What happened to our Freedom?

[Immanuel]

WE the people have exactly the government we want/deserve.

Congressional stagnation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When we're $17T in debt and we send 90+% of the people responsible back to Washington every 2 years, at some point, you have to look in the mirror and blame yourself.

Yes, by that I mean you. You who is reading this. And I who is writing this.

There are things more important in our lives than governance, it's that simple. Should there be? No. Is there? Yes. Otherwise, incumbency would be in the mid to low teens--about where the approval rate for Congress is.

Care to discuss? No...there are more important things in your life I bet. See? Didn't think so.

You and I almost never agree on anything, but you hit the nail on the head with this post.

Too many people seem to vote for the incumbent and send him/her back to office regardless of the productivity of the incumbent.

Or do we? How do we even know that our votes are being tallied correctly? Who's to say that George Bush won either election or even that Obama won his elections and that the establishment (call it the good ole boy network) just didn't want them in office? Maybe Bush didn't even get 1 million votes against Kerry, but the GOBN didn't want Kerry there? We let them count the votes and TELL us who won, yet we can't trust those SOB's with a frigging Nickel of our money? WTF?

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

Show me a totally innocent American citizen -- not tied to terrorism or any radical groups -- who has had their phone calls listened in on under decree of the Patriot Act. You wouldn't be able to gather that information anymore than I would. And yet, we know that DHS are listening on the phone calls of American citizen.

Dismissing something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is fallacious reasoning. We already know there are laws which allows these sort of actions by our Federal Government.

You are dodging

Here is what you posted

. HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

I called you a liar.
Show me where anyone has been prosecuted for refusing to wear a wire to spy on their neighbors. If the sentence is mandatory. How many Americans are serving prison terms?

By what basis do you believe anyone has refused to do any of these things? And you assume a case incident where someone did refuse would automatically get some sort of media attention?

Again, fallacious reasoning.

On the basis of me calling you a liar

Show where this is currently a law or apologize to the nice people on this board

 

[AmazonTania]

You are dodging

Here is what you posted

. HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

I called you a liar.
Show me where anyone has been prosecuted for refusing to wear a wire to spy on their neighbors. If the sentence is mandatory. How many Americans are serving prison terms?

By what basis do you believe anyone has refused to do any of these things? And you assume a case incident where someone did refuse would automatically get some sort of media attention?

Again, fallacious reasoning.

On the basis of me calling you a liar

That doesn't make any sense. But call me whatever you want. That doesn't change much of anything.

Show where this is currently a law or apologize to the nice people on this board

Apologize for ruining your cognitive dissonance? That's not going to happen. All of the information I have given you is on that thread. You can look it all up if you are in doubt.

Or don't. You are the only who actually believes you have lost no freedom. Why ruin your world view by showing you there is no such thing as a utopia?

 

[rightwinger]

By what basis do you believe anyone has refused to do any of these things? And you assume a case incident where someone did refuse would automatically get some sort of media attention?

Again, fallacious reasoning.

On the basis of me calling you a liar

That doesn't make any sense. But call me whatever you want. That doesn't change much of anything.

Show where this is currently a law or apologize to the nice people on this board

Apologize for ruining your cognitive dissonance? That's not going to happen. All of the information I have given you is on that thread. You can look it all up if you are in doubt.

Or don't. You are the only who actually believes you have lost no freedom. Why ruin your world view by showing you there is no such thing as a utopia?

Sorry....you posted it
I called you on it
You are lying unless you can prove it

You can either admit to intentionally lying or admit you are too stupid to recognize libertarian propaganda

What you can't claim is the truth

 

[AmazonTania]

On the basis of me calling you a liar

That doesn't make any sense. But call me whatever you want. That doesn't change much of anything.

Show where this is currently a law or apologize to the nice people on this board

Apologize for ruining your cognitive dissonance? That's not going to happen. All of the information I have given you is on that thread. You can look it all up if you are in doubt.

Or don't. You are the only who actually believes you have lost no freedom. Why ruin your world view by showing you there is no such thing as a utopia?

Sorry....you posted it
I called you on it
You are lying unless you can prove it

That's not how it works. I suggest you take the time to learn your fallacies, as I will point out each one you make from now on.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can either admit to intentionally lying or admit you are too stupid to recognize libertarian propaganda

What you can't claim is the truth

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If that's what you want to believe. You can do the research just like I can. If you really would like to know, you can. But I have no interests of looking through thousands of pages of federal registrars just to one-up some other nobody on an internet forum.

 

[clevergirl]

No, they are not MOOT

A smoker has no rights to force his filth on to other people. As such, there is nothing to defend. A smoker choosing to spread his filth onto other people is indefensible

A business operates to the laws of the community. Putting up a sign does not exempt you from those laws. He cannot put up a sign that says "My building is a firetrap, but the beer is cheap, You decide whether you want to enter" and expect to be exempt from any responsibility

A business is responsible for its own actions and those that it allows on the premise.

A smoker is doing nothing illegal. Allowing your private business to be a "smoke free", or a "smokers allowed" establishment ought to be the right of the private owner.

A business operates within the civil codes and local state and federal statutes. Just because laws were passed banning smoking (a lawful activity) in public places is not equal to being a good law or even a constitutional law.

Your analogy contradicts your other failed points..there are specific laws about fire hazards.

Drinking is a legal activity. Yet there are restrictions on a business for who, when and how much someone is allowed to drink. Same applies to smoking

There are specific laws on fire hazards because it is in the public interest. Same applies to smoking

Drinking has limitations because it alters your ability to function safely- That is not equal to tobacco use- failed analogy.

Fires that happen due to poor wiring or other structural inadequacies cause unexpected harm to public safety- that is why their are fire codes. Everyone knows what tobacco use can do. It is a persons choice to smoke- be around smokers or not- failed analogy.

 

[Avatar4321]

We outsourced our responsibilities to the government and by doing so lost our ability to control our destiny as a people.

 

[candycorn]

WE the people have exactly the government we want/deserve.

Congressional stagnation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When we're $17T in debt and we send 90+% of the people responsible back to Washington every 2 years, at some point, you have to look in the mirror and blame yourself.

Yes, by that I mean you. You who is reading this. And I who is writing this.

There are things more important in our lives than governance, it's that simple. Should there be? No. Is there? Yes. Otherwise, incumbency would be in the mid to low teens--about where the approval rate for Congress is.

Care to discuss? No...there are more important things in your life I bet. See? Didn't think so.

You and I almost never agree on anything, but you hit the nail on the head with this post.

Too many people seem to vote for the incumbent and send him/her back to office regardless of the productivity of the incumbent.

Or do we? How do we even know that our votes are being tallied correctly? Who's to say that George Bush won either election or even that Obama won his elections and that the establishment (call it the good ole boy network) just didn't want them in office? Maybe Bush didn't even get 1 million votes against Kerry, but the GOBN didn't want Kerry there? We let them count the votes and TELL us who won, yet we can't trust those SOB's with a frigging Nickel of our money? WTF?

Immie

Highly improbable that it could be pulled off off once much less multiple times

 

[rightwinger]

A smoker is doing nothing illegal. Allowing your private business to be a "smoke free", or a "smokers allowed" establishment ought to be the right of the private owner.

A business operates within the civil codes and local state and federal statutes. Just because laws were passed banning smoking (a lawful activity) in public places is not equal to being a good law or even a constitutional law.

Your analogy contradicts your other failed points..there are specific laws about fire hazards.

Drinking is a legal activity. Yet there are restrictions on a business for who, when and how much someone is allowed to drink. Same applies to smoking

There are specific laws on fire hazards because it is in the public interest. Same applies to smoking

Drinking has limitations because it alters your ability to function safely- That is not equal to tobacco use- failed analogy.

Fires that happen due to poor wiring or other structural inadequacies cause unexpected harm to public safety- that is why their are fire codes. Everyone knows what tobacco use can do. It is a persons choice to smoke- be around smokers or not- failed analogy.

Actually, second hand smoke has been found to cause cancer which was the key finding that led to banning smoking in public places

Your filthy habit is no justification for creating an unhealthy environment and driving others away. Smoking harms public safety and has been shown to cause more than its fair share of fires

 

[Mr Natural]

Tuning in late here but in reading through this thread, it would appear that the only freedom we've lost is the freedom of smoking in public places.

Let me know when they've opened the gulags and fired up the ovens and maybe I'll get concerned.

 

[candycorn]

Tuning in late here but in reading through this thread, it would appear that the only freedom we've lost is the freedom of smoking in public places.

Let me know when they've opened the gulags and fired up the ovens and maybe I'll get concerned.

Well apparently we've also lost the right to spray DDT on our plants, drive like a maniac on public roadways, build a 700 foot skyscrper in the flight path of a landing plane, and a whole bunch of other stuff that, if it were legal to do so, people would do tomorrow.

 

[pinqy]

Executive Order #10999 allowing the government to take over all modes of transportation

Enacted by President Kennedy in 1962, revoked by President Nixon in E.O 11490 (1969), which was revoked by President Reagan in E.O 12656 (1988). And the Order itself states it has no authority to be implemented except through law.

Government has the power to seize all financial assets if they deem it an emergency. Under Executive Order #11921 the President can declare a state of emergency that is undefined and cannot be reviewed for 6 months.

11921 is just an ammendment to 11490 which was revoked and replaced by 12656. And neither grants the authority for the President to simply declare an emergency. 12656 specifically says otherwise: "This Order does not constitute authority to implement the plans prepared pursuant to this Order. Plans so developed may be executed only in the event that authority for such execution is authorized by law."
And several situations are specifically included. (Note, 12656 is not the most recent either)

Senate Bill #1873 allowing government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will.

You seem to be referring to The Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005 which only grants immunity to drug manufacturers for any product used in defense against bio-warfare or a pandemic. Nothing about untested vaccines or forced vaccinations.

HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.p

Which H.R. 1528 do you mean? I only went back 4 years, but that gave me:
The Export Freedom to Cuba Act of 2009 which died in committee.
The Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 which died in committee.
and The Veternary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013 Which one of those forces Americans to spy on their neighbors? Perhaps you could link to the actual law that was passed.



Research is your friend. Blind acceptance of what other people tell you is not.

 

[Pop23]

Drinking is a legal activity. Yet there are restrictions on a business for who, when and how much someone is allowed to drink. Same applies to smoking

There are specific laws on fire hazards because it is in the public interest. Same applies to smoking

Drinking has limitations because it alters your ability to function safely- That is not equal to tobacco use- failed analogy.

Fires that happen due to poor wiring or other structural inadequacies cause unexpected harm to public safety- that is why their are fire codes. Everyone knows what tobacco use can do. It is a persons choice to smoke- be around smokers or not- failed analogy.

Actually, second hand smoke has been found to cause cancer which was the key finding that led to banning smoking in public places

Your filthy habit is no justification for creating an unhealthy environment and driving others away. Smoking harms public safety and has been shown to cause more than its fair share of fires

Alcohol has been shown to cause cancer, death, leads to unprotected sex and a multitude of other social ills, yet we allow its public consumption.

A punch to the head during a boxing match has led to brain damage and death, yet the principle of assumed risk applies to both.

When were you forced into a bar? It's the only way POSSIBLE that you were forced to inhale "my filthy habit" in a bar.

Oh, we get it, you don't like it so it should be banned.

Nope, we haven't lost any freedoms?

 

[Avatar4321]

Tuning in late here but in reading through this thread, it would appear that the only freedom we've lost is the freedom of smoking in public places.

Let me know when they've opened the gulags and fired up the ovens and maybe I'll get concerned.

When they do that, it's too late.

 

[Pop23]

Tuning in late here but in reading through this thread, it would appear that the only freedom we've lost is the freedom of smoking in public places.

Let me know when they've opened the gulags and fired up the ovens and maybe I'll get concerned.

Well apparently we've also lost the right to spray DDT on our plants, drive like a maniac on public roadways, build a 700 foot skyscrper in the flight path of a landing plane, and a whole bunch of other stuff that, if it were legal to do so, people would do tomorrow.

DDT - millions of children have died because of that wise decision

Driving: nothing stops me from driving like a maniac in certain PRIVATE places of business - please understand the argument

Building a building in a flight path is a huge stretch. Desperate?

The argument is that ADULTS are starting to lose the right to determine which legal product the can use, and if you own a business, what legal product your customer can use.

Incredible that any ADULT does not find that offensive.

The principle that ADULTS are allowed to determine what's best for them is under attack, and the attack has been an incredible success.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have to submit and be a subject too lose your freedom. Regardless of the new laws that come out.

 

[candycorn]

Tuning in late here but in reading through this thread, it would appear that the only freedom we've lost is the freedom of smoking in public places.

Let me know when they've opened the gulags and fired up the ovens and maybe I'll get concerned.

Well apparently we've also lost the right to spray DDT on our plants, drive like a maniac on public roadways, build a 700 foot skyscrper in the flight path of a landing plane, and a whole bunch of other stuff that, if it were legal to do so, people would do tomorrow.

DDT - millions of children have died because of that wise decision

Driving: nothing stops me from driving like a maniac in certain PRIVATE places of business - please understand the argument

Building a building in a flight path is a huge stretch. Desperate?

The argument is that ADULTS are starting to lose the right to determine which legal product the can use, and if you own a business, what legal product your customer can use.

Incredible that any ADULT does not find that offensive.

The principle that ADULTS are allowed to determine what's best for them is under attack, and the attack has been an incredible success.

Incredible that you find life here so debilitating. I think, for you, it's a personal problem.

 

[candycorn]

Executive Order #10999 allowing the government to take over all modes of transportation

Enacted by President Kennedy in 1962, revoked by President Nixon in E.O 11490 (1969), which was revoked by President Reagan in E.O 12656 (1988). And the Order itself states it has no authority to be implemented except through law.

Government has the power to seize all financial assets if they deem it an emergency. Under Executive Order #11921 the President can declare a state of emergency that is undefined and cannot be reviewed for 6 months.

11921 is just an ammendment to 11490 which was revoked and replaced by 12656. And neither grants the authority for the President to simply declare an emergency. 12656 specifically says otherwise: "This Order does not constitute authority to implement the plans prepared pursuant to this Order. Plans so developed may be executed only in the event that authority for such execution is authorized by law."
And several situations are specifically included. (Note, 12656 is not the most recent either)

Senate Bill #1873 allowing government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will.

You seem to be referring to The Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005 which only grants immunity to drug manufacturers for any product used in defense against bio-warfare or a pandemic. Nothing about untested vaccines or forced vaccinations.

HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.p

Which H.R. 1528 do you mean? I only went back 4 years, but that gave me:
The Export Freedom to Cuba Act of 2009 which died in committee.
The Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 which died in committee.
and The Veternary Medicine Mobility Act of 2013 Which one of those forces Americans to spy on their neighbors? Perhaps you could link to the actual law that was passed.



Research is your friend. Blind acceptance of what other people tell you is not.

Only one word describes what you did just now:

Surgical​

 

[Pop23]

Well apparently we've also lost the right to spray DDT on our plants, drive like a maniac on public roadways, build a 700 foot skyscrper in the flight path of a landing plane, and a whole bunch of other stuff that, if it were legal to do so, people would do tomorrow.

DDT - millions of children have died because of that wise decision

Driving: nothing stops me from driving like a maniac in certain PRIVATE places of business - please understand the argument

Building a building in a flight path is a huge stretch. Desperate?

The argument is that ADULTS are starting to lose the right to determine which legal product the can use, and if you own a business, what legal product your customer can use.

Incredible that any ADULT does not find that offensive.

The principle that ADULTS are allowed to determine what's best for them is under attack, and the attack has been an incredible success.

Incredible that you find life here so debilitating. I think, for you, it's a personal problem.

Another adult that fears making his own decisions

 

[LittleNipper]

You traded freedom for equality.

Equality IS freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

True equality does not exist except for the fact we all are in equal need of the SAVIOR --- Christ Jesus. We all have sinned and come short of God's glory.

But if you are telling me that everyone can paint, draw, act, perform, direct, assemble, clean, style, rationalize, imagine, dream, shoot hoops, teach, parent children, etc., equally well ----- you are entirely wrong.