Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?

[Immanuel]

Stay focused. We were discussing the US, not any foreign nation.

Putting the freedom we have in America in the context of the rest of the world and history is perfectly appropriate.

Freedom has been enjoyed by far more than Caucasoid Males.

So what you're saying is that we DO enjoy more freedom than other nations. But I thought all you guys were screaming that it's been taken away!! Is something being left out of this dialog? Maybe it's all the grokiness and wordplay.

Being taken away does not mean that it has all been taken away. We still have some of our freedoms, in fact, more than many other countries have, but that doesn't stop them from eliminating more of them as they can.

Politicians are slowly taking away our liberties. I doubt they will be satisfied until they have us neatly tucked under their belts and no one has the guts to stand up and say, "Congress is corrupt!" Until then, I suspect they will just keep snuffing one freedom after another out.

For the record, it is not just one of the two parties that is doing this. They both are.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Putting the freedom we have in America in the context of the rest of the world and history is perfectly appropriate.

Freedom has been enjoyed by far more than Caucasoid Males.

So what you're saying is that we DO enjoy more freedom than other nations. But I thought all you guys were screaming that it's been taken away!! Is something being left out of this dialog? Maybe it's all the grokiness and wordplay.

Everytime they pass legislation a freedom we had yesterday is not here today, Maggie.
I'm not a smoker, but it started in eating establishments, then the parks, then the beaches. Just one example.
Certain types of firearms have been prohibitied.
Recreational sluicing and panning for gold on federal lands (tax payers land)
Drilling ANWR.
These are easy examples, Maggie. I'm sure if I took the time to research, I could come up with a lot more.

I don't think any such laws are passed willy-nilly, just to be mean, or even to score political points. Certain laws are needed when the issue will have an effect on the greater majority of all Americans. I happen to agree that the smoking bans everywhere are ignorant (and unenforceable). Local laws have gone way overboard with it. But I do believe that laws are needed to assure our food and drugs are safe, that weapons are kept out of classrooms, AND that certain lands are off-limits to logging and other destruction which disrupts the eco structure. I also don't think any such laws seriously restrict the "freedoms" being discussed here. No one is yet beating down your door and arresting you for smoking; as long as you register your firearm, you can do whatever you want with it (with the, er, law); drilling in ANWR? That's a whole BIG issue and has little to do with loss of personal "freedoms."

You pan for gold?

 

[Meister]

So what you're saying is that we DO enjoy more freedom than other nations. But I thought all you guys were screaming that it's been taken away!! Is something being left out of this dialog? Maybe it's all the grokiness and wordplay.

Everytime they pass legislation a freedom we had yesterday is not here today, Maggie.
I'm not a smoker, but it started in eating establishments, then the parks, then the beaches. Just one example.
Certain types of firearms have been prohibitied.
Recreational sluicing and panning for gold on federal lands (tax payers land)
Drilling ANWR.
These are easy examples, Maggie. I'm sure if I took the time to research, I could come up with a lot more.

I don't think any such laws are passed willy-nilly, just to be mean, or even to score political points. Certain laws are needed when the issue will have an effect on the greater majority of all Americans. I happen to agree that the smoking bans everywhere are ignorant (and unenforceable). Local laws have gone way overboard with it. But I do believe that laws are needed to assure our food and drugs are safe, that weapons are kept out of classrooms, AND that certain lands are off-limits to logging and other destruction which disrupts the eco structure. I also don't think any such laws seriously restrict the "freedoms" being discussed here. No one is yet beating down your door and arresting you for smoking; as long as you register your firearm, you can do whatever you want with it (with the, er, law); drilling in ANWR? That's a whole BIG issue and has little to do with loss of personal "freedoms."

You pan for gold?

Yep

 

[The T]

Everytime they pass legislation a freedom we had yesterday is not here today, Maggie.
I'm not a smoker, but it started in eating establishments, then the parks, then the beaches. Just one example.
Certain types of firearms have been prohibitied.
Recreational sluicing and panning for gold on federal lands (tax payers land)
Drilling ANWR.
These are easy examples, Maggie. I'm sure if I took the time to research, I could come up with a lot more.

I don't think any such laws are passed willy-nilly, just to be mean, or even to score political points. Certain laws are needed when the issue will have an effect on the greater majority of all Americans. I happen to agree that the smoking bans everywhere are ignorant (and unenforceable). Local laws have gone way overboard with it. But I do believe that laws are needed to assure our food and drugs are safe, that weapons are kept out of classrooms, AND that certain lands are off-limits to logging and other destruction which disrupts the eco structure. I also don't think any such laws seriously restrict the "freedoms" being discussed here. No one is yet beating down your door and arresting you for smoking; as long as you register your firearm, you can do whatever you want with it (with the, er, law); drilling in ANWR? That's a whole BIG issue and has little to do with loss of personal "freedoms."

You pan for gold?

Yep

Lol! So does Big Gubmint...

 

[The T]

there is an inverse relationship between socialism and freedom. the more you have of one the less you have of the other.
I would do away with socialism in order to have more freedom.
Losers want more socialism and willingly trade their freedom and mine to get it.

And isn't this more the question? This is what they wish to do. Adn they want Mommy government to make it so at the point of LAW...at the point of a gun.

And by this response? You relegate yourself to the Intellectually LAZY.

Congrats. You didn't address the point at all.

 

[Immanuel]

So what you're saying is that we DO enjoy more freedom than other nations. But I thought all you guys were screaming that it's been taken away!! Is something being left out of this dialog? Maybe it's all the grokiness and wordplay.

Everytime they pass legislation a freedom we had yesterday is not here today, Maggie.
I'm not a smoker, but it started in eating establishments, then the parks, then the beaches. Just one example.
Certain types of firearms have been prohibitied.
Recreational sluicing and panning for gold on federal lands (tax payers land)
Drilling ANWR.
These are easy examples, Maggie. I'm sure if I took the time to research, I could come up with a lot more.

I don't think any such laws are passed willy-nilly, just to be mean, or even to score political points. Certain laws are needed when the issue will have an effect on the greater majority of all Americans. I happen to agree that the smoking bans everywhere are ignorant (and unenforceable). Local laws have gone way overboard with it. But I do believe that laws are needed to assure our food and drugs are safe, that weapons are kept out of classrooms, AND that certain lands are off-limits to logging and other destruction which disrupts the eco structure. I also don't think any such laws seriously restrict the "freedoms" being discussed here. No one is yet beating down your door and arresting you for smoking; as long as you register your firearm, you can do whatever you want with it (with the, er, law); drilling in ANWR? That's a whole BIG issue and has little to do with loss of personal "freedoms."

You pan for gold?

I'd agree with you. Not all laws are bad. Some are needed. HCR was needed albeit in a different form. We need to update our immigration laws among others. However, a law is naturally a restriction on freedoms.

I can't drive 150 mph down highway 75 in Tampa. That restricts my freedom to drive the speed I'd like to drive, but there is a damned good reason I can't do that... they're called snowbirds here in Florida.

Immie

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Putting the freedom we have in America in the context of the rest of the world and history is perfectly appropriate.

Freedom has been enjoyed by far more than Caucasoid Males.

So what you're saying is that we DO enjoy more freedom than other nations. But I thought all you guys were screaming that it's been taken away!! Is something being left out of this dialog? Maybe it's all the grokiness and wordplay.

Being taken away does not mean that it has all been taken away. We still have some of our freedoms, in fact, more than many other countries have, but that doesn't stop them from eliminating more of them as they can.

Politicians are slowly taking away our liberties. I doubt they will be satisfied until they have us neatly tucked under their belts and no one has the guts to stand up and say, "Congress is corrupt!" Until then, I suspect they will just keep snuffing one freedom after another out.

For the record, it is not just one of the two parties that is doing this. They both are.

Immie

Immie, there are tens of millions of Americans standing up everyday in this country stating in unambiguous terms that "CONGRESS IS CORRUPT"...

The problem is that CONGRESS DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK! Because Congress HAS THE POWER...

Which is of course, the Regressive result of tolerating the election of PROGRESSIVES; it's what they do.

 

[boedicca]

Well, that 'splains the Democrat Party, ACORN, Organizing for America, and Moveon.org.

Thanks!

 

[antagon]

Well, that 'splains the Democrat Party, ACORN, Organizing for America, and Moveon.org.

Thanks!

..the tea party...

 

[PixieStix]

So, you think the US is great because the rest of the world is worse????

I can see that Logic, and understanding of basic Human Nature isn't your strong suit.

Maybe that's because you're 'basic'. I've always strove to do better than basic and I've definitely never been one to succumb to basic human nature. If we did that, there would be no humans left. We've had to rise above our 'basic human nature' to keep from killing each other off.

How awesome another believer in big government solutions, yay!!!! Go gubmit, go

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0]YouTube - Tim Hawkins - The Government Can[/ame]

 

[Polk]

Could you imagine a generation of Seniors where say 80% of them did not need the government in retirement?

I can but the government can't.

Maybe they can and that is why they are so afraid of the idea?

Heck, if that happened, they couldn't control that voting block.

Immie

Why would they be afraid of something that can't happen?

 

[Polk]

Everytime they pass legislation a freedom we had yesterday is not here today, Maggie.
I'm not a smoker, but it started in eating establishments, then the parks, then the beaches. Just one example.

You don't have the right to violate other people's property.

Recreational sluicing and panning for gold on federal lands (tax payers land)
Drilling ANWR.

Neither of which belong to individuals. They're common property, and therefore it's the right of the commons to decide as to best use.

 

[uscitizen]

Mommy Sadan threatens me and is a bad man. Kill him!

different views of a mommy govt.

 

[csbarry]

Congressman Paul Ryan delivered this speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in Oklahoma City on March 31, 2010. It's pretty long but an excellent read.

RealClearPolitics - Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?

Over my dead body!

 

[Meister]

Everytime they pass legislation a freedom we had yesterday is not here today, Maggie.
I'm not a smoker, but it started in eating establishments, then the parks, then the beaches. Just one example.

You don't have the right to violate other people's property.

Recreational sluicing and panning for gold on federal lands (tax payers land)
Drilling ANWR.

Neither of which belong to individuals. They're common property, and therefore it's the right of the commons to decide as to best use.

Just who is talking about other peoples property, Polk?
Commons, as in big government, or the people? It was still a freedom we had up until few years ago. Federal land is the peoples land owned by the people, Polk. Spin it which ever way you want.

 

[Polk]

Everytime they pass legislation a freedom we had yesterday is not here today, Maggie.
I'm not a smoker, but it started in eating establishments, then the parks, then the beaches. Just one example.

You don't have the right to violate other people's property.

Recreational sluicing and panning for gold on federal lands (tax payers land)
Drilling ANWR.

Neither of which belong to individuals. They're common property, and therefore it's the right of the commons to decide as to best use.

Just who is talking about other peoples property, Polk?

You are. You think you should have the right to force me to inhale your smoke.

Commons, as in big government, or the people? It was still a freedom we had up until few years ago. Federal land is the peoples land owned by the people, Polk. Spin it which ever way you want.

There isn't a difference. In a democratic society, the government is simply the collective will of the people, making any attempt to draw a distinction between the two moot. Federal land is the peoples' land, but it's the land belong to all the people. It's not my land or your land as individuals.

 

[Meister]

You don't have the right to violate other people's property.



Neither of which belong to individuals. They're common property, and therefore it's the right of the commons to decide as to best use.

Just who is talking about other peoples property, Polk?

You are. You think you should have the right to force me to inhale your smoke.

Commons, as in big government, or the people? It was still a freedom we had up until few years ago. Federal land is the peoples land owned by the people, Polk. Spin it which ever way you want.

There isn't a difference. In a democratic society, the government is simply the collective will of the people, making any attempt to draw a distinction between the two moot. Federal land is the peoples' land, but it's the land belong to all the people. It's not my land or your land as individuals.

First, I don't smoke...got it? I was making comment that "our" freedoms are being lost everytime they pass legislation, Polk. Try and stay with me.....why just dwell on that one, why not the gun laws?
It IS "our" land, and as long as I'm not destroying "our" land I should be able to use it.
Just like I did a few years ago.

 

[boedicca]

[
There isn't a difference. In a democratic society, the government is simply the collective will of the people, making any attempt to draw a distinction between the two moot. Federal land is the peoples' land, but it's the land belong to all the people. It's not my land or your land as individuals.

Actually, the collective will of The People is a Mob.

In America, we have rule of law, which the government is charged to uphold, even if The Mob's mood wishes to violate it.

 

[antagon]

Just who is talking about other peoples property, Polk?

You are. You think you should have the right to force me to inhale your smoke.

Commons, as in big government, or the people? It was still a freedom we had up until few years ago. Federal land is the peoples land owned by the people, Polk. Spin it which ever way you want.

There isn't a difference. In a democratic society, the government is simply the collective will of the people, making any attempt to draw a distinction between the two moot. Federal land is the peoples' land, but it's the land belong to all the people. It's not my land or your land as individuals.

First, I don't smoke...got it? I was making comment that "our" freedoms are being lost everytime they pass legislation, Polk. Try and stay with me.....why just dwell on that one, why not the gun laws?
It IS "our" land, and as long as I'm not destroying "our" land I should be able to use it.
Just like I did a few years ago.

property is one of the main distinctions which debunks the we/taxpayers=government mentality. federal land belongs to the government. you cant use it without the government's permission. you cant do whatever you want there.

well, you can do whatever you want, but not with sam's blessing, leaving unc recourse to lock you up and dispossess you of your rights.

 

[Meister]

You are. You think you should have the right to force me to inhale your smoke.



There isn't a difference. In a democratic society, the government is simply the collective will of the people, making any attempt to draw a distinction between the two moot. Federal land is the peoples' land, but it's the land belong to all the people. It's not my land or your land as individuals.

First, I don't smoke...got it? I was making comment that "our" freedoms are being lost everytime they pass legislation, Polk. Try and stay with me.....why just dwell on that one, why not the gun laws?
It IS "our" land, and as long as I'm not destroying "our" land I should be able to use it.
Just like I did a few years ago.

property is one of the main distinctions which debunks the we/taxpayers=government mentality. federal land belongs to the government. you cant use it without the government's permission. you cant do whatever you want there.

well, you can do whatever you want, but not with sam's blessing, leaving unc recourse to lock you up and dispossess you of your rights.

Panning for gold was never an issue until they legislated it out.