On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:38:46 PM UTC-8, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2013 1:29 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food


There is no "right" to food, or a "right" to any other good or service.
There cannot be.


The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

And yet Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Owning people whom DIDN'T have Equality, Liberty, or the ability to pursue their happiness. This must have cost ol' TJ any number of sleepless nights due to the cognitive dissonance of it all. LOL

Unalienable rights? So if person A murders person B, person A has then forfeited his RIGHT to Life & Liberty, according to the system of laws devised by man. So the "Creator", being conspicuously absent, is over-ruled by the courts of man? So much for UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On 3/6/2013 4:59 PM, BottleBob wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:38:46 PM UTC-8, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2013 1:29 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food


There is no "right" to food, or a "right" to any other good or service.
There cannot be.


The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Correct.



And yet Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Owning people whom DIDN'T have Equality, Liberty, or the ability to pursue their happiness. This must have cost ol' TJ any number of sleepless nights due to the cognitive dissonance of it all. LOL

Obviously the "all men" who were created equal didn't include black
Africans. That was an error on the part of the founders.



Unalienable rights? So if person A murders person B, person A has then forfeited his RIGHT to Life & Liberty, according to the system of laws devised by man. So the "Creator", being conspicuously absent, is over-ruled by the courts of man? So much for UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:03:43 PM UTC-8, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2013 4:59 PM, BottleBob wrote:

The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."



Correct.



And yet Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Owning people whom DIDN'T have Equality, Liberty, or the ability to pursue their happiness. This must have cost ol' TJ any number of sleepless nights due to the cognitive dissonance of it all. LOL



Obviously the "all men" who were created equal didn't include black
Africans. That was an error on the part of the founders.


Blacks as a sub-species... a convenient bit of shared sophistry there. Since the Founders that didn't actually OWN slaves looked the other way when they were assigned UNequal status.
Hmmm, I believe American Indians had an ambiguous status as well. LOL


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On 3/6/2013 10:50 PM, BottleBob wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:03:43 PM UTC-8, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2013 4:59 PM, BottleBob wrote:

The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."



Correct.



And yet Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. Owning people whom DIDN'T have Equality, Liberty, or the ability to pursue their happiness. This must have cost ol' TJ any number of sleepless nights due to the cognitive dissonance of it all. LOL



Obviously the "all men" who were created equal didn't include black
Africans. That was an error on the part of the founders.


Blacks as a sub-species... a convenient bit of shared sophistry there.

Not in the least. That was the prevailing sentiment among the founder,
both slave owners and not.


Since the Founders that didn't actually OWN slaves looked the other way when they were assigned UNequal status.

They didn't look the other way. They understood they had to accommodate
slavery in order to obtain a union.


Hmmm, I believe American Indians had an ambiguous status as well. LOL

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:11:29 AM UTC-8, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2013 10:50 PM, BottleBob wrote:


Blacks as a sub-species... a convenient bit of shared sophistry there.



Not in the least. That was the prevailing sentiment among the founder,
both slave owners and not.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems that Thomas Jefferson had ambivalent feelings about slaves.

================================================== =========
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...on_and_slavery

Thomas Jefferson and slavery refers to the role and relationship Thomas Jefferson had with slavery.[1] He owned plantations totaling thousands of acres and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime.[2][3] His record on slavery was mixed and contradictory. He was an opponent of the slave trade and disliked the effects of slavery on society and believed slavery harmful to both slave and master.
================================================== =========


Since the Founders that didn't actually OWN slaves looked the other way when they were assigned UNequal status.



They didn't look the other way. They understood they had to accommodate
slavery in order to obtain a union.

But isn't that essentially just sucking it up and looking the other way?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On 3/7/2013 1:33 AM, BottleBob wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:11:29 AM UTC-8, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2013 10:50 PM, BottleBob wrote:


Blacks as a sub-species... a convenient bit of shared sophistry there.



Not in the least. That was the prevailing sentiment among the founder,
both slave owners and not.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems that Thomas Jefferson had ambivalent feelings about slaves.

================================================== =========
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...on_and_slavery

[...]

His views on slavery might have been ambivalent, but not his views on
blacks. He believed blacks and whites could not live together as free
men in the same society.



Since the Founders that didn't actually OWN slaves looked the other way when they were assigned UNequal status.



They didn't look the other way. They understood they had to accommodate
slavery in order to obtain a union.

But isn't that essentially just sucking it up and looking the other way?

No.