I did not think you were that stupid.... --- I already knew you were that stupid
I am not willing to give up any of my rights so you can feel more secure. --- without security you can't protect your rights or privacy Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; --- the USA is not a democracy our courts determine what your rights are On Mar 6, 1:26 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Plainol.... > > The USA was founded and the constitution written FOR the protection of > the individual citizen NOT any group or groups. > > Your comment about the quote that states this very fact ie; the > inalienable rights of the individual ("groups" do not have them) is a > slap in the face of every man or woman that has ever shed blood or > "lost it all" in an endeavor to either secure or maintain the single > greatest founding principal. > > I did not think you were that stupid.... I am not willing to give up > any of my rights so you can feel more secure. > > Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; > > > a majority has no right to vote away the rights of > > a minority; the political function of rights is > > precisely to protect minorities from oppression > > by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth > > is the individual). -- Alyssa Rosenbaum > > --- > > dumb fucking jew > > without security you can't keep rights or privacy > > On Mar 6, 12:59 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There, of course, is no constitutional provision providing the > > federal > > government *any* power or authority to extend or withhold permission > > to enter (or exit) *any* of the sovereign states. > > --- > > that's why we created immigration laws > > that the jews hate so much > > > As the constitution is > > the 'law of the land' these so-called laws passed by the feds are > > simply unconstitutional. You are, of course, welcome to point at the > > article, section and clause or amendment ... but my guess is that > > you will STILL be unable to do so -- instead choosing to chant this > > nonsense about 'illegal' ad nauseam. > > --- > > that you would open our borders, knowing that those who enter > > illegally are criminals and terrorists says tons about your intellect > > > Furthermore, you apparently -- in your rush to jerk your knee -- > > failed > > to READ what the author had written. > > The REAL problem, of course, is the Nanny State (as the author so > > aptly notes) -- never mind the violation instead of securement of > > rights. > > ---- > > you can't keep rights you can't protect > > > Regard$, > > --MJ > > Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; > > a majority has no right to vote away the rights of > > a minority; the political function of rights is > > precisely to protect minorities from oppression > > by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth > > is the individual). -- Alyssa Rosenbaum > > --- > > dumb fucking jew > > without security you can't keep rights or privacy > > > On Mar 6, 8:20 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > plainolamerican > > > this dumbass liberal bitch is obviously ignorant of the fact that > > > illegally entering our country is a crime and that illegals are > > > stealing our social services and committing a disproportionate amount > > > of crime > > > > MJ > > > <sigh> > > > There, of course, is no constitutional provision providing the federal > > > government *any* power or authority to extend or withhold permission > > > to enter (or exit) *any* of the sovereign states. As the constitution is > > > the 'law of the land' these so-called laws passed by the feds are > > > simply unconstitutional. You are, of course, welcome to point at the > > > article, section and clause or amendment ... but my guess is that > > > you will STILL be unable to do so -- instead choosing to chant this > > > nonsense about 'illegal' ad nauseam. > > > > Furthermore, you apparently -- in your rush to jerk your knee -- failed > > > to READ what the author had written. > > > > The REAL problem, of course, is the Nanny State (as the author so > > > aptly notes) -- never mind the violation instead of securement of rights. > > > > Regard$, > > > --MJ > > > > Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; > > > a majority has no right to vote away the rights of > > > a minority; the political function of rights is > > > precisely to protect minorities from oppression > > > by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth > > > is the individual). -- Alyssa Rosenbaum -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
