Since Mr. Koheesti has kindly pointed out the thread title and subject, I really feel no inclination to defend my 'Americocentric" point of view. Is there such a word as "Americocentric"?

Since you claim to have gained your US Constitutional knowledge from movies and TV dramas, it would seem fruitless to continue to discuss Constitutional issues with you. I am certain you will understand.

I understand that the last two posts in this thread are prevarications.

Yet another vague post. What are you talking about? The last two posts on this thread are yours and mine. Which one is a prevarication?

You quote post 58......neither posts 57 nor 56 are mine. What is the point you want to make??

Your post (number 58) said the last two posts in this thread are prevarications. Since number 58 was the last post in the thread at that time, it became a prevarication, by your own definition. Wouldn't it have been simpler to have said posts 57 and 56 were prevarications, thereby removing any doubt what you meant?

I understand now. Koheesti and I are prevaricating, somehow. Would you care to expound on that or are we just to take it at face value.

edit in: removed a word.

Whether or not I vote does not rob me of freedom of expression.

True.

Your freedom of expression has arisen out of democracy. Aren't you abusing your right to freedom of expression if you do not use it to participate in the democratic process since it is the democratic process that has given you that right in the first place?

I think many blur the line between what are legal rights & what are inalienable rights.

While democracy could lay claim to giving legal rights. Inalienable rights are neither given by democracy/governments

nor can they be taken away from folks with the ability to defend them.

Whether or not I vote does not rob me of freedom of expression.

True.

Your freedom of expression has arisen out of democracy. Aren't you abusing your right to freedom of expression if you do not use it to participate in the democratic process since it is the democratic process that has given you that right in the first place?

I think many blur the line between what are legal rights & what are inalienable rights.

While democracy could lay claim to giving legal rights. Inalienable rights are neither given by democracy/governments

nor can they be taken away from folks with the ability to defend them.

I think the (US) Declaration of Independance mentions inalianable rights as given by "the Creator", the old life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness spiel. I won't go into the question of how a "creator" endowed us with inalianable rights, but those rights are certainly defined, bestowed, and protected by people in authority, who believe in them.

Personally I do not believe in any God-given rights.

"Rights", like morals, are only a matter of opinion. In the case of "rights", that may have to be a legal opinion, based on laws or declarations written by men.

I think many blur the line between what are legal rights & what are inalienable rights.

While democracy could lay claim to giving legal rights. Inalienable rights are neither given by democracy/governments

nor can they be taken away from folks with the ability to defend them.

I think the (US) Declaration of Independance mentions inalianable rights as given by "the Creator", the old life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness spiel. I won't go into the question of how a "creator" endowed us with inalianable rights, but those rights are certainly defined, bestowed, and protected by people in authority, who believe in them.

Personally I do not believe in any God-given rights.

"Rights", like morals, are only a matter of opinion. In the case of "rights", that may have to be a legal opinion, based on laws or declarations written by men.

I do not dwell much on the creator/god side of things as you describe. I am after all a creator & gave my sons & daughters inalienable rights in that sense. Same as anyone else.

The inalienable rights I referred to were the rights of any human with the where with all to protect themselves.

Those rights are not given by any govt. nor can they be taken away. I was not born a slave & surely will not die one.

Inalienable = incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Your post (number 58) said the last two posts in this thread are prevarications. Since number 58 was the last post in the thread at that time, it became a prevarication, by your own definition. Wouldn't it have been simpler to have said posts 57 and 56 were prevarications, thereby removing any doubt what you meant?

I understand now. Koheesti and I are prevaricating, somehow. Would you care to expound on that or are we just to take it at face value.

edit in: removed a word.

No it would not have been simpler because when writing in reply mode, only the text of the previous posts is visible, not the post number.....but I apologise for not making things simple for you. I forgot you need that.

Besides, when I am writing in what will become post 58, it is perfectly correct to refer to posts 57 and 56 as the "last two posts". It's not that complicated.....but I do keep forgeting that I need to make things simple for you.

We were talking about the government's mandate. Koheesti seemed to chide me by mentioning the thread title, and you talk about having no inclination to defend you Americocentric view and that it's pointless to continue the discussion (of mandates). Those do not address the subject, "mandate", and are thus prevarications.

Why do you always try to provoke? What makes you so belligerant?

I'm getting tired of having to simplify everything for you because you continually take the most pessimistic and often incorrect interpretation of anything I write.

I do not want a pissing competition with you because you are not worthy. All you can do is prevaricate and obfuscate with silly issues like spelling or definition or making personal jibes.

He's rattling your cage Harcourt and will continue to do so as long as it provokes a reaction.

You're very passionate in your beliefs which makes you vulnerable to this form of response to your arguments.

May I suggest you take things posted here a little less seriously?

Personally I use a mental form of "ignore" on some people once I take exception to their style of posting, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Why do you always try to provoke? What makes you so belligerant?

Pot, meet kettle.

I think many blur the line between what are legal rights & what are inalienable rights.

While democracy could lay claim to giving legal rights. Inalienable rights are neither given by democracy/governments

nor can they be taken away from folks with the ability to defend them.

I think the (US) Declaration of Independance mentions inalianable rights as given by "the Creator", the old life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness spiel. I won't go into the question of how a "creator" endowed us with inalianable rights, but those rights are certainly defined, bestowed, and protected by people in authority, who believe in them.

Personally I do not believe in any God-given rights.

"Rights", like morals, are only a matter of opinion. In the case of "rights", that may have to be a legal opinion, based on laws or declarations written by men.

I do not dwell much on the creator/god side of things as you describe. I am after all a creator & gave my sons & daughters inalienable rights in that sense. Same as anyone else.

The inalienable rights I referred to were the rights of any human with the where with all to protect themselves.

Those rights are not given by any govt. nor can they be taken away. I was not born a slave & surely will not die one.

Inalienable = incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Ok, I see what you mean....I think...I would tend to call those "powers" (perhaps) that you are indeed born with. I see "rights" as being a man-made concept that are given or taken away by men.

Those inalianable rights you speak of are only so in certain countries by dint of the laws of the land, thus your inalianable rights are not neccessarily the same as mine because we live under different laws.

Perhaps your inalianable rights would be better described as your inalianable rights-as-an-American-living-in- America.

You two guys know this isn't the "Democracy" thread, right?

It's been getting real hard lately to tell which thread is which in OTB with discussions crossing over to other threads. Not pointing fingers, I think most of us have been doing it.

You two guys know this isn't the "Democracy" thread, right?

It's been getting real hard lately to tell which thread is which in OTB with discussions crossing over to other threads. Not pointing fingers, I think most of us have been doing it.

You find it hard?

Sorry. I know I have to keep things simple for chuck, but I thought you at least could handle it.

Ok, I see what you mean....I think...I would tend to call those "powers" (perhaps) that you are indeed born with. I see "rights" as being a man-made concept that are given or taken away by men.

Those inalianable rights you speak of are only so in certain countries by dint of the laws of the land, thus your inalianable rights are not neccessarily the same as mine because we live under different laws.

Perhaps your inalianable rights would be better described as your inalianable rights-as-an-American-living-in- America.

I am not sure I would agree with my inalienable rights as being bound to a country. Closer to the right to exist as a free person.

Probably closer to this.............from Wiki

Likewise, the notion of inalienable rights was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that "they become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter."

edit: in hind sight that quote is headed in the direction of god given again & that was not my intent......DOH !

I think how I got started on this direction during this thread was the assumption that a government gave me my rights.

For me & my past I would say instead that the govt...in this case the US govt. has taken/tried to take more than given any rights to my existence. While they may legally try to bind someone they can never have what was never theirs.

You two guys know this isn't the "Democracy" thread, right?

It's been getting real hard lately to tell which thread is which in OTB with discussions crossing over to other threads. Not pointing fingers, I think most of us have been doing it.

Yes I do realize that. But such as my description has hopefully described...inalienable rights have nothing to do with Democracy at all. As such should not be placed in a Democracy thread.

As for what political party would I belong to? That is the same as None of the Above. Sadly once again that option is absent so basically there is no choice except the one that has always been present. Which one sucks less? That pretty much has always been the choice afforded.

You two guys know this isn't the "Democracy" thread, right?

It's been getting real hard lately to tell which thread is which in OTB with discussions crossing over to other threads. Not pointing fingers, I think most of us have been doing it.

Yes I do realize that. But such as my description has hopefully described...inalienable rights have nothing to do with Democracy at all. As such should not be placed in a Democracy thread.

As for what political party would I belong to? That is the same as None of the Above. Sadly once again that option is absent so basically there is no choice except the one that has always been present. Which one sucks less? That pretty much has always been the choice afforded.

Hehe, reminds me of my mate's son's screen saver; a picture of a demonic figure in a suit, standing in front of the US flag. The captions reads, " Why settle for the lesser evil? Vote Cthulu for president!"

Ok, I see what you mean....I think...I would tend to call those "powers" (perhaps) that you are indeed born with. I see "rights" as being a man-made concept that are given or taken away by men.

Those inalianable rights you speak of are only so in certain countries by dint of the laws of the land, thus your inalianable rights are not neccessarily the same as mine because we live under different laws.

Perhaps your inalianable rights would be better described as your inalianable rights-as-an-American-living-in- America.

I am not sure I would agree with my inalienable rights as being bound to a country. Closer to the right to exist as a free person.

Probably closer to this.............from Wiki

Likewise, the notion of inalienable rights was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that "they become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter."

edit: in hind sight that quote is headed in the direction of god given again & that was not my intent......DOH !

I think how I got started on this direction during this thread was the assumption that a government gave me my rights.

For me & my past I would say instead that the govt...in this case the US govt. has taken/tried to take more than given any rights to my existence. While they may legally try to bind someone they can never have what was never theirs.

I'm glad your hindsight see's well and you preempted me.

I think I know what you mean. I just have to get it sorted in my head because of the word "right". It's semantic, I know...my fault.

I think I know what you mean. I just have to get it sorted in my head because of the word "right". It's semantic, I know...my fault.

I know....that word *right* tends to be used in a lawful sense more times than not.

Then again you could think of your right to breath the air around you or... of a persons right to privacy,

right to defend yourself from bodily harm etc...

The inalienable rights... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness may be included in the US Declaration of Independence but they were not invented by the document. In fact they even said that these were self evident didn't they?

I think I know what you mean. I just have to get it sorted in my head because of the word "right". It's semantic, I know...my fault.

I know....that word *right* tends to be used in a lawful sense more times than not.

Then again you could think of your right to breath the air around you or... of a persons right to privacy,

right to defend yourself from bodily harm etc...

The inalienable rights... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness may be included in the US Declaration of Independence but they were not invented by the document. In fact they even said that these were self evident didn't they?

They said they hold them to be self-evident, with a reference to the Creator.

Very simmilar to the Islamic wisdom you quoted.

Beneficent words, nonetheless, from the founding fathers and the Islamic scholars.

I wonder if a well-read founding father had been inspired by that Islamic concept.

That would be irony in light of today.

I wonder if a well-read founding father had been inspired by that Islamic concept.

That would be irony in light of today.

That sure would be wouldn't it?

You two guys know this isn't the "Democracy" thread, right?

It's been getting real hard lately to tell which thread is which in OTB with discussions crossing over to other threads. Not pointing fingers, I think most of us have been doing it.

You find it hard?

Sorry. I know I have to keep things simple for chuck, but I thought you at least could handle it.

My post was innocuous and you reply with a personal attack. You are constantly baiting other posters. I'm ashamed that I let myself get dragged into it.

The Founding Fathers and Islam

Library Papers Show Early Tolerance for Muslim Faith

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

The Founding Fathers and Islam

Library Papers Show Early Tolerance for Muslim Faith

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

Very interesting.

You two guys know this isn't the "Democracy" thread, right?

It's been getting real hard lately to tell which thread is which in OTB with discussions crossing over to other threads. Not pointing fingers, I think most of us have been doing it.

You find it hard?

Sorry. I know I have to keep things simple for chuck, but I thought you at least could handle it.

You don't have to worry about keeping it simple for me. You just need to be semi-correct in an occasional post.

When you get off your high horse about your vast vocabulary and knowledge, perhaps I can cut you some slack and not point out your obvious mistakes. You did make a step forward yesterday when you said most of your knowledge about the US came from movies and television. Now if you can only graduate to Marvel Comics you will be a real fount of information.

Up to you, as they say.

You two guys know this isn't the "Democracy" thread, right?

It's been getting real hard lately to tell which thread is which in OTB with discussions crossing over to other threads. Not pointing fingers, I think most of us have been doing it.

You find it hard?

Sorry. I know I have to keep things simple for chuck, but I thought you at least could handle it.

You don't have to worry about keeping it simple for me. You just need to be semi-correct in an occasional post.

When you get off your high horse about your vast vocabulary and knowledge, perhaps I can cut you some slack and not point out your obvious mistakes. You did make a step forward yesterday when you said most of your knowledge about the US came from movies and television. Now if you can only graduate to Marvel Comics you will be a real fount of information.

Up to you, as they say.

It is a verifiable fact that YOU are the one making a fuss about my vast (as you say) vocabulary. Recently one of your friends also, but mainly you.

This is typical of your normal spin.

This is also typical of your normal personal attacks with your snide innuendo. (Go on, get the dictionary).

I don't need the dictionary. You spelled the big words correctly.