• 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
Economic Freedom Index:

chart-heritage-jan-2012-2.jpg



but you do have more constrained freedom of speech.

That just indicates whining and it proves my point...If you percieve your free you are....Tell ME where not more free than anyone on that list cpwill
 
Henrin get it right...you dont want to continue this because your wrong and you dont have a leg to stand on...lol...but thats ok you can blame me lol

I got it right. You believe freedom=ability. There is no doubt about that now.
 
I got it right. You believe freedom=ability. There is no doubt about that now.

ROFL...and you believe you can read anything you want into what someone says to feel "RIGHT" be my guest henrin be "RIGHT"
 
Relative to some countries out there, we still enjoy quite a bit of freedom. But as much as we used to? No.

We are become fat, both in our bodies and in our minds. We want others to take care of us, we demand others take care of us we are entitled to others taking care of us. Increasingly we would trade our freedom for pretty baubles and gifts from the State.

What freedom we have now is from momentum. The course we are headed on is not conducive to it.
 
Henrin...go to arlington and just look at the sea of freedom....YOUR FREEDOM...
 
Thats why there has to be leaders to WRITE laws restricting what one person can do to another...that is not restricting their freedom...its assuring FREEDOM FOR ALL...the weak included...

Do we do that? Yes or no?

Do think you accurately defended freedom in the "Should an employer be legally required to have a reason to fire an employee?" thread? Yes or no?
 
wow, your family is worth that much over 80 million? I am impressed

Yep.

However for me, I don't use any of it.

I got a free ride through school but now I live out of my own pocket. Working the night shift at a hotel.

So I feel like I've gained the perspective through both sides of that coin.

And how is that bitching-I am merely noting the position of several so called left wing libertarians who say someone who cannot earn their own food and shelter is not free.

Look dude, I have alot of respect for you.

And I can see where you're coming from most of the time.

I just think you take it a little too far, a little too often.

Referring to people on welfare as parasites and all that.

For me, when I get my dues (if I get my dues mind you), I won't mind paying that higher tax rate, because it's the only way it's ever going to work but at the same time I despise those who have to call us names while we're there forking over more money then anyone else.

Are there those who abuse welfare? Yes.

And if it were up to me, anyone doing it would have their fat ass dragged outta bed and put on a farm to work, but the fact is, is I still support a social safety net and Universal Health Care, not because I'm a socialist. Not because I enjoy paying a higher tax rate, but because they work, and life is unpredictable, and if one day I was down on my luck and everything was gone... well you get the picture.

I just see you say it often and I couldn't hold my toungue this time.
 
That just indicates whining and it proves my point...If you percieve your free you are....Tell ME where not more free than anyone on that list cpwill

care to guess how many pages are on the Federal Register?
 
Do we do that? Yes or no?

Do think you accurately defended freedom in the "Should an employer be legally required to have a reason to fire an employee?" thread? Yes or no?

Were in this thread henrin...not the employer thread...but I will answer you...Freedom is not having an employer because he has wealth or power over you...having the ability to do WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH YOU...like your a piece of meat....thats china freedom...not american
 
that interferes is good but some will claim if you are rich or successful you are interfering in their ability to be financially better. Some clowns claim if you own a gun you are interfering with their right to be safe. If you are involved in a gay marriage, you are interfering with the sanctity of their marriage

in other words, some people have rather idiotic and subjective views of freedom

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 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. Does someone being rich deny someone else of wealth? Depends on how they got their wealth, Robbing a bank? Yup. Inventing something everyone wants? Nope. Gay marriage, can't even think of a scenario where this could deny another of their rights/freedoms.
Lots of people confuse being insulted or not getting something as being denied their rights/freedoms. All I can say is nope, someone insults you they are not taking away your freedom they are just being a jerk.
 
care to guess how many pages are on the Federal Register?

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.
 
Were in this thread henrin...not the employer thread...but I will answer you...Freedom is not having an employer because he has wealth or power over you...having the ability to do WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH YOU...like your a piece of meat....thats china freedom...not american

Whatever he wants with you? So having the ability to end a mutual agreement that he or she no longer finds in their best interest is doing whatever they want with you?
 
Whatever he wants with you? So having the ability to end a mutual agreement that he or she no longer finds in their best interest is doing whatever they want with you?

Youve changed the subject from this thread...but I will say this the last time...NO employer can do whatever they want with you when they want...no one has that absolute power over anyone else...thats why theres courts of laws...unless you want alot more employees going postal and thining out the ranks of scumbag employers...
 
There are real challenges to our freedoms here in the US, and the danger comes from the faceless
Government. The IRS, the DEA, and now Homeland security, have very loosely defined powers to
remove your freedom. (or destroy your way of life).
All of that being said, corruption in government is the biggest threat to our freedoms.
General acceptance of corruption can restrain a society to the point of irrelevance.(Mexico)
Our freedoms are most at risk, when the people entrusted with guarding it, are willing to trade
it for profit!
 
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 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,

Does the action lead to others rights being violated? Yes or no. The answer is at best a maybe. The choice has to be left open as a result. Preventive measures can only lead to innocents being punished and controlled.
 
There are real challenges to our freedoms here in the US, and the danger comes from the faceless
Government. The IRS, the DEA, and now Homeland security, have very loosely defined powers to
remove your freedom. (or destroy your way of life).
All of that being said, corruption in government is the biggest threat to our freedoms.
General acceptance of corruption can restrain a society to the point of irrelevance.(Mexico)
Our freedoms are most at risk, when the people entrusted with guarding it, are willing to trade
it for profit!

Some countries just have to worry about a REALLY BIG FREEDOM BUSTER...the military that the govt sends out to kill citizens that demand freedom...
 
Youve changed the subject from this thread...but I will say this the last time...NO employer can do whatever they want with you when they want...no one has that absolute power over anyone else...thats why theres courts of laws...unless you want alot more employees going postal and thining out the ranks of scumbag employers...

I'm not changing the subject. Its related perfectly and shows what you just said you don't actually believe. Using hyperbole to expand ending a mutual agreement to control of people is not helpful either.
 
To take any action one chooses so long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom or property of another person.

And what happens when those freedoms clash?
 
Does the action lead to others rights being violated? Yes or no. The answer is at best a maybe. The choice has to be left open as a result. Preventive measures can only lead to innocents being punished and controlled.

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. 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.
 
And what happens when those freedoms clash?

Then you have to decide which is the greater evil, sometimes hard to do, but since when was life without dilemas?
 
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.

So you are willing take freedom from people because of risk? Isn't that the whole safety over liberty argument?

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.

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.
 
So you are willing take freedom from people because of risk? Isn't that the whole safety over liberty argument?

Yes it is. If you have demonstrated that you are a danger then absolutely.

hey 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.
The recividism rate among pedophiles is incredibly high which is why I used it as an example.
CSOM Publications - Recidivism of Sex Offenders

So yes when the chance of someone is going to remove anothers freedoms is so high then I have no problem with them losing some small amount of theirs.
 
Yes it is. If you have demonstrated that you are a danger then absolutely.


The recividism rate among pedophiles is incredibly high which is why I used it as an example.
CSOM Publications - Recidivism of Sex Offenders

So yes when the chance of someone is going to remove anothers freedoms is so high then I have no problem with them losing some small amount of theirs.

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.
 
Last edited:
To take any action one chooses so long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom or property of another person.
Thats why there has to be leaders to WRITE laws restricting what one person can do to another...that is not restricting their freedom...its assuring FREEDOM FOR ALL...the weak included...
I totally agree. We need to establish a social order that prevents anyone from infringing on the freedom or property of another person. However, while people in the government sometimes defend freedom and property, they also often infringe on freedom and property. Like most people, they are not wholly innocent nor wholly guilty.

My aim is to modify the social order such that even those in the government are forbidden and prevented from infringing on the freedom and property of any individual.
 
To take any action one chooses so long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom or property of another person.
And what happens when those freedoms clash?
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom