Absolutely not!! The only minority ‘group’ is the individual. To grant a group rights implies that you have to take something from everyone else for those rights.
Tommy
October 5, 2015 11:13 am
They sure seem to think they do.
kokoda
October 5, 2015 11:21 am
“Are groups collectively entitled to more rights than an individual?”
Entitled by law = Yes = Welfare, Social Security, Obamacare (probably more examples).
Should they = not sure; beyond my pay grade.
Stucky
October 5, 2015 11:27 am
I sure hope so.
I just joined a dating site, TAFFY (Tall Austrian Fags For You). We demand Special Privileges!
Credit
October 5, 2015 12:54 pm
@kokoda
goods and services should not be confused with rights.
TPC
October 5, 2015 1:01 pm
Corporations, governments, communities. All are comprised of people.
You cannot trample the rights of the individual for the sake of the group because then all individuals are one reinterpreted law away from also having their rights trampled.
The Democrats and Republicans fight over who should have more power: Government or Corporations.
They are both wrong.
Its the individual. Our governmental charter was drafted with “power for the people” quite literally spelled out, and its time we get back to that before we erupt in civil war or end up like Soviet Russia.
harry p.
October 5, 2015 3:10 pm
Not supposed to but sure seems thats the way things go
BUCKHED
October 5, 2015 3:21 pm
Hmmm…..ask a Sovereign Citizen.
robert h siddell jr
October 5, 2015 5:24 pm
Under a Communist government, the common good has precedence over the individual and that is defined by TPTB as whatever benefits the ruling Elite (party members in USSR until 1991 and Rothschild Inc in America since 1913) will be the Supreme Law of the Land (ie in the USSA, Contract Law and Admiralty Law not English Common Law or Constitutional Law). Ref “The Federal Reserve Uses Fraud to Enslave the American People”. Also enjoy Youtube “The College Conspiracy full documentary” at 45:00 a lawyer tells the truth.
gm
October 5, 2015 5:52 pm
@Buckhed no such term as sovereign citizen if you break that down they are mutually exclusive sovereign means one thing citizen means something else completely really means diametrically opposed concepts
anarchyst
October 5, 2015 6:58 pm
We have not had “freedom of association” since the so-called “Civil-rights act of 1964” was enacted. Although enacted in (somewhat) “good faith”, it has degenerated into a “racial spoils” system.
From businesses being sued (and put out of business) for refusing to abandon their religious principles to “civil-rights” protections not applying to whites (especially white males), this whole “civil-rights” situation is a sham.
Ask attorney general loretta lynch and his boss, the o’bama. They have both stated that “civil-rights” protections do not apply to whites, but only to “people of color” who “cannot be racist”. According to them, only whites can be “racist”.
The “pushback” is already starting.
robert h siddell jr
October 5, 2015 8:21 pm
anarchyst: The Civil Riots Act makes the 14 Amendment null and void for White Males. The Civil Riots Act list all the minorities in the US that the Act covers; any listed minority can go to a Civil Riots office and file a racist grievance and if the office agrees, they take the case for free. The ONLY minority group not on the list is White Male. White Males can go to a private lawyer and the lawyer file a grievance with a court at their own expense to obtain initial disapproval. It costs a White Male a lot more money to obtain the courts final disapproval. We need another Civil War to free the White Males!
Persnickety
October 6, 2015 12:22 pm
Post #1 is correct.
Fuck “group rights” and anyone who would attempt to claim them.
groups have no rights
Absolutely not!! The only minority ‘group’ is the individual. To grant a group rights implies that you have to take something from everyone else for those rights.
They sure seem to think they do.
“Are groups collectively entitled to more rights than an individual?”
Entitled by law = Yes = Welfare, Social Security, Obamacare (probably more examples).
Should they = not sure; beyond my pay grade.
I sure hope so.
I just joined a dating site, TAFFY (Tall Austrian Fags For You). We demand Special Privileges!
@kokoda
goods and services should not be confused with rights.
Corporations, governments, communities. All are comprised of people.
You cannot trample the rights of the individual for the sake of the group because then all individuals are one reinterpreted law away from also having their rights trampled.
The Democrats and Republicans fight over who should have more power: Government or Corporations.
They are both wrong.
Its the individual. Our governmental charter was drafted with “power for the people” quite literally spelled out, and its time we get back to that before we erupt in civil war or end up like Soviet Russia.
Not supposed to but sure seems thats the way things go
Hmmm…..ask a Sovereign Citizen.
Under a Communist government, the common good has precedence over the individual and that is defined by TPTB as whatever benefits the ruling Elite (party members in USSR until 1991 and Rothschild Inc in America since 1913) will be the Supreme Law of the Land (ie in the USSA, Contract Law and Admiralty Law not English Common Law or Constitutional Law). Ref “The Federal Reserve Uses Fraud to Enslave the American People”. Also enjoy Youtube “The College Conspiracy full documentary” at 45:00 a lawyer tells the truth.
@Buckhed no such term as sovereign citizen if you break that down they are mutually exclusive sovereign means one thing citizen means something else completely really means diametrically opposed concepts
We have not had “freedom of association” since the so-called “Civil-rights act of 1964” was enacted. Although enacted in (somewhat) “good faith”, it has degenerated into a “racial spoils” system.
From businesses being sued (and put out of business) for refusing to abandon their religious principles to “civil-rights” protections not applying to whites (especially white males), this whole “civil-rights” situation is a sham.
Ask attorney general loretta lynch and his boss, the o’bama. They have both stated that “civil-rights” protections do not apply to whites, but only to “people of color” who “cannot be racist”. According to them, only whites can be “racist”.
The “pushback” is already starting.
anarchyst: The Civil Riots Act makes the 14 Amendment null and void for White Males. The Civil Riots Act list all the minorities in the US that the Act covers; any listed minority can go to a Civil Riots office and file a racist grievance and if the office agrees, they take the case for free. The ONLY minority group not on the list is White Male. White Males can go to a private lawyer and the lawyer file a grievance with a court at their own expense to obtain initial disapproval. It costs a White Male a lot more money to obtain the courts final disapproval. We need another Civil War to free the White Males!
Post #1 is correct.
Fuck “group rights” and anyone who would attempt to claim them.