New US Constitution

Francois

Can't find the original post, so here it is again:

"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great- grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."

ARTICLE I:

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be ... and like the rest of us you need to simply deal with it.

ARTICLE III:

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. (Yeah!)

ARTICLE VII:

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV, pool tables, weight rooms or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII:

You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of part time jobs, education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX:

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness --which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:

This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from. We welcome you here. English is our language and like the one you left behind, we also have a culture. Learn it or go back to the country and the living conditions you were fleeing.

StinkyPantz

I'm fairly liberal. Am I supposed to be insulted?

teenyuck

I wonder if I can order that on parchment with an antique look?

Englishman

You don't get free health care already?

Lobby, lobby, lobby!

Englishman.

Francois

Stinky - Insulted? I dunno. I didn't write it. I just posted it.

And it might one day be available on parchment if it ever catches on.

Um, I don't think you folk across the pond have a say in this. Maybe you should lobby for your own written constitution.

francois

ThiChi

"You don't get free health care already?

Lobby, lobby, lobby!

Englishman.""

E-man: how long do you have to wait to get an operation these days?

::Service failure

An undoubted shift in public and professional attitudes to poor quality in the NHS

came through a series of high profile failures in standards of care in a number of

services. A bone tumour service in Birmingham, England was shown to have

misdiagnosed benign conditions as malignant leading to some patients having

unnecessary radical and mutilating surgery

(7) . Poor quality of screening programmes

for women’s cancer in a number of parts of England led to serious public concern

about the integrity of these important preventive services

(8) . Strident headlines

greeted the publication of inquiry reports into homicides on innocent bystanders

carried out by chronically mentally ill people who should have been under the

supervision of mental health services. Newspaper coverage often implied that such

occurrences were the tip of an iceberg of poor quality and that history seemed to

repeat itself. Public debate about these and similar service failures has brought an

urgency to the impetus for new quality improvement mechanisms in the NHS. There

is thus a clear expectation that the new approach to quality should eliminate serious

failures in standards of care.::

Poor clinical performance

Closely linked to service failure is the question of poor practitioner performance.

However, in many serious incidents the focus has been on individual accountability.

There was an outcry when serious deficiencies in standards of care were identified in

the children’s heart surgery service in Bristol, England. Two doctors – one surgeon

and a medically qualified Chief Executive Officer – were removed from the Medical

Register after the longest running disciplinary hearing in the General Medical

Council’s history

(12) . The fact that the problems were only brought to light by a

‘whistleblower’ together with the media images of distressed parents picketing the

General Medical Council offices carrying cardboard children’s coffins, added to the

sense that this event was a watershed in public and professional attitudes to quality

in the NHS. The Bristol affair is now the subject of a public enquiry but many

smaller scale incidents have helped to form the view that the present mixture of

professional self-regulation and employer disciplinary procedures no longer

command confidence.

As with organisational failure poor clinical performance has been little researched.

Such studies as have been reported draw attention to a multiplicity of features

including: failure to recognise, diagnose and treat illness adequately, poor attitude

and disruptive behaviour, high levels of complications in patients treated, poor

Double Edge

Loved the 'new' constitution, but it would never work. Too many people have lost the abilitly to think for themselves and want to be bottle fed by the government the rest of their lives, at the expense of other citizens. Still, if you're ready to have a 2nd revolution, sign me up!

logansrun

Seems like this "New Constitution" is a little liberal to me. I mean, they seem to imply you have a right to life. What's up with that.

Bradley

expatbrit

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. (Yeah!)

Curiously enough, according to Hobbes you do have the right to do those things, simply because you can do those things.

Fortunately, most of us give up those rights because we recognise that it is in the collective self-interest to do so, and that is what the Government is for, to enforce this collective agreement, amongst others.

Which is why without Government enforcement, people relapse back to their natural state of brute self-interest, and begin to reassert all those unpleasant rights.

No wonder people usually prefer Locke....lol

Expatbrit

Simon

I think it's good ... better than the one you or we currently have !

New US Constitution

Share this