and are just out their supporting their own agenda and making themselves feel big.

6. The right to VOTE on if we send our tax dollars overseas to help countries that never appreciate it.

We already vote in representitives to do that. If you don't like it maybe you should take it up with the representitives. Open such up to regular referendum and you'll see the MTV generation voting yes on anything that sends money anywhere that someone needs a bowl of rice. If you think the empty headed bleeding hearts wouldn't be worse than congress you're nuts.

"7. The right to recall any politician from any state that fails in his duty: example Drunken Ted Kennedy."

The people of their state already have that right. If you want to let people from other states do it, fine, as long as you understand Californians could start recalling politicians from red states left and right given many red states have very small populations by comparison.

How would you accomplish this? Did you even think about it? I wonder how the folks in California would have dealt with the current list of Republican Congressmen who are laboring under accusations of malfeasance.

8. The right to worship or not worship God in public if we so choose.

We already have this. What isn't clear is how much involvement taxpayer dollars can have in worship and religious expression. I can understand why an Atheist wouldn't want his taxpayer dollars going for the upkeep of a big white cross. I don't agree, but I can understand it. I'd much rather have the system we have now than some sweeping act of permissiveness that would have religion being shoved down our throats in 20 years.

"9.The right to freedom from government interference in our private lives."

You invite them in, and they come in. Every little thing we ask them to do for us gives them another inch of ground in our private lives. If, say, we were forced to all know English, that to me seems to be an interference in our private lives.

People believe that the government telling them they can't have an abortion is an intereference in their private lives. People being told that they can't do drugs is an interference in their private lives. It's obvious that we all want the government in our private lives from time to time, you just want to be able to dictate when and where with out anyone else interfering. Not very Democratic.

"10.The right to not to have to support lazy bums that refuse to work for a living."

When you figure out a way to tell which ones are lazy bums, which ones are handicapped, which ones need help and which ones are slackers, you speak up. As far as I can tell the system isn't specifically designed to support lazy bums, it just isn't omnipotent like you.

P.S. Why do you even bother calling yourself 'moderate'?

Adventure-Dude

on May 18, 2006

tend to think you'd be less gung-ho if you had to be the one in the emergency room telling the people they can't have care without a green card. People talk big, but when they have to look at another human being and decide it doesn't get food or treatment today, they might not feel so bold.

So it's okay to take food from those who are legal?

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#16 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006

now that is a consise and well thought out response to my bill of rights, I may not agree with you but I will defend your right to think how you choose.

ps, why do you even bother to call yourself bakerstreet?

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

"So it's okay to take food from those who are legal?"

No, it isn't. It's not okay for those lazy bums to live off the government, either. When the time comes to starve people, though, you find that people aren't nearly as gung-ho. What MM doesn't recognize is that a lot of these people will be lazy bums regardless. A few million illegals will go home, maybe even most. What happens when you have a million starving Mexicans living on the street?

I don't have a problem with MM's attitude toward illegals. I think we should freeze all relations with the Mexican govenrment and build a nice big wall, frankly. I don't think illegals should be cut any slack, and they should be treated like the criminals they are.

That said, I don't expect much will be done until there is a real way to accomplish it. MM skips that and just promotes a stance that doesn't fix the problem, it only makes him feel vindicated. I don't think for a moment he could stand there and let these people starve or thirst to death, it's just rhetoric. People want to refuse any aid to these people, but would they if they had the food in their hand and had to watch the people starve? I doubt it.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#19 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006

That said, I don't expect much will be done until there is a real way to accomplish it. MM skips that and just promotes a stance that doesn't fix the problem, it only makes him feel vindicated. I don't think for a moment he could stand there and let these people starve or thirst to death, it's just rhetoric.

While we are taking care of illegals, many of my comrades from vietnam are homeless, starving and more than a little nuts, if I had a choice to take care of our war veterans OR Illegals, it's no choice at at all, let the illegals starve and take care of our vets.

Vindication? I do not think so baker, it really is how I feel, today {could be different tommorrow}

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

It is a choice, MM, because once you make the decision the other party doesn't dissapear into thin air. You have to sit there and watch the fruits of your decision. As I said, sure some slackers will get jobs, and some illegals will go home. The rest, though, you'll have to watch as they rot on the vine.

I think in terms of an "issue" it is easy to say. I think when we started seeing people starving on the street, it wouldn't be so easy. I don't think you'd be able to stomach the suffering of the lazy or illegals any more than you can stomach the suffering of your comrades from Vietnam.

You'd just have to hope to get lucky and not witness any suffering. That's what folks do now with your comrades, and I don't think you'd feel much better about it the other way. People are people, and I don't think I'd feel very good about people who could or better tolerate the suffering and death of people just because they are illegal immigrants.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#21 by BakerStreet
Thursday, May 18, 2006

It is a choice, MM, because once you make the decision the other party doesn't disappear into thin air. You have to sit there and watch the fruits of your decision. As I said, sure some slackers will get jobs, and some illegals will go home. The rest, though, you'll have to watch as they rot on the vine.

Better than to watch America over run. IMO like you said some decisions are hard, some easier than the alternative.

think in terms of an "issue" it is easy to say. I think when we started seeing people starving on the street, it wouldn't be so easy. I don't think you'd be able to stomach the suffering of the lazy or illegals any more than you can stomach the suffering of your comrades from Vietnam.

I see starving people on the streets all the time baker, and again if it comes to feding and housing our vet instead of illegals that could not be bothered to obey the law, then so be it.

Look baker I was treated like shit when I came home from vietnam, I turned into something not so nice, I had to fight for everything I have today, no one gave me crap, I remember after the war ended the thousands of vietnamese getting homes, loans, and welcomed with open arms, That pissed me off then as much as this Illegal crap pises me off now.

Thank you for bringing the tone down here.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 18, 2006

We the people that are citizens of the United States have declared that we have the following rights.

1. The right to not spend our tax dollars supporting people that have broken the law to come to America ILLEGALLY.
this is a nice idea, but unrealistic...an elected legislature who appropriates tax dollars is the system we live under. are you suggesting we get rid of congress and we can individually decide what our tax dollars are spent on? can i then route my dollars to social programs and deny any weapons i don't like getting my dollars?

this "right" is just posturing.

2. The right to have English as our national language.

got no problem with this one...i see no abridgement of our rights by defining 1 clear communication language.

3. The right to Protect ourselves from criminals with no legal reprisal.

what happened to innocent until proven guilty in any criminal matter? does that now change under your system?

4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people.
the judicial branch of our govt is reponsible to interpret the constitutionality of laws passed, not evaluate their popularity.

5. The right to defend out borders without a foreign power interfering.

got no problem with that...on paper at least, lol

6. The right to VOTE on if we send our tax dollars overseas to help countries that never appreciate it.
again, under our system, you can't cherry-pick what stuff you control in our national budget,,,that is the purpose of the legislature...if you don't ike how they spend it, vote em out.

7. The right to recall any politician from any state that fails in his duty: example Drunken Ted Kennedy.
so you want the right to meddle in other state's affairs and officials? i don't think so...and slandering ted kennedy is about as useful as calling bush an idiot. not necessary and only adds to polarization.

8. The right to worship or not worship God in public if we so choose.
i think i'm gonna let this one twist in the wind on it's own...

9.The right to freedom from government interference in our private lives.AMEN...and when they end the stupid prohibitions on things like marijuana,,,maybe we will be moving in that direction.

10.The right to not to have to support lazy bums that refuse to work for a living.

here's where i defer to a higher power...i believe in helping the least of Christ's brothers.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 18, 2006

The hype about not being able to express your religion publicly is exactly that: HYPE. I do not know of a single person who has ever been arrested for a display of faith in public, as long as that display was not lewd or seriously invasive of the rights of others.

As for getting rid of the illegals, if there was a way to identify them all without infringing on the rights of LEGAL Latino immigrants and citizens, I'd be all for it. As it is, we need a way of identifying, and the best (read: NOT PERFECT) way to do that is with a path to citizenship such as the one proposed by McCain. While not all illegals will choose to participate, some will, and that will make it easier to focus on those who don't, and to deport them. In addition, by ensuring that felons are ineligible for citizenship, we may put pressure on the families to keep their children out of the dangerous gangs popping up in our inner cities.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#23 by Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1
Thursday, May 18, 2006

nice cutting up and answering each "right" I appreciate the time and answers.

Moderateman

on May 18, 2006

#24 by Gideon MacLeish
Thursday, May 18, 2006

ummm how about the kids that want to start a christian bible study at recess? it's ok for Muslims to do the same but not christians.

Dr Guy

on May 18, 2006

"4.The right to vote in new amendments without some liberal judge over turning the will of the people."

Which would give your political opponents the right to vote in new amendments without some conservative judge overturning the will of the people. That you wouldn't tolerate for a minute. They get a majority and push through an amendment abridging your freedoms you'd be screaming for a judge to look out for you.

Actually, that is already a right. Once the process of amending the constitution is followed, the courts can only interpret the words. They cannot overturn it.

bakerstreet

on May 18, 2006

"ummm how about the kids that want to start a christian bible study at recess? it's ok for Muslims to do the same but not christians."

Why should there be organized bible study on school grounds again? I dunno about your school, but by the time they come in and out, my little girl gets about 15-20 minutes of recess. Recess was supposed to be a break FROM study, last I heard.

In every school I have been a part of bible study was just used by some kids to push their beliefs on others. I have a feeling if a makeshift Maddrassa was set up by students and kids were being wooed toward Islam, you'd have a problem with it. If you think kids are going to have bible study without some kids trying to get their 'lost' friends to come, you aren't thinking about it much.

In all of these circumstances, too, kids invariably lord over one another and get into conflicts about beliefs. Children aren't responsible enough to undertake religious gatherings without supervision. Religion is a sacred thing that is very important to people. Dragging it out on the playground for kids to get into fights over isn't paying it much respect, and when teachers start overseeing it, it becomes a matter of church and state.

Kids should be able to pray, sure, to themselves. Kids should be able to express their religious beliefs in reasonable context and be free from having those beliefs attacked. I don't know of anything that says they should have the right to organized religious practice inside a public school though.

Feel free to point out where Christians have been told they can't and Muslims are told they can, though. I'd like to see where such a thing has happened.

stutefish

on May 18, 2006

It's impossible to shove a Constitutional Amendment down anybody's throat.

Constitutional Amendments have to pass a supermajority of the Federal Legislature, and have to pass 3/4ths of the State Legislatures. You simply cannot get a Constitutional Amendment without overwhelming popular support.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, currently answers to nobody when they unilaterally and without consulting the people, reinterpret the existing text of the Constitution to conform to whatever moral, social, or political fads figured most greatly in their own lives.

Adventure-Dude

on May 18, 2006

People want to refuse any aid to these people, but would they if they had the food in their hand and had to watch the people starve?

Lemme ask you this Baker. If someone breaks into your home takes your steak (because it isn't Top Ramen noodles) and is eating it in front of you claiming they are 'starving' you can't tell me you'd be okay with this. It's one thing to help them get on their feet but I'm not going to help the person who broke into my fridge and took my sirloin while I'm munchin on noodles. I do help the poor and homeless in my town to legals. But they are breaking and entering then screaming for rights. Reminds me of the criminals who break in and cut themselves on a knife then sue the homeowner. This is my perspective.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!