<<Michael, Michael.... this is no 'strawman'.... this is you failing to realize that laws are always up for judicial interpretation. >>
Well, cro, the fact is that I was talking about very specific rights, a right to food, for example, a right to shelter, not just any right, and you then came back and attempted to rebut me by attacking as being ridiculous, a claim to a right "to do anything one pleases."
Well, of course I never asserted that anyone had a right to do "anything one pleases." So by attacking a claim to a right that I never made, you were in fact setting up a straw-man. The whole idea of a so-called right to do whatever one pleases is a straw man. There is no such right, I never claimed there was any such right, and rather than attack claims I actually made (of a right to food, a right to shelter) you were ignoring those claims of rights that I DID make to go on the offensive against a claim that I never made, the claim of a right to do whatever one pleases. That is the very essence of a straw-man argument.
<<You want (what you consider to be ) rights not to be impinged upon but the problem lies in the fact that we cannot cherry pick any rights laid out by the Constitution. >>
But of course we can. Why can't we? Are you saying that if somebody infringes my right to freedom of speech, that I can't assert only that one right? That I have to claim all the rights of the Constitution before I can claim the only right that anyone tried to take away from me? That makes no sense at all.
<<That is EXACTLY what I see liberals doing time after time. >>
Well, so what? Why should a liberal who wants to defend free speech rights also have to launch into a defence of Second Amendment rights at the same time? When blacks were defending equal protection rights, were they also obliged to go to bat for the Second Amendment at the same time? That's nuts.
<<Now since you are a communist me thinks that you are not talking about rights at all.>>
Well, as long as this communist has to live in a capitalist system, the only rights he has are the ones that are granted by the system. So they're the only ones he's concerned with at the present time.
<<You are just talking about Party promises. >>
No. Read my lips. Read my posts. I am talking about rights. Constitutional rights, which are pretty much the same in our two countries. I don't know how I can make this any plainer. What I said is in black and white and it refers to rights under the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the very similar rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
<<Since the Party is making up the rules (not rights) they are the only one than can change them or take them away (without debate or the public having a voice in that decision). Well, I suppose that they could with a revolution.>>
I'll save comment on that last for another debate on another subject.
