Looks Like I have to do Your Job For you -- for inquiring small minds

[Amianthus]

So, since I "own" the big box, and it's an accumulation of little boxes, then I can use any of the little boxes whenever I want?

[BT]

So, since I "own" the big box, and it's an accumulation of little boxes, then I can use any of the little boxes whenever I want?

Theoretically that is what eminent domain is about.

[Universe Prince]

Perhaps a quick check of the Bill of Rights might jog your memory on individual rights, and my dedicated support of them.

I doubt the Bill of Rights mentions your support. But yes, check the Bill of Rights. It is not a list of rights. It is a list of things the government is not to do, and then there is Amendment IX, which reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So no, Sirs, in no way does the Constitution spell out our individual rights.

I'm still amazed though at your idea that someone has the right to enter any country they want, sovereignty be damned, if they reeeeaaaaaally need to better their lives.  Americans don't own America....who the hell are they to tell some non-american who can & can't enter their, ooops, not their country....a country that merely exists.

That is not my idea. You're just making up stuff again.

[sirs]

So, since I "own" the big box.....

Close...WE, the community of Americans own the big box, vs individual Ami, and WE have government representatives and laws.  None of which allow you to manipulate someone else's inidivudal box, I'm afraid

[Amianthus]

Close...WE, the community of Americans own the big box, vs individual Ami, and WE have government representatives and laws.  None of which allow you to manipulate someone else's inidivudal box, I'm afraid

Yes, but I am part of "we".

So, I can't use this "little box" owned by Sirs over here. And I can't use this "little box" owned by BT over there. Nor the one owned by Plane yonder. Nor the one owned by XO down there.

Eventually, what is left? I can only use my "little box", correct?

So, the "big box" is nothing but a figment, because it doesn't really exist.

[sirs]

Perhaps a quick check of the Bill of Rights might jog your memory on individual rights, and my dedicated support of them.

I doubt the Bill of Rights mentions your support. But yes, check the Bill of Rights. It is not a list of rights.

1st amendment: Right to Free speech & freedom of Religion
2nd amendment: Right to own a firearm
4th amendment: Right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th amendment: Right not to incriminate yourself
6th amendment: Right to due process
7th amendment: Right to a jury trial (n certain civil trials)
etc., etc., etc.

Naaaa, no rights mentioned there, at all, and nothing referencing individuals     

[sirs]

Close...WE, the community of Americans own the big box, vs individual Ami, and WE have government representatives and laws.  None of which allow you to manipulate someone else's inidivudal box, I'm afraid

Yes, but I am part of "we".

Now you're just trying to manipulate semantics.  The position is clear despite you're trying to muddy it up

So, the "big box" is nothing but a figment, because it doesn't really exist.

Yea, I think that was prince's inferrence as well.  Our nation and its sovereignty doesn't really exist     

[Universe Prince]

1st amendment: Right to Free speech & freedom of Religion
2nd amendment: Right to own a firearm
4th amendment: Right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th amendment: Right not to incriminate yourself
6th amendment: Right to due process
7th amendment: Right to a jury trial (n certain civil trials)
etc., etc., etc.

Naaaa, no rights mentioned there, at all, and nothing referencing individuals     

Your representation of the Bill of Rights is significantly flawed. For example, the First Amendment does not say people have a a right to free speech and freedom of religion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The phrase that consists of the first five words of the amendment is not insignificant to the meaning of the amendment, despite the fact that you seem intent on ignoring it. As I said before, the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights, but rather it is a list of things the government is not to do.

Yea, I think that was prince's inferrence as well.  Our nation and its sovereignty doesn't really exist

Now you're just lying.

[Amianthus]

Now you're just trying to manipulate semantics.  The position is clear despite you're trying to muddy it up

Nope, the inference that there is a big box that is communally owned by everyone is not semantics. If everyone owns this big box, then everyone is free to use any part of this big box - which means use of the little boxes, since that is all that exists in this big box.

[sirs]

No, not if it infringes on the rights of someone else's box.  Same as no foreign individual has a right to infringe upon the Box called America

[sirs]

1st amendment: Right to Free speech & freedom of Religion
2nd amendment: Right to own a firearm
4th amendment: Right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th amendment: Right not to incriminate yourself
6th amendment: Right to due process
7th amendment: Right to a jury trial (in certain civil trials)
etc., etc., etc.

Naaaa, no rights mentioned there, at all, and nothing referencing individuals      

Your representation of the Bill of Rights is significantly flawed.

Not at all, since it was a synopsis of rights, that demonstrate clearly their individual origins & applications.  Even when you print out the entire amendment, it is specific to individual rights AND the clear limitations Government is SUPPOSED to adhere to, as it relates to those rights.  Perfect examples being the 4th & 5th amendments, clearly applying to an individual (as they all largely do).  Nothing at all related to some group right to "pleading the 5th"

Now you're just lying.

Naaa, just using hyperbole to highlight the direction of yours (and apparently Ami's) thought process

[Universe Prince]

Your representation of the Bill of Rights is significantly flawed.

Not at all, since it was a synopsis of rights, that demonstrate clearly their individual origins & applications.

Neither your representation nor the Bill of Rights itself are about the origins of rights or their applications.

Even when you print out the entire amendment, it is specific to individual rights AND the clear limitations Government is SUPPOSED to adhere to, as it relates to those rights.

Sirs, you are distorting the clear phrasing of the amendments. Not only to the amendments not exist as a list of rights, the Ninth Amendment specifically says the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to "be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Bill of Rights does not exist to define a list of rights. It exists to limit the government.

Perfect examples being the 4th & 5th amendments, clearly applying to an individual (as they all largely do).  Nothing at all related to some group right to "pleading the 5th"

No, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and pretty much the other eight apply to the limitation of the power of government. This is not ambiguous. You have to distort the language of the amendments to make them mean something else.

Now you're just lying.

Naaa, just using hyperbole to highlight the direction of yours (and apparently Ami's) thought process

A hyperbolic lie is still a lie.

[sirs]

Your representation of the Bill of Rights is significantly flawed.

Not at all, since it was a synopsis of rights, that demonstrate clearly their individual origins & applications.

Neither your representation nor the Bill of Rights itself are about the origins of rights or their applications.

We're apparently going to have to agree to disagree, as I've demonstrating clearly how they DO apply to individuals, and they ARE rights, as established by the Constitution & Bill of RIGHTS

Now you're just lying.

Naaa, just using hyperbole to highlight the direction of yours (and apparently Ami's) thought process

A hyperbolic lie is still a lie.

Ok then, I'll just refer to it as prince-like sarcasm   

[Universe Prince]

We're apparently going to have to agree to disagree, as I've demonstrating clearly how they DO apply to individuals, and they ARE rights, as established by the Constitution & Bill of RIGHTS

Yeah, we disagree, because you have demonstrated exactly none of that.

[sirs]

LoL......riiiiiiiiiiight.  And OJ was really innocent