• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the U.S. still "the land of the free"?

Is the U.S. still "the land of the free"?

  • Yes, no doubt

    Votes: 19 35.8%

  • Kind of

    Votes: 16 30.2%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Not really

    Votes: 12 22.6%

  • No, not at all

    Votes: 5 9.4%

  • I don't care

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Total voters
    53
So then you support safety and only freedom when you wish to give it out? That is what I thought.

I don't know why people that believe in safety talk of freedom, but do as you will.
Click to expand...

No I support freedom but when someone has demonstrated that they are not willing/able to respect other peoples freedom then they do not deserve the same amount of freedom as others.

So you would defend the right of a pedophile with multiple convictions to run a daycare or be a grade 1 teacher?
That isn't defending freedom that is insanity
 
AreteCourage said:
Relative to most countries we are very free. However, compare it to our own history we have lost quite a bit of freedom. I went with the "kind of" because we are for the most part free. However, go to the airport and see how free you are with the TSA. Go to Middleborugh, Massachusetts and drop an "F" bomb. (You'll get fined $20)

Try to hold a protest around the president. Tell the people of Flint, Michigan they have a voice in their local government. (They do not because of Michigan's law of 'emergency managers' that can come in and take over a city indefinitely)

At the same time...we can travel throughout the country at will. We have a voluntary military. We enjoy basic freedoms.
Click to expand...

I do not think that it is absolutely true that we have "lost" any freedoms...Man does not behave and deserves to "lose" freedoms. And its more than the criminal element - its those without respect for others, those who are insensitive.
The TSA thing...this can be handled much better....we can learn from the Isrealis....so our attitude, our obtrusiveness cost us some freedoms..
As to Flint, Michigan...I think this mess was caused by our refusal to keep pace with the world...the attitude thing again.
It is so very true that freedom has its responsibilities..
A primary responsibility is "telling the truth"...here we fall flat on our faces !
The "F" bomb must be swearing in public.....
Try that in the 1600s and you will be tortured...another one of man's problems ...he overreacts..
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. Still better than most, not as good as we used to be. The shining city on the hill has lost its sparkle.
Click to expand...
IMO, NO!
It does not have to be this way....
Unless we can continually upgrade our level of tolerance, we must lose "freedom" as our population explodes...."freedom" takes up space...
We must learn to tolerate....to love our fellow man as taught by Jesus, otherwise the freedoms will be lost...forever.
 
Navy Pride said:
Wow I am shocked 10 people say not really.......It is obvious that they have not seen a lot of countries and the restrictions on freedom there they might change their mind.
Click to expand...

Realizing you don't answer my posts, I'll post this for others to consider:

Tell us about freedom to have an abortion compared to other countries. Tell us about gay and lesbian rights and recognition in other countries. Tell about the ability of women to become the leader or president in other countries. How about little girls selling lemonade without getting busted by the cops in other countries? Tell us about the freedom to easily enter other countries on passports and visas. Tell us why more people in America are in prison that many other countries combined.
 
So - if I follow you:

lpast said:
Thats why I said...freedom is a perception...if you believe your free you are...Americans will never be happy...the only time they will say they are free if you give them whatever they want....and thats not going to happen...america is the freest of the free...and americans complain the most they arent free
Click to expand...

Freedom is perception.

If we think we're free: we'll be free (because it's perception - and not a fact of a reality)

lpast said:
I whine...I admit it....I whine about public workers getting shafted and I whine about working americans being SCREWED by the rich...and I truly believe that is exactly whats going on...so we can have a mutual whine fest over that subject...lol
Click to expand...

So - if you think you're being screwed by the rich - it's like a self fulfilling prophecy: you will be screwed by the rich. Since it's all perception: all you have to do is look at it another way - and suddenly you're not being screwed by the rich.
 
I think we do a better job of balancing freedom and security than many other countries... but i don't think we fall on the "free" end of that scale.

I live part time in Colombia... a 2nd world country at best... and ,personally, I feel far far more free down there than I do here..... the sheer amount of rules,regulations, and laws we must abide by here isn't realized until you you are faced with a society that doesn't have them.
 
Similarily I have no problems with restrictions to keep a pedophile from being around children.
Yes the pedophiles freedoms are being curtailed but they have shown a propensity to take away others rights.To the above you answered:
Henrin said:
So you are willing take freedom from people because of risk? Isn't that the whole safety over liberty argument?
They have already been punished for that, have they not? Since no other actions have happened there is no warrant by the state to act further.
Click to expand...
What you are forgetting is that a pedophile caught when you say our freedoms were greater would be zero risk to children in the future. (To be clear I guess I have to add: The pedophile would be dead. That is unless he was the leader of a group.)
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
No I support freedom but when someone has demonstrated that they are not willing/able to respect other peoples freedom then they do not deserve the same amount of freedom as others. So you would defend the right of a pedophile with multiple convictions to run a daycare or be a grade 1 teacher? That isn't defending freedom that is insanity
Click to expand...

This is a completely different issue. If a person violates someone else’s rights, they risk losing theirs.

In the case of a pedophile, I subscribe to the notion that some people are born defective, and once they prove to the world they are defective in a form that is particularly harmful to those around them, they forever risk a loss of life and liberties.

I would personally advocate the complete removal of them from society permanently, via execution. Others in society might show a little more compassion unfortunately.
 
This is a completely different issue. If a person violates someone else’s rights, they risk losing theirs.
Click to expand...
It is a different issue than what?
 
then giving up freedom for security.
Click to expand...
thanx for clarifying

Henrin is the one who thinks that way not me
 
Yeah, it's still the land of the free. The "Home of the Brave" part, though, I'm not so sure about.
 
Res Cogitans said:
Yeah, it's still the land of the free. The "Home of the Brave" part, though, I'm not so sure about.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it is. Atlanta is part of the United States, isn't it?

We are covered during baseball season, anyway.
 
lpast said:
Nope and I dont care to be honest...theres alot of things I dont know CPWill...theres alot more YOU Know than me...I only have my experience and what little brains and the heart I have to decipher that experience and base my decisions...a learned educated man I am not.
Click to expand...

well, are you free if you are regulated to death? the federal register is what... about 100,000 pages now? You have to comply with that if you are a business owner. And then you have to comply with the tax code, which is so complex that even the IRS doesn't understand it and even the Treasury Secretary can't figure it out. It's virtually impossible to run a business without breaking some law that you (and everyone else) was unaware of. If the government retains the ability to seize you at any time, force you to pay for your defense, and not have to compensate you if it loses, are you free?
 
Quag said:
thanx for clarifying

Henrin is the one who thinks that way not me
Click to expand...

I see no indication that he thinks that way. He was not addressing the results of people that initiate force against others, such as pedophiles was he?

The closest he broached this subject is in his reply to you saying the following If it is demonstrable that you pose a risk to use a gun in a way that would deny others their rights then I feel it is ok

This is incredibly ambiguous. If you demonstrated in the past that you are prone to armed robbery, it is one thing, but if you demonstrated potential risk in the past based on an op-ed opinion in the local paper, that is another matter entirely.
 
I see no indication that he thinks that way. He was not addressing the results of people that initiate force against others, such as pedophiles was he?

The closest he broached this subject is in his reply to you saying the following If it is demonstrable that you pose a risk to use a gun in a way that would deny others their rights then I feel it is ok

This is incredibly ambiguous. If you demonstrated in the past that you are prone to armed robbery, it is one thing, but if you demonstrated potential risk in the past based on an op-ed opinion in the local paper, that is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...

Yes he was.

This was my original post he was replying to
Yes some peoples views are bizzare, but if you look at each case then you can decide. Does owning a gun take away anothers rights? Nope. The use of the gun could take away rights, it could also defend them, depends on its use. Should mentally unstable or people with violent criminal histories be allowed guns? Here is a bit of grey spot, I would say yes (typo by me shoudl have been NO but that should be obvious from rest of text) because the likelyhood that they will use the gun to deny anothers rights is too large and the difference in what is taken away is huge, Ie one guy can't have a gun but another person could lose their life.
Click to expand...

I said demonstrable I do not think an op-ed demonstrates anything.
 
ARealConservative said:
This is a completely different issue. If a person violates someone else’s rights, they risk losing theirs.

In the case of a pedophile, I subscribe to the notion that some people are born defective, and once they prove to the world they are defective in a form that is particularly harmful to those around them, they forever risk a loss of life and liberties.

I would personally advocate the complete removal of them from society permanently, via execution. Others in society might show a little more compassion unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Its a sick society when its "unfortunate" to show compassion !
And I question "born defective" ...
If this is true, to an absolute...only a God should be allowed to do the execution of a potential pedophile.
 
earthworm said:
Its a sick society when its "unfortunate" to show compassion !
Click to expand...

Showing the wrong people compassion can be unfortunate.

And I question "born defective" ...
Click to expand...

You question the term birth defects?

If this is true, to an absolute...only a God should be allowed to do the execution of a potential pedophile.
Click to expand...

I don’t want a theocracy.
 
Quag said:
I said demonstrable I do not think an op-ed demonstrates anything.
Click to expand...


Demonstrate - to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning;

So what you think doesn’t really matter, the English language matters. An op-ed can be termed as demonstrating something, it fits the definition perfectly.
 
Demonstrate - to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning;

So what you think doesn’t really matter, the English language matters. An op-ed can be termed as demonstrating something, it fits the definition perfectly.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to argue semantics with you. I think my original post (despite the typo) was clear if you have a problem with that please state what it is. We basically seem to be thinking along similar lines, though I do not advocate the death penalty for predophiles
 
Quag said:
I have no desire to argue semantics with you. I think my original post (despite the typo) was clear if you have a problem with that please state what it is. We basically seem to be thinking along similar lines, though I do not advocate the death penalty for predophiles
Click to expand...

when you said you do not think an op-ed demonstrates anything, you initiated a semantic argument.

If you don't want to do something, don't start doing it.
 
when you said you do not think an op-ed demonstrates anything, you initiated a semantic argument.

If you don't want to do something, don't start doing it.
Click to expand...

Sigh fine.
If you had actually gone back and read my posts you would never had added the inane op-ed bit.
Having said that, I will go along with the op-ed bit on this strange off topic aside we seem to be doing here.
Hinting at something in an op-ed is not PROOF of anything. If however you make direct threats in an op-ed then yes it is demonstrating something and no you should not be allowed to have a gun. So I guess I would agree an Op-ed would/should prevent someone from owning a gun if they make a threat about using their 12 gauge to blow off someones head. They should then be checked out by police and possibly doctors. Seems to me very likely that someone who makes an op-ed like that would be unbstable. If they say something like I'll kick your ass then, no. I was assuming your reference to an op-ed was more the latter than the former. I would also assume that the former would likely not get printed, instead it would be sent to the police. Because I assumed (yes you can say that makes an ass of you and me) that an actual threat of death from a firearm would not get published in an op-ed and only obvious hyperbole would, I do not consider hyperbole it as demonstrable proof.
 
Henrin said:
After all this talk you have had with people on the term you're still asking the wrong questions? Really?
Click to expand...

No, it is precisely the correct question for those of us who live in a real nation of 311 million people - each with their own rights and their own idea how to pursue them.

Far too many folks on the libertarian right use the words LIBERTY and FREEDOM as hollow cliches designed as catch-alls to simply cover their asses while being as vague and unspecific as possible.
 
Centinel said:
You mean when one person infringes on the freedom or property of another? Well that means that the former has committed either a crime or a tort against the latter, which would be cause for either criminal prosecution or a civil suit.
Click to expand...

Oh really!?!?!?!?!

Like a persons right to freedom of speech - Congress shall make no law and all that.......

So my first grader is in school on a day like today and its warm - over 80 degrees - and the windows are open for fresh air..... and two men want to engage in freedom of speech so they stand on the public sidewalk and begin a discussion which turns into a heated discussion in which lots of loud profanities and sexual terms and bantered back and forth and they sound clearly drifts into the classroom.

The State guarantees my child the right to a public education. These men are interfering with it - not to mention exposing my child to all kinds of stuff I do not want them exposed to at the age of seven.

So what do we do about that?

What about the medicine man who comes to town and rents space in a private parking lot and sets up shop out of the back of his truck selling miracle cures. I buy some since they come with all sorts of promises and guarantees and take it home to my sick wife. She takes it and dies having been poisoned by the contents.

Please explain to me how a civil suit or a criminal prosecution brings my wife back from the dead and protects her rights?
 
haymarket said:
Far too many folks on the libertarian right use the words LIBERTY and FREEDOM as hollow cliches designed as catch-alls to simply cover their asses while being as vague and unspecific as possible.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha. Progressives can’t even agree amongst themselves what constitutes a right because their notion of it is so convoluted and encompassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom