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.

The pursuit of happiness means you have to go get it. It's not given to you. The important word there is pursuit, not happiness. Anyway that was really going to say property, but John Adams wanted it changed because slaves were property, and he knew if it said that it would be much harder to abolish it.

When the federal constitution was written, it was written to limit federal government. The purpose was so the federal government would not infringe on our human rights. Each state was its own entity to deal with the issue as they saw fit.

So anyway, life means the government can't pass laws to limit your life. It does not mean they have help you live longer. It just means they can't get in the way of your ability to live.

The pursuit of happiness means all Americans have a right to own land, go to school, and work. In all other countries at the time, who you were when you were born dictated what you could do for a living, what land you could own, and what education you were allowed to obtain.

It's the governments job to make sure no one stands in your way of success. Not to provide it for you. That's your job.

You're still not answering.  You're rambling around the edges, but you are not answering.  Are all taxes against human rights or not?  

"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."

Your arguments are so flawed it's laughable.  We have a right to drive because we turned 16 and that's the law?  But if they pass a new law that says we have a right to health care, that's not ok.  Where in the Constitution does it say 15 year olds can't drive but 16 year-olds can?  Where does it say the government gets to restrict our access to machinery?  How is it any different than any other law that's been passed and is now accepted as normal?  Totally contradictory.  

His skin color will be enough to win a third of the U.S' votes.. and im not beign racist, they are, which is why he's getting their votes.

Thats one of the reasons he beat Hilary.. racism still lives today.

Of course he will

I never had a chance to read this entire thread its simply to large.  Jeez how did I miss it this long?  :D

Well he has already had several goofs that make him look a bit silly.

1) The gulf oil leak.  The first month or 2 he just twiddled his thumbs together like there was no problem.  Then after its nearly finished he came down and visited the gulf for a day?  WTF???  That would have just pissed me off if I had lived there and he could give me all of a day of his most important person time.  Stay at home and save the traffic nightmare....

2) The economy.  The only way he will be re-elected is if the economy turns around and things are nice and peachy.  Us Americans are a funny lot.  If you turn our economy around for the better we don't care if your Satan (you will keep your job at the white house).  I would vote for Bill Clinton again, if he ran or it was possible.  Say what you want to about him the nation was running like a smooth machine (economically) while he was in charge and I really need to pay my mortgages.  

I will not vote for Obama.  He has finished off our economy and the only thing that can save us from a severe economic decline or depression is an act of god.  And the sad thing is its not all his fault but he will get the blame for it.

Just because Bush was a malingering idiot doesn't make all Republicans bad.  I will wait and see who they nominate before making a decision of course.  But unless they nominate Palin im going Republican this time.  And the only reason McCain lost was because of her.  

We need someone who isn't a political lightning rod in the white house.  Someone who can get along with both sides of the isle.  Unless we get rid of these assholes in office who are so stubborn (both Republican and Democrat) our nation is in for some ruff times.  CLEAN HOUSE GET RID OF MOST OFTHEM!!