Featured Loss of your rights

So when they legislate that you have to buy some other product?

You probably like purple hats...don't you? Tell the truth, ITL.



As far as Obamacare not being free, are you going to tell me that it is not designed to pay for medical costs incurred by those who do not have it?

Isn't that the premise of Obamacare?

You tell me how you can justify the government forcing health insurance companies to double their prices on lesser policies? Where does the extra money go, ITL?


God bless.

 

Doesn't change the fact that this has been an issue where your statement has been questioned.

And it doesn't matter if it violates their religious views, right?

Think about that ITL.

Do you see the contradiction of a government that is supposed to protect religious freedoms becoming an organization that does the exact opposite?

Here you say, basically, "It's okay to deny religious freedoms if one is a government worker.?

Seriously?


God bless.

 

It's not really a matter of intellect but a matter of perspective. Both sides can present a reasonable presentation for why their side is right. But both sides cannot be right.

What one person sees as a right may be the opposite for the other. The best example of this is abortion. Women's rights versus the rights of the baby.

So which side is violating Constitutional rights? Neither?

How is the government defending the Constitution by denying the right to life...to the unborn child? Funny some States can prosecute someone for double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed, and some give mother the "right to kill her child" in the first 24 weeks.

Sorry, not funny...tragic, as well as moronic.

So you don't think I should be worried about the government telling me who I can and cannot provide my services to?

I work in one of the most regulated trades there is, and I understand regulations, but those regulations, though many are due to ideology and pseudo-sciences, do not interfere with my religious views. They do not violate my religious conscience.

We can't say that about forcing someone to do something in violation of those. We can't say that about funding the murder of children, and then...turning a blind eye to people selling those babies' body parts.

Really?

I lost the right not to buy healthcare? I lost the right to not fund people who want healthcare but don't want to work for it. Just because a token payment is left after subsidies doesn't mean that they are paying the cost.

I wasn't aware that the issue of criminalizing freedom to serve who want was a Party Issue. Though we do know that Democrats are usually in favor of liberal agendas. They depend on those agendas for votes.

Deny it.


God bless.

 

Yes. It is common sense that people who vote are accounted for. That the one voting is who they say they are.

Yes, because Constitutional Rights do not apply to illegal aliens. Not sure why this one would be challenged. The money that is lost due to those who pay illegal aliens under the table (and tax free) could probably cover health care for everyone in America.

But bleeding hearts who want to protect their rights think it is better to charge people who do pay for their own healthcare double to raise the funds.

Of course not...because it's their right...

...right?

lol


God bless.

 

Speaking of the right to confront one's accuser, please explain why you thought the post in "Restore to me the joy of your salvation" was dumb.

Post #7

Thanks in advance.


God bless.

 

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm no fan of ObamaCare, but it's been declared the law of the land by the Supreme Court.

 

Wrong. Constitutional rights apply to ANYONE that is in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status.

 

So just dumb because you think it is.

Great.

Well, guess that means you agree people can be accused of something and not have the chance to defend themselves to their accusers.

Swell.


God bless.

 

So just tell me if you think the government has the right to impose this kind of law.


God bless.

 

It's not an issue of Constitutional rights, it's an issue of legality. It is illegal to hire people who are not citizens. They do not have the right to work here, they do not have the right to not pay taxes, and they do not have the right to break the Law, nor do their employers.

You think illegal aliens are exempt from the Law because of Constitutional rights? Sure they have a right to life, no-one argues that, but, no one has the right to any type of life they want to live.

Again, what is missing from your posts is that modicum of common sense I mentioned.


God bless.

 

I personally don't think so, but it's not up to me. SCOTUS has ruled.

 

That's not the argument though, is it? You said:

Constitutional Rights do not apply to illegal aliens.

But, oh yes they do.

You are not reading what I'm saying. You are arguing a position you've made up in your head. I never said illegal aliens are exempt from the law. They are ILLEGAL aliens, after all.

Anyone that is in this country has the right of free speech, the right of free religion, the right to privacy, etc. The Bill of Rights applies to ANYONE that is inside the borders of the United States. While they may be breaking the law by being illegal aliens, they still have these rights. A robber has all of these rights. A murderer has these rights. You seem to think the crime of illegally being in the country means we throw the Bill of Rights out the window. Not so.

I'm beginning to remember why you were in my killfile.

 

That is the argument...you are just not thinking it through. Maybe some of your comments in this post will help you to see that.

Constitutional Rights do not apply to illegal aliens. If that was the case, amigo, then they would not be put in Jail or deported.

This denies the right to live in this Country and pursue happiness. They cannot bear arms, they cannot speak freely. In fact...they are forced to hide.

Deny that.

I am, you just will not think this through.

Correct. Now show me how they have the rights of American Citizens.

They don't.

Sorry, no.

We don't see illegal immigrants exercising their rights because they fear discovery and are forced to live outside of those protections. If exposed, they face deportation...not the opportunity, as legal immigrants enjoy, to live and enjoy the freedoms the Citizens here enjoy.

The "right to privacy," for example, is made obsolete because that would imply that the government has no right to investigate citizenship. If illegal immigrants are reported...do those illegal immigrants enjoy the right for their illegal privacy not to be invaded?

Can they go to Church and enjoy religious freedom without fear?

And this is what I mean about liberal agendas: you imply that they deserve these rights when their actions are based on illegal entry, which flies in the face of Constitutional Rights. You are willing to overlook illegal action.

No, not really.

For that to be true then there would have to be a standard of anyone who wants to enter can just come on in. No need to check in, just cross the border and enjoy your rights.

Ridiculous.

No, they don't.

Ridiculous.

If the robber or murderer are legal citizens...they do not face deportation. They are not hiding their actions and lives because they are here illegally, but becaue they are law-breakers.The freedoms they enjoyed before being caught is not available to the illegal immigrant.

And understand...the murderer convicted and sentenced to death does not have the "Right to Life."

Think about it.

Me too.




God bless.

 

Sorry, freund, but yes they do. Criminals get arrested and put in jail. They still have their Constitutional rights. Illegal aliens are criminals. They have Constitutional rights.

 

So explain their rights when murderers are put to death.

Explain why their rights are not forfeit?

Just answer that for me.

And I'll check back later, have to get going.


God bless.

 

They had the right to not be subjected to illegal search and seizure (4th amendment). They have a right not to post excessive bail (8th amendment). They have a right to a lawyer and to know their accusers. They had a right to a speedy trial judged by a jury of their peers (6th amendment). They may have invoked their right not to be a witness against themselves (5th amendment). They have the right to due process (14th amendment).

And guess what? Illegal aliens have all of these rights too.

I'm afraid I could never do this for you, because you simply do not understand the definition of a constitututional right.

God bless.

 

I followed the link. Nobody "Dumb-Boxed" that post (as of now).

 

It's a simple question:

So explain their rights when murderers are put to death.

Do those sitting in jail (and it doesn't have to be a murderer on death row) still enjoy the rights that the law abiding citizen has?

They have implemented their right to a lawyer, the length of their trial determined by the complexity of the case, they have been found guilty by a jury, and it is irrelevant whether they testified or not. Due process was observed, and here they sit in jail.

Where is their right to privacy?

Just explain how they are still protected in the same manner that law abiding citizens are.


God bless.

 

There was a repeat post (two, actually, making a total of 3 identical posts, and I still am not sure how that happened) and I deleted the post, lol.

There are several more:

Posts #s 50, 53, and 55 (in this thread). And Here.

He posts the right for one to be able to defend himself before his accuser yet apparently does not believe in the principle. I guess he is just another one that, when asked questions he can't answer, responds in attack. Simple questions designed to point out the weakness of the argument offered. Instead of simply answering the question, he insults, and then refuses to confront me.

Perhaps this is why liberals are able to overlook the very Law of the land itself and rationalize that illegal aliens share the same rights that citizens do.

Perhaps you could read those dumb posts and comment. Maybe it is dumb to think that when one breaks the law they lose their rights. Again, we do not look at it that they are not treated as human beings, but, the process of law changes the landscape considerably.


God bless.

 

Darrell- Are you continuing this for its own sake? It seems that you have retreated from debating facts to arguing the personal.

I have no horse in this race, but if you want to make your point, ague it with facts and citations to back them up...as ITL is doing (references to the Constitution).