The true meaning of freedom

[Moonglow]

You have freedom you just can't tell because you've had it so long it is unrecognizable.

It might be because the freedom I was promised was not the freedom I received.

That is why my freedom is unrecognizable.

I see, did you get married? I have always taken my freedom and challenged folks to take it from me, that includes my wives and parents and as far as bosses them also..

 

[TemplarKormac]

America takes freedom for granted. Thats why over 120M of them vote consistently to have them removed. Dem and Rep voters.

Plus we have no other choices.

There's always a choice. Thinking independently and freely despite the two predominant political viewpoints is a choice that can easily be made if properly encouraged.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have freedom you just can't tell because you've had it so long it is unrecognizable.

It might be because the freedom I was promised was not the freedom I received.

That is why my freedom is unrecognizable.

I see, did you get married? I have always taken my freedom and challenged folks to take it from me.

Nope. Freedom, remember?

 

[Moonglow]

You have freedom you just can't tell because you've had it so long it is unrecognizable.

It might be because the freedom I was promised was not the freedom I received.

That is why my freedom is unrecognizable.

I see, did you get married? I have always taken my freedom and challenged folks to take it from me.

Nope. Freedom, remember?

Yes indeed.

 

[gipper]

America takes freedom for granted. Thats why over 120M of them vote consistently to have them removed. Dem and Rep voters.

Plus we have no other choices.

There's always a choice. Thinking independently and freely despite the two predominant political viewpoints is a choice that can easily be made if properly encouraged.

This explains it…

Freedom Is Not Free (That's Why You Don't Have Any)

Freedom is not free, the saying goes, because military personnel are out there laying their lives on the line fighting for your right to do as you're told and toil away at a meaningless job making some rich asshole even richer.

Freedom is not free, because we're all just so much freer after murdering families on the other side of the planet for corporate profits and geostrategic domination.

Freedom is not free, because we're all so much freer after teenagers get thrown into the gears of the imperial war machine to provide a good quarterly statement for Raytheon shareholders.

Freedom is not free, because this thing we're calling "freedom" has been paid for with the blood, lives and limbs of millions of innocents throughout the Global South.

Freedom is not free. That's why the only people doing as they please in our world are wealthy oligarchs.

Freedom is not free. And unless you're wealthy enough or psychopathic enough there's no way you'll ever find a way to pay the price.

Freedom is not free. That's why you don't have any.
Freedom Is Not Free (That's Why You Don't Have Any)

 

[bendog]

Maybe you missed the point of the NYT. "Freedom" is a antigovt slogan in Cuba. While the very left and Trump folks differ on language, both claim to be about freedom. It's pretty universally liked here.

Is it? Then why aren't both sides standing up for the basic concept against the government's aggression against it? The ones that do have no impact.

What do we do to get the point across?

How do we convince the partisans on both sides that their idea of freedom is flawed, that there exists a balance of freedoms that no one can take away from us?

I took awhile to think about your question because imo it is a good question, and I wanted to question my own thoughts before responding. I've been pondering the last two Sup Ct cases that handed down in the term that just ended. Both were 6-3
The Revenge of John Roberts

In the first, the Court said it's unconstitutional for the voting rights act to say discrimination happens when a new state law results in fewer minorities voting. Instead, the minorities have to show the law's actual intent is to cut out minorities. In the second, the Court said California can't require large political donations to disclose who is donating.

Dems would probably say the in the first case the Court took away the equal protection 14th amendment rights of minority people to vote, and and in the second, California had the power to regulate their elections. Republicans would probably say in the first case states have the power to regulate their elections and in the second the First Amendment prohibited Calif from infringing upon large donors.

I am troubled because I don't see the Roberts Court as being less activist than, for example, the Miranda v. Arizona Court. But maybe that's just the way it is. Maybe the "balance of freedoms" tilts one way and then the other. But there is a right to vote under the 14th Amend, and there is a First Amendment, and States do have power to run their own elections.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe you missed the point of the NYT. "Freedom" is a antigovt slogan in Cuba. While the very left and Trump folks differ on language, both claim to be about freedom. It's pretty universally liked here.

Is it? Then why aren't both sides standing up for the basic concept against the government's aggression against it? The ones that do have no impact.

What do we do to get the point across?

How do we convince the partisans on both sides that their idea of freedom is flawed, that there exists a balance of freedoms that no one can take away from us?

I took awhile to think about your question because imo it is a good question, and I wanted to question my own thoughts before responding. I've been pondering the last two Sup Ct cases that handed down in the term that just ended. Both were 6-3
The Revenge of John Roberts

In the first, the Court said it's unconstitutional for the voting rights act to say discrimination happens when a new state law results in fewer minorities voting. Instead, the minorities have to show the law's actual intent is to cut out minorities. In the second, the Court said California can't require large political donations to disclose who is donating.

Dems would probably say the in the first case the Court took away the equal protection 14th amendment rights of minority people to vote, and and in the second, California had the power to regulate their elections. Republicans would probably say in the first case states have the power to regulate their elections and in the second the First Amendment prohibited Calif from infringing upon large donors.

I am troubled because I don't see the Roberts Court as being less activist than, for example, the Miranda v. Arizona Court. But maybe that's just the way it is. Maybe the "balance of freedoms" tilts one way and then the other. But there is a right to vote under the 14th Amend, and there is a First Amendment, and States do have power to run their own elections.

That was a well-thought-out response, Ben. Thank you for that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Billyboom

Okay, let's hear why you disagree. Disagreement without an explanation is simply aimless. Come on now, I know you can do it.

 

[bendog]

btw, I didn't post that personally I have some difficulty with the California case where the Sup Ct said the state couldn't require large donors to identify themselves.

Ironically the Court mentioned a 1950s case where the NCAAP didn't have to disclose donors because of fear they'd be retaliated against. But it seems to me that in the end anyone helping the NCAAP against segregation would become popular. And having you yard sign stolen or crap on your lawn are sometimes results of supporting somebody others don't like. It's a long tradition. Being rich shouldn't give you extra First Amend rights. That was what the critics of Citizens United said. Imo they are proven right.

But maybe that's why McConnell made sure Obama only got to nominate two in 8 years, and Trump 3 in four years. And the worm will eventually turn, imo, on citizens united.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Being rich shouldn't give you extra First Amend rights.

Now this one is a conundrum for me.

Spending money on candidates you support or policies you want enacted seems like a form of free expression to me. Not extra First Amendment rights.

 

[bendog]

Being rich shouldn't give you extra First Amend rights.

Now this one is a conundrum for me.

Spending money on candidates you support or policies you want enacted seems like a form of free expression to me. Not extra First Amendment rights.

I meant it only that if one expresses his/her right to support a candidate or issue, it can make people mad. And they may trash your property. Rich folks should face consequences too. They might actually face harsher reactions in terms of economic boycotts or protests. But they give more money.

 

[Hellbilly]

Billyboom

Okay, let's hear why you disagree. Disagreement without an explanation is simply aimless. Come on now, I know you can do it.

1. Your condescending tone. You can take it and shove it up your ass.
2. This thread is pointless because we do not live in a nation where we are all free.
3. You don’t get to dictate what freedom means.

 

[bendog]

Billyboom

Okay, let's hear why you disagree. Disagreement without an explanation is simply aimless. Come on now, I know you can do it.

1. Your condescending tone. You can take it and shove it up your ass.
2. This thread is pointless because we do not live in a nation where we are all free.
3. You don’t get to dictate what freedom means.

I dont' think TK was dictating what freedom means, and I'm not sure what you mean that all are not free in the US

 

[TemplarKormac]

Billyboom

Okay, let's hear why you disagree. Disagreement without an explanation is simply aimless. Come on now, I know you can do it.

1. Your condescending tone. You can take it and shove it up your ass.
2. This thread is pointless because we do not live in a nation where we are all free.
3. You don’t get to dictate what freedom means.

1. I was encouraging you to give an opinion, not patronizing you.
2. You don't get to dictate what threads are and aren't pointless.
3. I am defining freedom by the freedoms I see people demanding, freedoms people are risking their lives for; I am not dictating anything.
4. Your hostility is uncalled for.

 

[TemplarKormac]

2. This thread is pointless because we do not live in a nation where we are all free.

Are you arguing that freedom is illusory?

Or are you arguing that freedoms should be restricted based on a personal worldview you hold?

 

[Ringo]

"Real freedom exists only where exploitation is destroyed, where there is no oppression of some people by others, where there is no unemployment and beggary, where a person does not tremble for the fact that tomorrow he may lose his job, housing, bread"
Joseph Stalin

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyone who advocates for modern liberalism has no concept of what freedom is or means.

Just look at the people of Cuba right now and try to tell me you have the same concept of freedom as these people do.

If you advocate for anything they are marching against, you advocate tyranny and repression, not freedom.

Modern liberals are fools. They will remain fools until they grasp this concept.

You're the one with no concept of modern liberalism. You keep asking liberals to explain themselves. Who the **** do you think you are? Explain YOURSELF.

Explain how you can support right wing policies that have lead to the wage and wealth inequity you have in the USA today.

Explain why you continue to support the idea that working Americans should be keep poor and desperate so that they will work for any paltry amount of money the elites deem fit to give them, while the wealthiest Americans receive 80% of the national wealth.

If YOU are in favour of any of the policies of the current Republican Party, YOU are in favour of white nationalist authoritarianism. Explain YOURSELF.

 

[Crepitus]

Anyone who advocates for modern liberalism has no concept of what freedom is or means.

Just look at the people of Cuba right now and try to tell me you have the same concept of freedom as these people do.

If you advocate for anything they are marching against, you advocate tyranny and repression, not freedom.

Modern liberals are fools. They will remain fools until they grasp this concept.

So what is the true meaning of freedom, Son? The freedom not to wear a mask or get vaccinated so you can infect your neighbors? The freedom to have a rifle that will shoot through you home long ways for "home defense"? The freedom to run down constitutionally protected protestors?
Just what does "real freedom" Mean to you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're the one with no concept of modern liberalism. You keep asking liberals to explain themselves. Who the **** do you think you are? Explain YOURSELF.

I have been a member of this board since 2013. If you haven't taken the time to read my posts in that time period, that's on you.

I think I am well within my rights to strike as many of your chords as I possibly can. I can hear them ringing loudly from here already.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Explain how you can support right wing policies that have lead to the wage and wealth inequity you have in the USA today.

Might I ask what policies those are? You shouldn't be vague.