Freedom, First, Last and Always

Freedomlover

VIP Member
Nov 6, 2008
224
42
66
I have been reading several of the posts on this board since the Arizona shootings. People who try to make political hay out of a sorrowful event such as this are below contempt. It really makes me angry to see the comments psuedo-political scientists post here to try and justify their thin political philosophy, if you can even call it a philosophy.

Those of you who have resorted to calling names to those who oppose your point of view have already lost the battle. Instead of calling others mean and hateful names, why don't you pray for those who have been wounded and for the families of those who lost loved ones.? A little humility never hurts anyone, and that is what is needed now rather than finger pointing, attacking free speech and suggestions that more of our freedoms be taken away in the name of security, which is mostly an illusion anyway.

I am reminded of those who from the beginning of our nation up to the present time, have spilt their blood for one reason and one reason only-FREEDOM! Americans have enjoyed these freedoms that they paid for in blood. Over the past several decades the Federal government, and some state governments have created programs that have steadily eroded our freedoms. Do you honestly think the government hands out money without the expectation of something in return? What would that be? It is nothing less than people giving up some of the freedom they have to direct their own lives and accomplish as much as they can with the abilities they have. So, what happens? It becomes a vicious circle of you vote for me or that one will take all these goodies away from you. All along more and more freedom is ceded to government.

When John Edwards was campaigning for president he would often say "there are two Americas". His meaning was essentially the "haves" and "have nots" I disagreed with this notion, but did agree there are indeed two Americas. There are the "takers" who demand government supply their needs throughout life and there are the "producers" who work hard to obtain a good education and then put their abilities to work to better themselves and their nation. They are, however, rudely awakened when they receive their first paycheck at how much the sweat of their brow is taken by government.

Now these two factions are at "war" with each other and you ask why there is so much vitriol in our political discourse? I have just given you the answer! Until government starts respecting and protecting the freedoms that are ours this battle will continue. The question is "Do enough of us value freedom above all else to push back and say no more, enough is enough?" We can limit government, protect our freedoms and still provide a safety net for those who are physically or mentally uinable to provide for themselves. But let us do it in freedom, not bondage!
 
Are you making political hay out of the AZ shooting, or did you just lose your train of thought?

this event has given the right wing a great opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack/murders while accusing liberals of "politicizing" the "tragedy"
 
Are you making political hay out of the AZ shooting, or did you just lose your train of thought?

this event has given the right wing a great opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack/murders while accusing liberals of "politicizing" the "tragedy"

There does seem to be a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

I especially liked the innuendo that "real patriots" have been shot. I have no gun wounds.....shall I just stop voting?
 
Are you making political hay out of the AZ shooting, or did you just lose your train of thought?

this event has given the right wing a great opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack/murders while accusing liberals of "politicizing" the "tragedy"

I just love how you come up with the "this event has given the right wing a great opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack/murders". Talk about politizing. :lol:

Go read a few of Sangha's posts and get back to me with an apology.
 
I am sorry that I wrote my post a bit above your pay grade. Try reading it a couple of times and perhaps you might get the point of it all.
 
I am sorry that I wrote my post a bit above your pay grade. Try reading it a couple of times and perhaps you might get the point of it all.

Maybe you should write posts in language people can understand rather than your lala land diatribe. If you can't get your point across, it is you that has the problem. Welcome to the real world.:lol:
 
I am sorry that I wrote my post a bit above your pay grade. Try reading it a couple of times and perhaps you might get the point of it all.

I do believe I got your point. Your politiking around the AZ tragedy is fine and dandy and no one else's is.

And the gun wounded among us are the "real patriots". That alone should make you popular here in Cleveland.
 
I am sorry that I wrote my post a bit above your pay grade. Try reading it a couple of times and perhaps you might get the point of it all.

I do believe I got your point. Your politiking around the AZ tragedy is fine and dandy and no one else's is.

And the gun wounded among us are the "real patriots". That alone should make you popular here in Cleveland.


I can't believe you do not get the point. What I have written has little to do with those who were shot in AZ. It has a lot to do with those in Congress and in the leftist media who are calling for gun right restrictions and trying to blame conservatives, Fox News and Palin for what happened there. They are the ones who have tried to make this tragic event a political issue.

All I am saying is too many soldiers have died for the freedoms we have had, from the Revolutionary War until now, to allow opportunistic "takers" erode those freedoms because of what has happened in Tucson.

Let Freedom Ring!!
 
Name one politican who has called for a new law restricting speech.

One.

I think you are confusing the immoral with the illegal.

Rep. Jim Clyburn:

Restricting Free Speech
The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'
Clyburn: Words can be danger | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment

Politicizing a tragedy.
Clyburn, the House assistant Democratic leader, said of Giffords' alleged assailant, Jared Lee Loughner: "It seems like this gentleman was not satisfied with the way the election came out. "There's no way you cannot make that connection (with Angle's rhetoric) unless you want to be stupid."
Read more: Clyburn: Incendiary political talk has come home to roost - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com

Clyburn's behavior is sick. We don't know the motives behind the shooting, and considering that Mr. Laughner frequents communist literature by his own admission he probably didn't kill a democratic congresswoman for "political reasons".
 
As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine has no restrictions on freedom of speech; it just requires stations to give opposing POVs air time.

I happen to agree with Clyburn; some pols have used bad judgment.

Calling him "sick" seems extreme to me, uptownlivin.....and you know I ♥ wuvs ♥ you.
 
Name one politican who has called for a new law restricting speech.

One.

I think you are confusing the immoral with the illegal.

Rep. Jim Clyburn:

Restricting Free Speech
The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'
Clyburn: Words can be danger | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment

Politicizing a tragedy.
Clyburn, the House assistant Democratic leader, said of Giffords' alleged assailant, Jared Lee Loughner: "It seems like this gentleman was not satisfied with the way the election came out. "There's no way you cannot make that connection (with Angle's rhetoric) unless you want to be stupid."
Read more: Clyburn: Incendiary political talk has come home to roost - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com

Clyburn's behavior is sick. We don't know the motives behind the shooting, and considering that Mr. Laughner frequents communist literature by his own admission he probably didn't kill a democratic congresswoman for "political reasons".

I agree it wasn't politically motivated, but disagree on the reasons why.

She wasn't a total party-voter, or an extreme liberal:

-she's a member of the blue dog coalition
-she voted against the automotive bailouts
-against gay marriage (although for civil unions)
-supports concealed carrying licenses for guns
-for increasing border security-agrees that Arizona should act if the federal government doesn't

If the shooter wanted to take out somebody for political reasons-he probably would have went for somebody's who more liberal.
 
As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine has no restrictions on freedom of speech; it just requires stations to give opposing POVs air time.

I happen to agree with Clyburn; some pols have used bad judgment.

Calling him "sick" seems extreme to me, uptownlivin.....and you know I ♥ wuvs ♥ you.


Pols using bad judgement or not, it has NOTHING to do with this case. Which is why that makes this statement sick. He's CLEARLY trying to exploit this tragedy and make it something that it is not, to pass a law and score political points.

It's a sick game these people play. Something happens (something totally random and isolated) to someone of great stature and importance that gets media attention and they scramble to try to make it look like they're doing something and don't care about the potential consequences of their actions.

It's crossing a line when we're talking about congress finding a solution to pols using "bad judgement" and "being careful about what we say". And no opposing point of views should not get equal airtime on private media stations. That's none of the government's business, and WE ALL KNOW in the scheme of things those POVs which the government want to protect are those which may be opposing but fall into their definition of "mainstream". If we're going to legislate "points of view" we're going to have one huge mess of various ideologies on our hands if we really want "fairness".
 
He's a congressman, uptownlivin. He may have identified with Giffords and be speaking from his heart -- who can tell?

As for the Fairness Doctrine, meh, I am not yearning for it. But it isn't an irrational idea, either.
 
Freedom in America is a bunch of bunk! The only people that are free are the extremely wealthy.

While it may be true that our government does not take away our freedom - and is the best protector of what little freedom we have, the economic system does take away our freedom:

In America freedom means:

Freedom of the wealthy to enslave
Freedom of the wealthy to thief
Freedom of the wealthy to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged.
Freedom of the wealthy to force conformity and obedience.
Freedom of the wealthy to punish non-conformists with destitution.

Working Americans are not free. There can be no freedom without economic equity.

Fear not the Government, fear the wealthy!
 
Freedom in America is a bunch of bunk! The only people that are free are the extremely wealthy.

While it may be true that our government does not take away our freedom - and is the best protector of what little freedom we have, the economic system does take away our freedom:

In America freedom means:

Freedom of the wealthy to enslave
Freedom of the wealthy to thief
Freedom of the wealthy to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged.
Freedom of the wealthy to force conformity and obedience.
Freedom of the wealthy to punish non-conformists with destitution.

Working Americans are not free. There can be no freedom without economic equity.

Fear not the Government, fear the wealthy!

WTF is "economic equity"?
 
Freedom in America is a bunch of bunk! The only people that are free are the extremely wealthy.

While it may be true that our government does not take away our freedom - and is the best protector of what little freedom we have, the economic system does take away our freedom:

In America freedom means:

Freedom of the wealthy to enslave
Freedom of the wealthy to thief
Freedom of the wealthy to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged.
Freedom of the wealthy to force conformity and obedience.
Freedom of the wealthy to punish non-conformists with destitution.

Working Americans are not free. There can be no freedom without economic equity.

Fear not the Government, fear the wealthy!

WTF is "economic equity"?

Let me introduce you to a web site:

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

eq·ui·ty [ek-wi-tee]

–noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: the equity of Solomon.
2. something that is fair and just.
 

Forum List

Back
Top