What happened to our Freedom?

[clevergirl]

Progressive Liberals happened to our freedom...

 

[J.E.D]

You traded freedom for equality.

Equality IS freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

 

[PMZ]

Freedom for only some is slavery for all.

Our Constitution prohibits our government from legislating within certain specified areas of life. It is also very specific as to how those prohibitions are to be enforced. We have never deviated from what is prescribed.

We are exactly as free as we have always been.

Some want to deviate from our Constitution in order to create additional areas free from legislation that would allow them to impose what's best for them, on others.

The answer is no.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Come on. What s the OP's point?

We have lost no freedom. If you nutters understood how strongly liberals like me value freedom, you'd stop trying to claim the concept. If people like me have anything to say about it ( and we do ) you will not lose your freedom.

Stop it already!!!!!!!!

I'm going to say that you're wrong here. We HAVE lost freedom in a sense.

Our government was designed to receive it's power "From the PEOPLE to the government" - However, over the course of 50 or so years, we have turned it into "From the GOVERNMENT to the People". A very dangerous path to go down.

So, you are right, in that we haven't lost "freedom" quite yet. But we have set the stage that could result in bad things happening in the future.

 

[PaulS1950]

I own guns. You don't have to. It is my right to own, carry and protect myself with guns. It is your freedom not to. A legal gun owner is not a threat to you or anyone. You decide to restrict my right to own guns - the guns of my choice. That is an attack on my rights. You do not have the right to do that.

 

[LittleNipper]

You traded freedom for equality.

Equality IS freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

Freedom has little to do with equality. Take a "homosexual" couple. They may have the freedom to perform their acts on each other; however, their acts are not equal to those of a heterosexual couple. The one couple might produce a baby. One can be free to abstain from drug use and another free to take drugs----they not equally intelligent decissions.

 

[LittleNipper]

Which is why the missing link is still missing, or earlier discoveries have only later been revealed to be fabricated. So, according to Carl Sagan of Cosmos: to sum things up (paraphrase) ..... the earth began as a gaseous form that later became a world of molten rock, which later cooled with rains into the forming of our oceans. Out of these rock minerals and water, the molecules of life got its start. A theory that I don't recall science having the ability to accurately prove? It's simply a story playing into a set of events of what is "believed" to have taken place (first millions, then billions of years ago). If evolution is life "by mere chance" with only the evolving and reproductive duplication of humans, why is something so basic as "fingerprints" so unique in identifying each and every individual? Even the birth of multiples still manage to share a detailed uniqueness to their identity, through fingerprints. Uniqueness is not the primary focus of those who rather state we were all evolved simply by mere chance, as a "group" of creatures over the need to adapt in our environment. It's not scientific fact, FACTS are duplicated and proven (the earth being round, effects of gravity, the revolving of our planet around the sun, etc), this is scientific "theory" that has yet to be proven scientifically.

The details of how and why evolution occurs is still theory. Whether it occurs is FACT and is supported by rheems of fossile, geologic and DNA evidence

God has never been more than a theory. A theory unsupported by any scientific evidence

evolution occurs. i have no doubt about that. but i don't believe every living creature evolved from some single celled creature that generated in a swamp.

then again, there has never been any scientific evidence to prove god doesn't exist

Evolution may mean different things to different people. Can one organism change into another? No. After being exposed to a toxin, might the organisms left alive be resistant? Possibly, but that is only becaue they were resistant to begin with. If they died they wouldn't be resistant. Variation within a species is God's sign demonstrating that everything is unique, just as God is unique.

 

[rightwinger]

The basic freedom we have lost is the freedom to determine what is best for ourselves.

Right winger is found of the phrase "your rights end at my nose"

That's bullshit. If you put your nose somewhere you KNOW will lead to it getting hit, then you have exercised the ultimate right, the right to determine what you want to do with your nose!

True seekers of freedom understand this and don't shy away from it.

I posted a video earlier of the Foreman Frazier fight.

The seeker of freedom understand that the punches that landed did not abridge anyone rights, they fortified them. To control freaks, the sport should be outlawed because no one should be allowed the right to be hit if that's what they want

Rightwinger see's a bar that allows smoking as somehow violating his nose. What he misses is that by the government banning the act, he lost his right to determine, in his own mind what's best for him, while allowing others the same right.

Your right to force me to breathe in your filth does indeed end at my nose.

 

[rightwinger]

The details of how and why evolution occurs is still theory. Whether it occurs is FACT and is supported by rheems of fossile, geologic and DNA evidence

God has never been more than a theory. A theory unsupported by any scientific evidence

evolution occurs. i have no doubt about that. but i don't believe every living creature evolved from some single celled creature that generated in a swamp.

then again, there has never been any scientific evidence to prove god doesn't exist

Evolution may mean different things to different people. Can one organism change into another? No. After being exposed to a toxin, might the organisms left alive be resistant? Possibly, but that is only becaue they were resistant to begin with. If they died they wouldn't be resistant. Variation within a species is God's sign demonstrating that everything is unique, just as God is unique.

You have no scientific proof of Gods involvement in any of this

At best, you have a theory
An unsubstantiated theory

 

[Pop23]

The basic freedom we have lost is the freedom to determine what is best for ourselves.

Right winger is found of the phrase "your rights end at my nose"

That's bullshit. If you put your nose somewhere you KNOW will lead to it getting hit, then you have exercised the ultimate right, the right to determine what you want to do with your nose!

True seekers of freedom understand this and don't shy away from it.

I posted a video earlier of the Foreman Frazier fight.

The seeker of freedom understand that the punches that landed did not abridge anyone rights, they fortified them. To control freaks, the sport should be outlawed because no one should be allowed the right to be hit if that's what they want

Rightwinger see's a bar that allows smoking as somehow violating his nose. What he misses is that by the government banning the act, he lost his right to determine, in his own mind what's best for him, while allowing others the same right.

Your right to force me to breathe in your filth does indeed end at my nose.

When was the last time you were forced to enter a bar?

Huh?

Enlighten us.

 

[rightwinger]

You traded freedom for equality.

Equality IS freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

Freedom has little to do with equality. Take a "homosexual" couple. They may have the freedom to perform their acts on each other; however, their acts are not equal to those of a heterosexual couple. The one couple might produce a baby. One can be free to abstain from drug use and another free to take drugs----they not equally intelligent decissions.

You just demonstrated you have no concept of freedom

 

[rightwinger]

The basic freedom we have lost is the freedom to determine what is best for ourselves.

Right winger is found of the phrase "your rights end at my nose"

That's bullshit. If you put your nose somewhere you KNOW will lead to it getting hit, then you have exercised the ultimate right, the right to determine what you want to do with your nose!

True seekers of freedom understand this and don't shy away from it.

I posted a video earlier of the Foreman Frazier fight.

The seeker of freedom understand that the punches that landed did not abridge anyone rights, they fortified them. To control freaks, the sport should be outlawed because no one should be allowed the right to be hit if that's what they want

Rightwinger see's a bar that allows smoking as somehow violating his nose. What he misses is that by the government banning the act, he lost his right to determine, in his own mind what's best for him, while allowing others the same right.

Your right to force me to breathe in your filth does indeed end at my nose.

When was the last time you were forced to enter a bar?

Huh?

Enlighten us.

Courts have determined that a bar is a public thoroughfare and you have no right to foul it with your stench.

You have no right to force your disgusting habit on others

You lose

 

[Pop23]

Ohhhhh, so freedom has been lost

Thanks for proving the point

We have lost the right to determine what's best for ourselves

So both Forman and Frazier were guilty of assault

How about the little boy, minding his own business that gets hit in the head by the line drive at the Major league ball park

I believe the courts would find it just as public, would it not

Or do you find it acceptable to hit little kids in the head?

I think I just won, but go ahead and try again

Be so kind?

 

[rightwinger]

Ohhhhh, so freedom has been lost

Thanks for proving the point

We have lost the right to determine what's best for ourselves

So both Forman and Frazier were guilty of assault

How about the little boy, minding his own business that gets hit in the head by the line drive at the Major league ball park

I believe the courts would find it just as public, would it not

Or do you find it acceptable to hit little kids in the head?

I think I just won, but go ahead and try again

Be so kind?

WTF are you talking about?
Your ramblings are getting more bizarre

 

[Erand7899]

Equality IS freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

Freedom has little to do with equality. Take a "homosexual" couple. They may have the freedom to perform their acts on each other; however, their acts are not equal to those of a heterosexual couple. The one couple might produce a baby. One can be free to abstain from drug use and another free to take drugs----they not equally intelligent decissions.

You just demonstrated you have no concept of freedom

Before you reach that conclusion, you should be able to demonstrate that you have a valid concept of "equality". That is a word that has different meanings to just about every person. To some equality means an even share. To others, it means an earned share.

Then, we can debate what "earned" means, or how do we get to an even share.

To me, freedom means the unqualified right to do as I choose, as long as my choices do not impact the freedom of others. Restrictions, on that right to do as I choose, reduces my freedom, and should only be imposed when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.

 

[Pop23]

Ohhhhh, so freedom has been lost

Thanks for proving the point

We have lost the right to determine what's best for ourselves

So both Forman and Frazier were guilty of assault

How about the little boy, minding his own business that gets hit in the head by the line drive at the Major league ball park

I believe the courts would find it just as public, would it not

Or do you find it acceptable to hit little kids in the head?

I think I just won, but go ahead and try again

Be so kind?

WTF are you talking about?
Your ramblings are getting more bizarre

Why is it ok for a child to go to a public place where the possibility exists, and has happened, that he will be hit by a ball, but the same standard is not applied to a bar?

Tough to answer with a cliche?

Oh, and you have yet to answer when the last time that you were forced into a bar.

 

[rightwinger]

Ohhhhh, so freedom has been lost

Thanks for proving the point

We have lost the right to determine what's best for ourselves

So both Forman and Frazier were guilty of assault

How about the little boy, minding his own business that gets hit in the head by the line drive at the Major league ball park

I believe the courts would find it just as public, would it not

Or do you find it acceptable to hit little kids in the head?

I think I just won, but go ahead and try again

Be so kind?

WTF are you talking about?
Your ramblings are getting more bizarre

Why is it ok for a child to go to a public place where the possibility exists, and has happened, that he will be hit by a ball, but the same standard is not applied to a bar?

Tough to answer with a cliche?

Oh, and you have yet to answer when the last time that you were forced into a bar.

You really suck at analogies. For your analogy to be equivalent

Management at the ballpark would be permitting patrons to pelt my child with baseballs. That would be the equivalent of my entering a bar with patrons allowed to engulf me in their filth.

As a citizen, I have a right to enter any public business. Patrons of that business have no freedom to force me to inhale their filth

 

[Pop23]

WTF are you talking about?
Your ramblings are getting more bizarre

Why is it ok for a child to go to a public place where the possibility exists, and has happened, that he will be hit by a ball, but the same standard is not applied to a bar?

Tough to answer with a cliche?

Oh, and you have yet to answer when the last time that you were forced into a bar.

You really suck at analogies. For your analogy to be equivalent

Management at the ballpark would be permitting patrons to pelt my child with baseballs. That would be the equivalent of my entering a bar with patrons allowed to engulf me in their filth.

As a citizen, I have a right to enter any public business. Patrons of that business have no freedom to force me to inhale their filth

No, here's where your wrong again. The baseball management knows it will happen. Patrons are hit at nearly every game and that can be easily stopped, yet the government has failed to stop these acts from happening.

Forman vs Frazier. Both know they will be assaulted, and in a public place, yet the government allows it to happen. Most likely because ADULTS are allowed to decide what's best for them.

A bar, placing a sign on its front door, stating that smoking is allowed, allows the "patron" a decision as to if they want to go in or go somewhere else. The right for ADULTS to determine what's best for them has been lost, and THAT IS what this thread is about.

YOU PROVED THE OP RIGHT!

Oh, I don't advocate that ANY bar allow smoking, the owners choice, not mine.

Edited to add: a business owner can refuse entry to anyone at anytime.

When was the last time you were forced into a bar. This is at least the third time I've asked?

 

[rightwinger]

Why is it ok for a child to go to a public place where the possibility exists, and has happened, that he will be hit by a ball, but the same standard is not applied to a bar?

Tough to answer with a cliche?

Oh, and you have yet to answer when the last time that you were forced into a bar.

You really suck at analogies. For your analogy to be equivalent

Management at the ballpark would be permitting patrons to pelt my child with baseballs. That would be the equivalent of my entering a bar with patrons allowed to engulf me in their filth.

As a citizen, I have a right to enter any public business. Patrons of that business have no freedom to force me to inhale their filth

No, here's where your wrong again. The baseball management knows it will happen. Patrons are hit at nearly every game and that can be easily stopped, yet the government has failed to stop these acts from happening.

Forman vs Frazier. Both know they will be assaulted, and in a public place, yet the government allows it to happen. Most likely because ADULTS are allowed to decide what's best for them.

A bar, placing a sign on its front door, stating that smoking is allowed, allows the "patron" a decision as to if they want to go in or go somewhere else. The right for ADULTS to determine what's best for them has been lost, and THAT IS what this thread is about.

YOU PROVED THE OP RIGHT!

Oh, I don't advocate that ANY bar allow smoking, the owners choice, not mine.

Edited to add: a business owner can refuse entry to anyone at anytime.

When was the last time you were forced into a bar. This is at least the third time I've asked?

Let me salvage your straw man analogy

You are allowing your patrons to pelt small children with baseballs. You are forced to tell your patrons they are no longer allowed to do so. Your patrons complain about "their loss of freedom"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Freedom has little to do with equality. Take a "homosexual" couple. They may have the freedom to perform their acts on each other; however, their acts are not equal to those of a heterosexual couple. The one couple might produce a baby. One can be free to abstain from drug use and another free to take drugs----they not equally intelligent decissions.

You just demonstrated you have no concept of freedom

Before you reach that conclusion, you should be able to demonstrate that you have a valid concept of "equality". That is a word that has different meanings to just about every person. To some equality means an even share. To others, it means an earned share.

Then, we can debate what "earned" means, or how do we get to an even share.

To me, freedom means the unqualified right to do as I choose, as long as my choices do not impact the freedom of others. Restrictions, on that right to do as I choose, reduces my freedom, and should only be imposed when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.

But only one meaning under the law, the only relevant meaning.

Under the law ‘equality’ means a consistent application of public law and policy, regardless race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It means a particular class of persons cannot be singled-out by law to sustain a specific disadvantage unique to that class of persons.

It has nothing to do with ‘earning’ anything or ‘equal shares.’

You then contradict yourself in your last paragraph: if one has an ‘unqualified right’ to do as he wishes, then the state has no authority to place restrictions on a right even “when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.”

Therefore rights are not ‘unqualified,’ they are not absolute, and are indeed subject to restriction.

The question then becomes what restrictions are appropriate and legal. Laws banning smoking in public places are Constitutional, for example, because they’re applied to everyone equally – no particular class of persons is singled out. (No, smokers do not constitute a ‘class of persons.’) Laws banning smoking in public places are also legal as they are predicated on objective, documented evidence concerning the harmful effects of smoking to “society as a whole.”

One does have the right to do as he wishes, until such time as society – per the authority of government – determines such actions to be in conflict with the best interests of “society as a whole.” One can either accept a given restriction or seek relief on court if he believes the restriction violates his civil liberties, either as an individual or as a member of an adversely effected class of persons.