Freedom of what?

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Originally posted by Celerity+Jan 31 2005, 11:24 PM-->
@Jan 31 2005, 10:23 PM

Also, the whole Swift Boat Veterans fiasco was filled with blatant lies, where was that 'limits to freedom' then?

Freedom belongs to all who say the right things.
[post=454260]Quoted post[/post]​


I don't get where you're coming from in this one. I wont necessarily defend either side of the table, but I can tell you that 4 months and 3 purple hearts is a bit fishy.

[post=454298]Quoted post[/post]​



So does going AWOL for a piss test.
 
Originally posted by Blanco@Feb 1 2005, 01:38 AM

What about wanting to educate them so they don't just piss all over the freedoms that our Forefather's wanted to make sure we had?

The apathy displayed in this topic is exactly what's going to lead to the death of our beloved nation and the freedoms that our Forefathers died to ensure.
[post=454362]Quoted post[/post]​


I think the blatent abuse of the 1st admendment and the stauch defense of the abuse by folks like the ACLU is creating the apathy. The late 80's & the 90's were all about what was P.C. You had to say the right thing or you were branded a bigot, intolerant, ignorant, or a neo-con.

Common sense is finally creeping back in and taking a foothold. Like the Sunni's, those that have held serve for the last decade are grasping at straws to remain in control of what is right and how we should all think. Liberals will tell you they don't want anyone to be told what to think, say, or do all while telling anyone who happens to not be liberal what to think, say or do.

Like I said a long time ago, middle America is speaking up and pushing the very loud, very left, liberal agenda to the side. The last 3 elections are an indication of that. As is the fall of CNN's popularity to its competition.

my .02 based on not what I've been told to think but based on my own conclusions after considering what I've read, seen, & heard for the last 35 years.
 
Some people seem to be missing the main problem here...

These kids are going to be running the country one day. If they're thinking this way now, they may think the same way then. Heck, we'll be following China's form of rule in 40 years if these ways of thinking are brought into government.

It's not the fact that they don't understand their freedom now, it's the fact that they won't understand OUR freedom as a nation when they're in charge.
 
you must not have read my earlier post on the definition of "freedom". Read it. I think it answers your question.

apathetic?!! ME?!!!! Are you serious?!

Webster's:

Apathy (Ap"a*thy) - 1. an absence of emotion or enthusiasm 2. the trait of lacking enthusiasm for or interest in things generally

Have you read my posts on religeous/political topics?!!!

As for P.C. infringing on the 1st admendment, here are a few off the cuff examples:

If I want to refer to my black friend as, "my black friend" then let me. African-American is ONE example of the P.C. agenda branding those of us Anglo-Americans as bigots for refusing to use that derogatory term. Just because someone's skin is dark does NOT mean they're African. Sheesh

If I want to remain intolerant of religions that preach killing infidels is the way to Heaven, instead of painting me with an intolerant brush, let me. That's the one group of people that no Liberal will tolerate, the intolerant.

If I disagree with your views on morality, politics, religeon, or the Red Sox, it doesn't mean that I'm ignorant. Because I am from the South, the Bible Belt, Jesus Land or a red state, it doesn't mean that I am not as well educated as you are or that my opinion has less value than yours.

If I happen to have political views that are more conservative, okay, MUCH more conservative than you, I'm not automatically a neo-con. What I am is someone to make you defend the way you view the world you live in, someone to make you think about the ideas you espouse and the ideals you hold dear. It is not my goal that you become a conservative before your time but that you know why you are a liberal now.

I am guilty of pigeon-holeing liberals into the same box. most of you self-effacing liberals fit into that box well but it is still something that I am working on.
 
Originally posted by ahedau@Feb 1 2005, 11:35 PM
you must not have read my earlier post on the definition of "freedom". Read it. I think it answers your question.

apathetic?!! ME?!!!! Are you serious?!

Webster's:

Apathy (Ap"a*thy) - 1. an absence of emotion or enthusiasm 2. the trait of lacking enthusiasm for or interest in things generally

Have you read my posts on religeous/political topics?!!!

As for P.C. infringing on the 1st admendment, here are a few off the cuff examples:

If I want to refer to my black friend as, "my black friend" then let me. African-American is ONE example of the P.C. agenda branding those of us Anglo-Americans as bigots for refusing to use that derogatory term. Just because someone's skin is dark does NOT mean they're African. Sheesh

If I want to remain intolerant of religions that preach killing infidels is the way to Heaven, instead of painting me with an intolerant brush, let me. That's the one group of people that no Liberal will tolerate, the intolerant.

If I disagree with your views on morality, politics, religeon, or the Red Sox, it doesn't mean that I'm ignorant. Because I am from the South, the Bible Belt, Jesus Land or a red state, it doesn't mean that I am not as well educated as you are or that my opinion has less value than yours.

If I happen to have political views that are more conservative, okay, MUCH more conservative than you, I'm not automatically a neo-con. What I am is someone to make you defend the way you view the world you live in, someone to make you think about the ideas you espouse and the ideals you hold dear. It is not my goal that you become a conservative before your time but that you know why you are a liberal now.

I am guilty of pigeon-holeing liberals into the same box. most of you self-effacing liberals fit into that box well but it is still something that I am working on.
[post=454901]Quoted post[/post]​


I always welcome the chance to defend my views, and possibly to change them.

I am a liberal because I believe that everyone should have the freedom to live their lives to the fullest. I believe that you are entitled to live the lifestyle you choose and practice the religion of your choice.

I do not believe that a person or group of people have the right to press their views on others. For example, Christianity and homosexuality. You wanna be gay, go right ahead. You wanna be a Christian, more power to you. However do not think that because your lifestyle or religion says that one thing is wrong, that you have the right to make everyone live that way. You do NOT have the right to tear apart that gay couple or ban their marriage because YOUR religion says so.

Having an abortion is between you, the father of the child and the fact that you will live with your decision for the rest of time. I do not take a stance on abortion... why? Because I am a MALE. I have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, just like I cannot tell you not to practice your religion. If it is against your way of life, then don't get one. Do not make everyone conform to your beliefs.

I believe that "bomb first, ask questions later" is wrong. Agreed that you should open a can of whoopass when someone attacks you, but blowing someone up because they MIGHT be a threat of MIGHT have weapons is flat out wrong. Saddam had UN resolutions holding him down. They were working. There were no WMDs, no threat to the US. Reguardless of whether he was a tyrant or a dictator, that does not give us the right to "spread our way of life" to them. That right there IS a neocon belief. They believe that the roadmap to peace starts with bringing democracy to the middle east. If the people rose up and tried to kick Saddie's ass, then hell yeah bust loose and tear him apart. Just like *FRANCE* did when we needed help against the British.

I am a liberal because, well yes, I believe that pot should be legalized. Do you know what would happen if cigarette companies were to switch to making weed? What would happen if the government taxed 15 dollars on a quarter ounce of pot that cost 5 dollars to get to shelves?

What pot smoker wouldn't pay 20 dollars for a quarter ounce of good sinse?

That would be a massive flow of cash towards the government!!! Medical bud would help AIDS and cancer patients live a life that is a bit closer to normal. Regulate recreational weed like alcohol. 21 to buy, only sold in ABC (now the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Division) stores. You drive stoned, you get jailed.

Why not? Everybody wins!

I am a liberal because I thought the whole "freedom (insert french item here)" was stupid and insulting.

Wanna know something French that we believe in and look up to? The Statue of Liberty. Not only did the French help us gain OUR independance, they gave us the symbol of freedom in this country. And we repay them how?! By INSULTING them because they didn't wanna join us in a war!

If it wasn't for France, we would still be under Britain rule.

Just some of the reasons.
 
Wanna know something French that we believe in and look up to? The Statue of Liberty. Not only did the French help us gain OUR independance, they gave us the symbol of freedom in this country. And we repay them how?! By INSULTING them because they didn't wanna join us in a war!

If it wasn't for France, we would still be under Britain rule.


uuuggghhh!!!!

okay, okay.. France 1 (a very late and truely inconsequential 1, but..) America 4?

Tripoli, WWI, WWII, Vietnam.

Okay, Vietnam is a stretch but you get my point. I hope.

Thanks for being tolerant of my intolerance. It's refreshing.
 
Originally posted by Blanco@Feb 2 2005, 01:12 AM
the only thing should not be tolerated, contradictory as it is, is intolerance. Intolerance is fairly big in the Middle East, and we all know what a bad, nasty, place, with sharp, pointy, teeth, that is. You don't have to agree with or even like somebody else's point of view, but intolerance to it is not the correct answer.
[post=454971]Quoted post[/post]​



-100 points, zero for the rest of the year. go Directly to the pricipal's office for double speak & hypocracy.

"the only thing that should not be tolerated...is intolerance"

then

"You don't have to agree with or even like somebody else's point of view, but intolerance to it is not the correct answer"

sir, you have just "pwnt" yourself!
 
Originally posted by ahedau@Feb 2 2005, 12:32 AM
-100 points, zero for the rest of the year. go Directly to the pricipal's office for double speak & hypocracy.

"the only thing that should not be tolerated...is intolerance"

then

"You don't have to agree with or even like somebody else's point of view, but intolerance to it is not the correct answer"

sir, you have just "pwnt" yourself!
[post=454974]Quoted post[/post]​


I don't see how the two are contradictory... They basically say the same thing:

"the only thing that should not be tolerated...is intolerance"

Stating that intolerance is bad. It shouldn't be tolerated.

"You don't have to agree with or even like somebody else's point of view, but intolerance to it is not the correct answer"

Still stating that intolerance is bad. Intolerance is not the correct answer.
 
Stop swinging your "Hypocrite Stick" for a second and really read it. COMPREHEND. Yes, the words form sentences that are contradictory, but the message is quite simple to understand.

Intolerance is not a virtue. However, us "liberals" can't really tell you "conservatives" to stop being intolerant because then you wouldn't be conservatives anymore.

However. HOWEVER.

Conservative intolerance would not be such an issue if they weren't always trying to turn their beliefs into American Law. Sure, laws are in place to punish what we deem to be crimes based on general moral standpoints.

Senseless murder and violence is wrong! Oh, and let's ban gay marriage while we're at it!

It's just stupid. America is devolving into a theocracy, and I'm not comfortable with that at all.
 
Originally posted by ahedau@Feb 1 2005, 11:35 PM
you must not have read my earlier post on the definition of "freedom". Read it. I think it answers your question.

apathetic?!! ME?!!!! Are you serious?!

Webster's:

Apathy (Ap"a*thy) - 1. an absence of emotion or enthusiasm 2. the trait of lacking enthusiasm for or interest in things generally

Have you read my posts on religeous/political topics?!!!

As for P.C. infringing on the 1st admendment, here are a few off the cuff examples:

If I want to refer to my black friend as, "my black friend" then let me. African-American is ONE example of the P.C. agenda branding those of us Anglo-Americans as bigots for refusing to use that derogatory term. Just because someone's skin is dark does NOT mean they're African. Sheesh

If I want to remain intolerant of religions that preach killing infidels is the way to Heaven, instead of painting me with an intolerant brush, let me. That's the one group of people that no Liberal will tolerate, the intolerant.

If I disagree with your views on morality, politics, religeon, or the Red Sox, it doesn't mean that I'm ignorant. Because I am from the South, the Bible Belt, Jesus Land or a red state, it doesn't mean that I am not as well educated as you are or that my opinion has less value than yours.

If I happen to have political views that are more conservative, okay, MUCH more conservative than you, I'm not automatically a neo-con. What I am is someone to make you defend the way you view the world you live in, someone to make you think about the ideas you espouse and the ideals you hold dear. It is not my goal that you become a conservative before your time but that you know why you are a liberal now.

I am guilty of pigeon-holeing liberals into the same box. most of you self-effacing liberals fit into that box well but it is still something that I am working on.
[post=454901]Quoted post[/post]​


The thing about being "pc", is that you dont have to. In everyday conversation you as an individual are not penalized by the government for using racially derogotory terms. What the first amendment doesn't protect you from are the social retributions that you face for using terms that in our modern society we have deemed unpleasant.
 
Back
Top