tl;dr
Wrong. Our rights are inalienable. For reference it says so in The Declaration of Independence, the very first founding document. The one we sent to King George III to tell him to piss off.
"We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Quoting a document to prove that rights are inalienable and endowed by a "Creator" is rather preposterous. You would have to prove that such a being actually exists for that to be that case. You would also have to prove with which "rights" he has endowed humanity. If you carefully read the Constitution, you will note that there is not a single reference to a deity. Oh, and apparently these "inalienable rights", among them liberty, did not stop those same wealthy whites from depriving others of their liberty (read: slavery). Blacks had no guaranteed rights until struggle and social action conferred upon them freedom.
“We need an American history that sees protections for civil liberties not as a timeless feature of our 'civilization' but as a recent and fragile achievement resulting from many decades of historical struggle.” - Eric Foner
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to restrict government's ability to overpower individuals. Rights are inalienable because no committee of human beings (read: government) has the right to take them away.
Except that governments readily take away certain rights, during times of war, for example. Rights are defined by cultural relativism, the zeitgeist, struggle, and law. (Though some laws can be considered contrary to what many believe are rights. An example are laws prohibiting gay marriage, which many view as their “right”. Another would be legalized abortion, which some view as robbing the “unborn” of their “right to life”.)
You fail civics 101. Congratulations.
You failed philosophy 101. Congratulations.
The basis for "ignorance" according to the left is not supporting a bullet list of liberal beliefs and programs. She has an 80% approval rating, so while I'm sure you consider yourselves smarter than most Alaskans, I imagine they can tell whether their governor is ignorant or inept better than you can.
I said nothing about her ability to govern Alaska or her popularity. I simply doubt her ability to be Vice President. She does not know what the job entails, for starters, and cannot answer a simple interview question conducted by a medium other than Faux News without falling flat on her face. Citing proximity to Russia as foreign policy experience and being unable to identify a single SCOTUS decision with which she disagrees—despite having complained recently about Exxon v. Baker—does not exactly inspire confidence. And I am not alone in thinking her unqualified: Colin Powell, Christopher Hitchens, George Will, Chuck Hegel, David Brooks, Joe Lieberman, et al. have expressed doubts about her readiness. This is from the American right, not the left.
Here is a simple challenge to all the anti-Palin cabal: Prove Sarah Palin is ignorant and inept.
Luckily, you saved me the time by providing several examples below.
I shall offer my counterarguments because the ones most people use are so trite and predictable you can see them coming:
The "Bush Doctrine" has changed three times, and she asked Charlie Gibson which incarnation he was referring to. Furthermore, the Bush Doctrine is not some liberal caricature like "lie us into war for oil."
This would be fine, except that she asked Gibson if he was referring to Bush's "worldview", which has little to do with the Bush Doctrine. Even if she were asking to which "incarnation" he was referring, she could have simply provided one of them in response and come away looking fine. Rather, she failed to answer at all.
Opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage are not indications of ignorance. They are indications of disagreement with your preferred policies. Do not confuse the two.
I agree that abortion, at least, could be a legitimate ethical debate. Same-sex marriage is not, however, but I shall leave it at that. This has little to do with her intelligence.
Her position on creationism is that if it comes up in class it should be discussed. She has never advocated it to be part of a core curriculum.
It isn't creationism solely that makes her ignorance—it is her anti-science stance in general. Yesterday, she announced how senseless it is to fund study of fruit flies, while calling for more to be done for autism patients. Yet, she doesn't seem to realize that studying fruit flies provides valuable insight into the genetic factors of autism.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/
No books have ever been banned by Sarah Palin, and the Wasilla Librarian is a political appointee who serves at the discretion of the mayor. The call for a resignation before assuming office is standard procedure.
You are correct; she did not have books banned.
I take it you didn't read the link to Stanley Kurtz's piece. I linked it because it explains in greater detail exactly who the 50 million went to and what they considered education. That you blame the Jews is just icing on the cake.
I admit that I only skimmed the article as I was in a hurry and am familiar with Kurtz's bilge. Having read it further, I am even more confused as to what the point is, and how it has anything to do with Obama's campaign. I don't "blame the Jews" for anything; apparently you are ignorant of who Rashid Khalidi is. I was assuming that you consider him "anti-American" for his opinions concerning the US, Israel, and the Palestinians; if I am wrong, then I apologize. Moreover, Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism.
True, that is what Senators do. Except not a single piece of legislation was drafted by Barack Obama. More importantly, the Senate, like the ivory tower, is a theorycraft sphere where the effects of what people pass are never felt.
Last I checked, not drafting legislation does not disqualify you from being President. Nor does lacking “executive experience”—Madison, Adams, and Lincoln had none.
A good article explaining why this whole conversation about experience is absurd:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926-2,00.html
Speaking of high school level civics knowledge, Biden couldn't place VP in Article II.
I don't recall my defending Biden; he isn't that great either. But at least he knows what the office actually entails, unlike Palin, who has on numerous occasions vastly overstated the (nearly non-existent) powers of the Vice President.
As to her intelligence or lack their of, given the ease of which you blame Zionism, I'd say you aren't qualified to judge.
Perhaps I should have clarified my point about Zionism better, but you are still being ridiculous here.
Once again Luduan, your lack of study shows. Sarah Palin was never part of the AIP.
Your lack of reading shows. I never said she was a member of the AIP; I said she was “connected” to it. Or does her husband's membership not count as a legitimate connection?
As to Ayers, unless your definition of spurious is: served with on two boards, collaborated with to spend 50 million dollars on Afrocentric education, and started your political career in his living room, you've no ground to stand on.
First, serving on a charity board is a tenuous connection at best. These boards do not meet often, and serving on a charity board with someone is hardly an endorsement of that individual's political ideals. A former Reagan ambassador funded the Annenberg Challenge. Is he a radical communist terrorist as well? Second, he did not begin his political campaign in Ayers's living room.
Regarding the Annenberg Challenge:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/
RE thugs and vandals: Tony Rezko, Obama's real estate Agent and political bundler, not serving jail time over 16 charges of corruption.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/19/obamas-rezko-connection/
ACORN, currently under FBI investigation nationally for voter registration fraud, had a Chicago branch trained by Obama. Their activities outside of vote fraud include intimidation campaigns for companies that don't "do enough" for the community.
I assume you are talking about Project Vote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/797/
AVS comes installed and operational STANDARD. It is there to make sure people's name and address match up with their credit card. You have to actively disable it. Now, you may not see why Address Verification is important to stop fraud, but for those of us who don't deign ourselves smart enough to ascertain the intelligence of others, it is because the integrity of elections is central to the democratic process. There is a campaign contributions limit that has a fixed dollar amount. If you don't have to verify your information, you can easily go over that limit simply by giving fake information.
It is also not uncommon to turn off AVS, as I have said. Anyone donating fraudulently risks prosecution by the Feds. Look how quickly they caught the kid who hacked Palin's email; do you honestly believe that fraudulent donations are that rampant and that easy to pull off? Or maybe you are just unwilling to believe that people agree with Obama and legitimately donate to his campaign?
Some of the posted comments might help you understand why this is not such a big deal.
Your reading comprehension fails once again Luduan. All of the people you mentioned had actual accomplishments, and additionally only wrote their memoirs AFTER they had lived the majority of their life. What separates Obama from say, Mahatma Ghandi is that Ghandi actually mattered. He actually did something worth writing about.
And what about the thousands of other people who have written autobiographies or memoirs? Hell, what about those who keep diaries? No one is forcing you to buy any of Obama's books. Writing about your personal experiences is an extremely old practice and is in no way indicative of “arrogance”.
Marxism is all about class warfare and redistribution of wealth. The evil bourgeois vs. the righteous proletariat, finally giving the worker's power over the means of production. That's Marxism in theory. Marxism in practice is a pile of skulls under an autocrat.
Kindly explain what is so sinister about workers' control over the means of production. Also, please explain exactly how that fits in with any of Obama's proposals. You are correct, Marxism in practice has not been achieved, because a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is likely to end in a totalitarian rule. That is why I am not a Marxist—something I have in common with Senator Obama.
Truth is the ultimate defense Luduan.
Yes, and truth defends Obama from your mudslinging.
Barack Hussein Obama has associated with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, ACORN etc.
All of which have been thoroughly debunked and are tangential to the extreme.
Barack Hussein Obama is a legal name Barack elected to change to of his own volition.
And your evidence of this is what, exactly?
In his own memoir Barack Hussein Obama points out he actively sought politically active black students, Marxist professors, et al. A leopard does not change its spots.
Having not read his memoir, I can't comment on this. I do, however, wonder why you find it disturbing that he sought out politically active blacks.
Yes, usually Presidents don't launch their political careers in say, the home of a Timothy McVeigh equivalent. And usually they don't train and enable vote fraud outfits with the curriculum of Saul Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals." Barack is Muslim is a ridiculous charge, but one the McCain campaign has never made and constantly corrects. McCain fails to note that Barack's actual religion, the one of his pastor of two decades, is Black Liberation Theology, a healthy mix of Socialism and Afrocentrism.
Obama did not launch his political career in Bill Ayers's home.
I find all religion ridiculous, so I see little difference between Obama's beliefs and, say, the laying on of hands to protect Palin from witchcraft. Or the belief that the Iraq War was divinely sanctioned.
Funny, I don't recall accusing anyone but Barack Obama of socialism. Your reading comprehension is really coming along Luduan. Soon you may be able to figure out that I don't write anything without being able to back it up extensively. I study both candidates as best I can, and then give my honest assessment. If "ignorance" is now defined as "doing your homework on the man who might run your nation for the next 4-8 years," then I suppose that yes, I'm ignorant.
You are ignorant because you consistently cite discredited and patently false smears, which have little to do with any legitimate issue.
It was Joe Biden that got Article II wrong at the VP debate. I will also pit my knowledge of American History against yours any time. From the sounds of it, you get your history from leftist caricatures whose sole purpose for writing anything is to advance leftist radicalism, no matter how many lies they must write to do it. I can tell by your random shout out to Zionism.
And I do not particularly care for Joe Biden either. You seem to think that I am a surrogate for the Democratic Party; I am not. I merely believe the constant rhetoric about “terrorism” and “anti-Americanism” distracts from the real issues that this Presidential campaign should be about.
Oh, and those “leftist caricatures” must include a wide array of the most respected historians in the world, then. “One is astonished in the study of history,” wrote Du Bois, “at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. . . . The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and an example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.” I look at all history, especially the various indiscretions and unpleasantries of my own nation's, rather than gloss over them. Historical revisionism is not historical denialism, nor does it necessarily imply telling “lies” or misinterpreting evidence. Do some individuals lie to advance a particular position? Of course they do. But I would like for you to point out a single time when I have lied about a historical fact to advance a particular agenda.
Yes, I view history from a particular perspective, but in the words of Karl Popper: “It follows that each generation has a right to look upon and re-interpret history in its own way. . . . After all, we study history because we are interested in it, and perhaps because we wish to learn something about our problems. But history can serve neither of these two purpose if, under the influence of an inapplicable idea of objectivity, we hesitate to present historical problems from our point of view. And we should not think that our point of view, if consciously and critically applied to the problem, will be inferior to that of a writer who naïvely believes . . . that he has reached a level of objectivity permitting him to present 'the events of the past as they actually did happen.'”
As you would recall with only the smallest of verification, I did not call Obama the Anti-Christ either. Although the blanket support for partial birth abortion and opposition to even the most basic (and popular) restrictions on it combined with his love for funneling taxpayer dollars to people who declared war on the United States (old Weather Underground activists), I'm not too enthused about "change you can believe in," as you can imagine.
When did I claim that you called Obama the Anti-Christ? I merely mentioned Palin and Biden in response to your statement that the Anti-Christ would not make stupid comments. It was a joke.
And when did Obama “funnel taxpayer dollars” to Weather Underground activists?
By the way, Al Qaeda supporters are backing John McCain. I can hardly imagine your jubilation if they had expressed desire for an Obama victory.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4989853.ece
