Sudafed Now Controlled?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by MasterShake29, Apr 17, 2006.

  1. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would argue that the Declaration grants me no rights, I agree. Those rights come from God, or some outside power other than the government.

    The DOI simply stated this fact.

    The alternative is that rights come from government or society, in which case they can take them away as they see fit. I'm not down with that.
     
  2. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html

    Why would MLK make himself look dumb by referring to something that wasn't a "legal document"?
     
  3. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis
    Civil rights, being civil, are granted by the gov't can be taken away. Human rights also exist, and, in theory, are had just by virtue of being a person. Of course, there is not really a consensus on what rights are included in that list of human rights. Efforts to enumerate them are largely treaty based. Obviously, both of these are constructs of humanity and gov't.
     
  4. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bringing us back to what I said on page 2:
     
  5. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, the DEA and FDA are part of the executive branch, headed by George W. Bush. Why do you trust them to define a "legitimate use"?
     
  6. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Good grief......King was speaking about the Declaration in the sense that it conveys ideals our country should try to uphold. But it's not a legal document in the same sense that the Constitution is. You're being purposefully obtuse on this point.....because I know you're not that dumb.
     
  7. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Aww geez, does someone need to go over the entire concept of the executive branch and the Administrative Procedure Act now?
     
  8. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    He wasn't making a legal argument, he was making an impassioned one.
     
  9. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    See above.

    I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but do you really think this is something he's making a pet project?
     
  10. Coach_McGuirk

    Coach_McGuirk New Member

    Apr 30, 2002
    Between the Pipes
    For those of you playing the home game, score yourself 50 points the next time nice uses the Magna Carte in a post. Score yourself 100 points plus a free roll if anyone uses either the "Treaty of Versaille" or the "Diet of Worms"... :D
     
  11. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know. He is big on the War on Drugs, and this would fall into that category. It may not have been his idea, but I don't see him taking steps to eliminate it.
     
  12. needs

    needs Member

    Jan 16, 2003
    Brooklyn
    If these rights come from God, how come nobody knows about them until the 18th century?
     
  13. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Human beings can be slow to figure things out sometimes.
     
  14. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, you can take my comments on the DOI in the same spirit as his. Now I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one, but this line seems pretty darn "legal" to me.

    My concern isn't about it being a legal document or anything (note I'm not the one that brought that up).

    I'm more concerned about the principles expressed therein.
     
  15. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    .....a fact made painfully obvious nearly every time you post. Yet you continue these bizarre attempts at legal analysis.

    Yeah, legal in the sense King was making a UCC argument regarding the legitimacy of promissory notes........:rolleyes:

    Geez, it's rhetoric......wonderful, beautiful rhetoric and sentiments with which I agree.....but it's not a legal argument.

    If you walked into any court room in the nation trying to vindicate some wrong you feel you've suffered....and the only basis for your claim is the Declaration of Independence...........you're out on your ear.


    You keep saying this....but then you keep bringing up the King speech, etc. If you really mean that it's not your concern.....then quit with the obfuscation.

    .....and who has said these principles are meaningless? No one. But admitting that these principles have meaning does not equate with allowing you to buy up all the sudafed you want except under your bizarre pseudo-libertarianarchistic world view. The Declaration says we have these inalienable rights, but it recognizes in the very next sentence that government is the vehicle by which to secure those rights. If you don't understand that government can in some circumstances also take away those rights......well there's no point in having any further discussions with you.
     
  16. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why exactly?
    That is fine, but when asked to present a legal document to prove a point, don't use the Declaration as an example.
     
  17. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree.

    If rights are unalienable and come from "the Creator", then government by definition can't take them away. It also says the purpose of government is to "secure these rights".

    To me, any argument to take away rights would have to be a whole lot more compelling then "someone might make meth with too many pills".
     
  18. Barbara

    Barbara BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 29, 2000
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Unless something new has happened that I haven't heard of, this is not a federal thing. Sudafed controls vary from state to state and store to store. Some stores put restrictions on sales that aren't necessarily mandated by anyone. They just don't want all their sudafed walking out the door in some kid's backpack.
     
  19. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Since Matt's now said that a god has given him rights, should this thread be moved?
     
  20. John Galt

    John Galt Member

    Aug 30, 2001
    Atlanta
    If a liberty fell in the forest, would Matt ask why we trust George Bush?
     
  21. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So which is it? The government can't ever take away your right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

    Funny. Government takes away liberty interests all the time.

    Or can they only take away rights if they have a compelling reason?

    You've contradicted yourself in the short course of one post. Unalienable rights can't be taken away.....unalienable rights can be taken away with a compelling reason. Which is it?
     
  22. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That they do, and that's the problem.

    I would go with the former unless someone can convince me otherwise. I'll allow for the possibility in theory.
     
  23. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The government can't take away rights that it doesn't give you. They can interfere with the exercise of rights that you think the big bearded one in the sky bestowed upon you.

    There is no point in you pretending to be interested in rational discourse on rights since you have admitted they are magical. In fact, your continued posting of odd and incoherent statements undermines your whole rational actor self-interest economic pseudo-claim from earlier. You don't play the game of reason - you are not rational. Do you understand?

    You seem sort of interested in these issues. You might honestly consider recognizing your position of ignorance and getting an education in them. Until you accept that you don't know what you are talking about, you are parading around in some fine new clothes. You must be so disappointed that Socrates is already dead.
     
  24. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The rest of what you wrote is too funny.

    Whether you believe rights come from God, the Tooth Fairy, the Earth, or just from being human is irrelevant to me. It all ends up with the same effect.

    I am interested to know from where or whom you believe rights come from?
     
  25. chad

    chad Member+

    Jun 24, 1999
    chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The origin of rights is kind of important to their standing. And you seem to talk a lot about them.

    Seriously, get an education. Start with logic.
     

Share This Page