Glenn Beck - Andrew Napolitano defines a right

[gr8z0mbiejesus]

HOW IS BEING HEALTHY NOT PART OF "Life, and the pusuit of happiness"?????

AND HOW THE FUCK DOES healthcare NOT part of/ stem from HUMANITY!!!!

[johniswetodddid]

Aren't rights socially perscribed rather than natural?

[HolyCows154]

What a cockroach.

[RedOnyxProductions]

Right on Judge! One of the clearest explanations I have ever heard!

[TheTowerDark]

this might be a serious topic but are well all forgetting the uploaders name is romulan hooker???

[OOPS4U2CNOW]

Again I say and will keep saying.

These congressmen take an oath to protect and defend the constitution?

Are they not trashing it with these bills?

There for they lied under oath.

Is that not perjury.

I say any congressmen or senator who votes for this bill be thrown in jail and stripped of his seat in congress.

This bamster needs to be impeached.

[13shadowwolf]

Food, shelter, etc. are rights.

But our health is not a right?

What kind of fucked up reasoning is that?

There are no god given rights, because there are no gods to give those rights.

[VirgilB01]

Food, shelter, etc. are needs. Not rights, they are considered "goods" or "wants". Your health is a "priviledge" of your rights. it is a "choice" You can choose to be or not to be healthy there are consequences. "God Given Rights" are a term. You have a right to believe or not in a God. These are really Humanitarian "Rights".

[13shadowwolf]

We have a right to life, but not to have food, shelter, etc.? How does that equate? Really cant have a right to life, but not have a right to eat. Really cant have a right to life without having a right to good health. If by choice somebody wants to screw up their health, so be it. But to allow the screwed up system to continue as it has been is a simply horrific thought.

[VirgilB01]

@13shadowwolf -You have a right to life because this right emanates from you from birth. Anything that comes from your body is considered a "Right" this also includes speech. Food and shelter are needs because these things must be purchased or someone gives  to you. You would not consider a burglar who breaks into your home, steals your food and demands to sleep in your bed because he believes he has a "Right" to do so?-

[13shadowwolf]

I have rights only because a group of humans agreed that there were certain basic necessities to recognizing each person as human. Its an agreed upon abstraction from the beginning. Since I have rights to certain things, then another cannot violate those rights and neither can I violate theirs. I have a right to life, which necessitates food, shelter, ownership, etc. so those things are spelled out in the Legal code.

[VirgilB01]

- You may provide food and shelter for him which is a "Good" and a "Need" but he does not have any right to steal from you. The Judge is quoting from the Constitution on the difference between "rights" and Goods". You do not have a right to good health it is your choice to stay healthy. Herein lies the problem with the Govt. just as the judge has explained that you should pay for issues that they consider "Rights" where there are no such rights.

[13shadowwolf]

I've read up on Napolitano, I don't accept his opinions on rights because of his fundie attitudes. He's stuck in a particular belief structure that is a gross misrepresentation of the values of the Founding Fathers.

[irish7769]

@13shadowwolf I think you misunderstand the judges point, and what the definition of a "right" is. If we go by your definition food, shelter, health, etc. should be provided by the govt... ???.. really? what happened to personal responsibilty? We do have the right to live, to pursue what makes us happy, to live as we see fit, to take care of our bodies how WE want. How could you possibly believe that personal health should be provided by the govt. i dont think youve really thought this out..

[13shadowwolf]

The government's job is not to provide those services, their job is to prevent others from interfering with my right to get those services. The insurance companies and lawyers are making a mint off of keeping Health Care expensive. As the price raises more and more people are unable to get decent coverage because of the Business of Health Care. The government is not providing Health Care so much as they are preventing insurance companies from fucking people over.

[Clyaton]

@13shadowwolf "The government is not providing Health Care so much as they are preventing insurance companies from fucking people over." You realize they will make EVERYONE have insurance (very few exceptions such as religious reaons)... To spell this out, insurance companies are now guaranteed massive business, the rest fall under government funds (our money)........................­...................... You are a silly misinformed person

[13shadowwolf]

@Clyaton On no! Shit, everybody has to have health care! Fuck, that means that all those fucks that aren't paying in right now will have to chip in their fair share. Shit, all those "denial-of-service" claims by the insurance companies will have to be covered now because the law actually prevents health insurance companies from picking and choosing who gets coverage.

Fuck it might be like Canada, where when a person gets cancer they don't have to get a mortgage to pay for it.

[Clyaton]

And why couldn't they change these laws without saying, you have to get insurance or you get a fucking fine???!!!! Let me repeat, the government is FORCING you to give someone your money... They could have made pre-existing conditions a thing of the past and still not FORCED all people into healthcare... Just listen to the Judge, he knows better

[13shadowwolf]

@Clyaton The "judge" is a fucking retard. Just like his fucking retarded followers.

[Clyaton]

@13shadowwolf Or maybe you are a fucking moron.... Much more likely... Socialist moronic prick... Better to follow the judge than FDR you stupid prick.

[margiememargie]

Death to all traitors!!!!!!

[kangalanatolian]

Yes. this is it alright. The American way.

Of course what happened along the way is that government slipped in and started providing what the charities could no longer. It was too hard to compete as a charity, as the government provided so much. That was how it felt when I donated to a Katrina hospital charity.

Of course the federal reserve makes welfare and all the wars seem almost easy. The kids will pay, and be grateful for the freedom that interventionist wars somehow purchase.

[theplanetshea]

Wow, he sort of skipped past Hobbes, Locke, and Kant. But for entertainment reasons, he had to.

Natural v. acquired rights? Presumptive v. absolute rights? Positive v. negative rights? Objective v. subjective rights?

[oddessy20]

@theplanetshea I think he is focusing on the "inalienable rights" the Constitution provides, those of which he actually named in the video. There are (as always) interpretations of a persons rights, but in the end, the Constitution nailed it on the head, and health care has nothing to do with someones rights. Never has, never will. It's a service provided, free speech is not. Worship is not, publish freely, assemble freely...the ones you name have nothing to do with what he was talking about.

[cdimmm]

What about the Chemtrails judge? Don't we have a right to blue skies and sunshine.

[HairyCheeseNuts]

You have the right to keep your crap for brains.