"Bill of NON Rights" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


MasterRenegade77 -> "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 7:15:46 PM)

                This is probably one of the best e-mails I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Aye from GA. This guy should run for President one day..


               "We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of
               justice,  avoid more riots, keep our nation  safe, 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. 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 coherce 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....)   NOW..
                
               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!!!!
               





popeye1250 -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 7:25:06 PM)

Good one!
I like Art. 2 about being "Offended."
The last time I checked it wasn't against the law to "offend" someone.




Alumbrado -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 8:22:48 PM)

Gald to see someone finally admit that this country was founded on the principles of the one true God...


Cthulu of course.[8D].




ShreveportMaster -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 8:27:34 PM)

 Hooray! I'm sure that there feller is a genuine Redneck, and it's absolutely amazing to see a politician that can still actualy move His lips, and not only not lie, but actualy manage to SAY something, and not just spout meaningless drivel!




fullofgrace -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 8:46:12 PM)

the part about the country being founded on the belief in one true god cracks me up, personally. :)




TreSwank -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 9:11:47 PM)

I HEAR YOU.  If "one true God" is supposed to mean a patriarchy-supporting, Manifest Destiny loving, slave-owning, straight white man's deity, I guess he's right.  "Under God", means our lord and savior as interpreted by folks of privilege-while working-class men and women and the poor blindly support the "family values" rhetoric of politicians that HATE them.




Lordandmaster -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 9:15:03 PM)

Didn't we already go through this a year or two ago?  I asked where the environment fits into this Bill of Non-Rights, and no one had an answer then, either.




Kedikat -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 10:00:48 PM)

The people who originally were here to greet the white jobless immigrants didn't speak english. And those immigrants went about killing and pillaging the North Americans.

This country was stolen by immigrants. The original owners slaughtered and robbed.

It's you that never learned to speak the language. You are the foreigner. This bill of non rights is just whining about how the white immigrants couldn't even keep it together in the country they stole.

The bill of rights, the constitution, rules and regulations have made life easier for you. It's just been so easy that people have taken them for granted and not kept a firm hand on them.

Immigrants have in the past, and continue to break their backs to build and keep countries running. It's the ones who use them badly that make them a bad thing for many.








TreSwank -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 10:30:59 PM)

Even though we don't see eye-to-eye on that many issues, Kedikat, you are fucking ON-POINT with that one.




Termyn8or -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/10/2006 11:11:48 PM)

How did "their Creator" become "one true God " ?

Seems to me when you use words like "their Creator" you are making it a point not to refer to any specific God.

Other than that I like it.

T




marcpiery -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 1:04:10 AM)

Kedikat: "Immigrants have in the past, and continue to break their backs to build and keep countries running. It's the ones who use them badly that make them a bad thing for many."

Perhaps we in the U.S., instead of deporting all of the Mexicans back to Mexico, should send them all to Canada. You guys can deal with the burden they put on School systems, Medical systems and all other public assistance systems.

As for the theft of a country, I do believe that Canada was not always a Crown colony. Someone was there ahead of you too. Most Inuits I've met don't seem to like the way they are being treated up their. Perhaps they are whining too much? Anyway, those who live in glass houses...




irishbynature -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 3:55:11 AM)

Interesting! However, the phrase, "In God We Trust" was added to our monetary system during the McCarthy Era. Furthermore, our Founding Fathers (the majority) were Deists and thought religion was not necessary in the formation of our nation/laws.
Warmly
Irish




Level -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 4:08:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Gald to see someone finally admit that this country was founded on the principles of the one true God...


Cthulu of course.[8D].


LOL Alumbrado.
 
I admit there's a lot of good things in Renegade's post, but I differ a bit on the right to food and to be housed and medical care. A humane society provides those things, certainly for those who HONESTLY need help.




meatcleaver -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 4:19:29 AM)

A citizen of a country has duties as a citizen as well as rights. The term non-rights is a way of defining those duties without the country having the obligation of a duty towards the citizen.

In this sense I would argue that 'non'rights' is a rightwing term to disassociate the state from obligation while demanding obligations for the citizen.

In relation to what Level has said, I think that a humane society has a duty to make sure all members of a society have the basic needs to function within that society, given that those people reciprocate with their duties towards that society.




SirKenin -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 4:34:48 AM)

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

quote:


Origins:   Mitchell Kaye,

a Georgia state representative from Marietta, is not the originator of the piece. The famed "Bill of No Rights" was written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher and from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian.




Level -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 4:43:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

quote:


Origins:   Mitchell Kaye,

a Georgia state representative from Marietta, is not the originator of the piece. The famed "Bill of No Rights" was written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher and from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian.



Good going, SK. I doubted the origin of the piece, it sounded too much like one of those things that makes the rounds on the internet. Still has some valid points, though [:)].




pahunkboy -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 4:46:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Good one!
I like Art. 2 about being "Offended."
The last time I checked it wasn't against the law to "offend" someone.


Hey popeye1250- if you are ever in central PA, ill buy you a beer or a coffee.

I like that you think thru the issues, think for yourself, ....if more people were like that...weld have a better country.

In fact- if anyone here is in central PA [visits], lemme know- the same offer applies.

-regards




SirKenin -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 5:01:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

quote:


Origins:   Mitchell Kaye,

a Georgia state representative from Marietta, is not the originator of the piece. The famed "Bill of No Rights" was written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher and from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian.



Good going, SK. I doubted the origin of the piece, it sounded too much like one of those things that makes the rounds on the internet. Still has some valid points, though [:)].


Yes yes.  Some of the points are certainly valid.  Especially the one that you do not have the right to be offended.  That line of thinking has made My blood boil for the longest time.  As you know, I have always presented here the opinion that if you do not like what I am typing, do not read it.  This notion of trying to censor everyone else because you are thin-skinned irritates the hell out of Me.  The world does not revolve around you.




twicehappy -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 5:33:36 AM)

SirPanda sent me this one in an email today, i too loved it.




popeye1250 -> RE: "Bill of NON Rights" (7/11/2006 7:39:45 AM)

Meatcleaver, I'm not rightwing but I agree with these "Non-Rights".
I would say I'm a Moderate or Independant. I always come out as "Moderate" on those tests they have for classifying one's political stance.
I don't like Bush but I don't like Democrats either.
We really shouldn't have generation after generation of welfare recipients in the same families. Something very wrong there.
And our govt. has really dropped the ball as far as protecting our borders goes but that's due to corruption and big business.
There is a "separation of church and state" in this country.
There should also be a "separation of big business and state" as well!
Pa Hunk; thankyou for the compliment!




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.40625