Do you honestly believe Obama has a chance in 2012?

[fastyxx]

TheRealMafoo said:

Rath said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Rath said:

Not all entitlements are human rights, but that does not mean no entitlements are human rights.

If you consider the rights of man as laid out by the US founding fathers to be accurate (and I realize not everyone does, but I do), then any entitlement program that requires the effort of one person to be taken so it can be provide to another, is a violation of those rights.

Our founding fathers considered our time and energy to be ours. That's what liberty is.

Now there are rights as a condition of law. For example, you have as right to drive after the age of 16, provided you prove your capable. That's an entitlement, and thus a right, and does not violate anyones human rights.

Calling things like healthcare a right, means that right violates the liberty of the individual, unless you applied healthcare in a manner where only your efforts were consumed for the purpose of your care. If you take from a small group to provide for a large group, you have violated the liberty of that small group.

For me, Human Rights as laid out by our constitution trump any rights of law.

I generally consider the rights in the bill of rights to be fairly correct (except for the silly 'right to bear arms') but I certainly don't consider them complete. Also taxation of any from would violate your idea of human rights.

By the federal government.. yes. In fact when they first started taking taxes (aside from paying for a war) was in 1894. In 1895 it was deemed unconstitutional, and revoked. For this reason, the US passed the 16th amendment so they could collect it.

The vision the founders had, was the federal bills would be payed for by billing the states for it, and not from the people directly. States could pass pretty much any tax law they wanted.

Remember, when the country was founded, the constitution only talked about the power the federal government had over people. States could do almost anything they wanted.

It was a lot better that way. You didn't like what a state was doing, move. Kept them in check. Today, we have no option.

Taxes either ARE or are NOT against human rights, no matter who is imposing them, according to your own argument.  And passing an amendment would not change that.  You're not answering his statement at all.  He's pointing out the illogical nature of your point, and you say nothing.  If the Founding Fathers definition of rights is proper, it matters little whether they're state taxes or not.  You're speaking out of both sides.  It only goes against human rights if the federal government does it?  That makes no sense at all (again).  And what about life and the pursuit of happiness?  Why only liberty?  Because life and the pursuit of happiness might include things like health care.  So why not just ignore that part?  Ugh.