Another hypocritical 4th of July upon us.

[kres24GT]

It's almost here, Independence Day. Americans will get together, cook out, drink, enjoy a day off and ironically use fireworks, which, ironically, in many places is illegal because the government doesn't trust you to use them.

Every 4th of July we have less independence and are more reliant on government that the last.

The men who signed the Deceleration that day would probably vomit at what our system of government has become today.

This used to be my favorite holiday, now it just makes me sick. Americans will always trade freedom safety and comfort, and not just their own freedom, but yours as well. Yet on this day they get together and wave their little American flags and talk about their love of freedom.


How will you spend your 4th of July?

Shooting fireworks? Illegal in most states.
Calling love ones? Careful your phones are tapped because terrorists are going to get us.
Online poker? Not as easy as it used to be to do this.
Grilling out? Well red meat is still legal for now.

[Bill]

Ain't that the truth.

[Kinky Jones]

we really should be celebrating our co-dependence instead of our independence :(

[exarmyranger]

Yankee Doodle Dandy,wonder whatever became of him?:oldman: :cool: ex

[sbroadley1025]

This used to be my favorite holiday, now it just makes me sick. Americans will always trade freedom safety and comfort, and not just their own freedom, but yours as well. Yet on this day they get together and wave their little American flags and talk about their love of freedom.


but isnt part of our idea of freedom self security? some laws are made to keep us safe; not to restrict us. i live in florida and we get brush fires all the time. fireworks arent illegal, but those who use them are given limitations. it sounds a little dramatic to make something like fireworks a reason why our country isnt free.

and isnt it slightly pompous-sounding that america is the free-est country in the world, and yet we complain about fireworks-restrictions?

independence day isnt simply a celebration of our freedom; its a celebration to remember the day america became a free country...free from british rule.

would you rather live in a country that wasnt free? where people died for having liberal opinions?

[kres24GT]

but isnt part of our idea of freedom self security? some laws are made to keep us safe; not to restrict us. i live in florida and we get brush fires all the time. fireworks arent illegal, but those who use them are given limitations. it sounds a little dramatic to make something like fireworks a reason why our country isnt free.

and isnt it slightly pompous-sounding that america is the free-est country in the world, and yet we complain about fireworks-restrictions?

independence day isnt simply a celebration of our freedom; its a celebration to remember the day america became a free country...free from british rule.

would you rather live in a country that wasnt free? where people died for having liberal opinions?


Why not pass all kinds of crazy laws then? We could make leaving your house a crime, that will help keep people more secure?

The laws don't stop at fireworks, that's just an example relevant to the point about the 4th. We as a country vote away our freedoms at any chance given now. Even our freedoms protected by the constitution are under attack. Politicians are feverishly looking to stop freedom of speech and press as we speak.

[sbroadley1025]

Why not pass all kinds of crazy laws then? We could make leaving your house a crime, that will help keep people more secure?

The laws don't stop at fireworks, that's just an example relevant to the point about the 4th. We as a country vote away our freedoms at any chance given now. Even our freedoms protected by the constitution are under attack. Politicians are feverishly looking to stop freedom of speech and press as we speak.

but by saying that...you're acting like the american people have no say in what happens in our country. as a democracy, citizens have the right to stand up again laws we dont agree with, just as you're doing now. you act as though these laws really stop us from doing things we feel we should be allowed to do.

our country has a drinking limit, but does that stop teens from drinking?
marajuana is illegal, but that doesn't stop it from being used/grown/sold.

to say that we arent free means that we dont have the ability to stand up for what we think is wrong.

the sarcastic laws of which you speak, like a law against leaving our house, would hardly stop the people who felt the law was wrong.

in making that point, maybe it proves that our government is in fact a mockery; that they have little actual control of their citizens. but isnt that another definition of freedom-not being controlled?

the fact that we are able to rebel makes us free.

[Bill]

It's crazy to say america is free - we're one of the least free countries in the first world.

I am looking forward to setting off some of those "safe" chinese fireworks in the front yard.

[kres24GT]

but by saying that...you're acting like the american people have no say in what happens in our country. as a democracy, citizens have the right to stand up again laws we dont agree with, just as you're doing now. you act as though these laws really stop us from doing things we feel we should be allowed to do.

our country has a drinking limit, but does that stop teens from drinking?
marajuana is illegal, but that doesn't stop it from being used/grown/sold.

to say that we arent free means that we dont have the ability to stand up for what we think is wrong.

the sarcastic laws of which you speak, like a law against leaving our house, would hardly stop the people who felt the law was wrong.

in making that point, maybe it proves that our government is in fact a mockery; that they have little actual control of their citizens. but isnt that another definition of freedom-not being controlled?

the fact that we are able to rebel makes us free.


Sorry but the system is broke. The politicians have found the best way to keep themselves in power is through government education and entitlement programs. They keep the masses uneducated and dependent on them, then it makes it easy for them to have enough support to rob the citizens of freedom.

If you want to write of the loss of freedoms to democracy, fine, but it doesn't change the fact we are not even close to free. Bill is right, to call ourselves a free country is ludicrous.

[stefan segal]

Kres...are there any free countries in this world...by your definition?

All societies need laws of social and business conduct...it would be mob rule if this were not true. I also understand that our freedoms of the past are much lessened by butch labelling resisting terrorists a war...thereby gaining for himself war powers...but this can be rectified and remedied...(if butch & co cn be restrained from dropping a nuke on Iran in the next year) with gathering numbers of voters and activists into a cohesive movement.

To write off our citizenry as lost and stupid, is to do the work of the disease running this administration.

Stefan

[kres24GT]

Kres...are there any free countries in this world...by your definition?

All societies need laws of social and business conduct...it would be mob rule if this were not true. I also understand that our freedoms of the past are much lessened by butch labelling resisting terrorists a war...thereby gaining for himself war powers...but this can be rectified and remedied...(if butch & co cn be restrained from dropping a nuke on Iran in the next year) with gathering numbers of voters and activists into a cohesive movement.

To write off our citizenry as lost and stupid, is to do the work of the disease running this administration.

Stefan


If you agree with laws that rob other people of their freedom, that's Democracy in action, we can't have mob rule., etc. When you disagree with the restriction of freedoms, fuck mob rule, it's constitutional, etc. I am aware of your position on the matter.

[stefan segal]

Yes Kres...it is balancing of the greater good...in plan...but now not in process...but which country in today's world would you condsider free?

I really would like to know your criteria for 'free'...one could truely say no member of society is free...but that is not freedom at the levels under discussion...it is this level that I'd like to know your parameters.

Stefan

[sbroadley1025]

even if we arent one of the freest country by idealist standards... most other countries that you might define as free, countries where people are at liberty to do what they want, are in complete chaos.

take the Darfur situation. its complete anarchy and genocide over there becuase there werent any rules, no one stopping anyone from doing what they wanted. and now look, its like hell on earth over there, with thousands of people dying every single day becuase they have no one protecting them and complete anarchy has taken over.

i can understand the argument that america isnt the freest country, but isnt that ok in terms of the fact that we live in a place where our government atleast tries to protect us, and keep us safe? sure, some laws are crazy and outright wrong, but the overall standard to which we live by is far better than that of most of the rest of the world.

[kres24GT]

Yes Kres...it is balancing of the greater good...in plan...but now not in process...but which country in today's world would you condsider free?

I really would like to know your criteria for 'free'...one could truely say no member of society is free...but that is not freedom at the levels under discussion...it is this level that I'd like to know your parameters.

Stefan


Obviously we don't want anarchy, such is ludicrous to assume. What we do though is sacrifice our freedom, and others, for not just safety, but comfort as well. At this point we are no longer anything resembling a free society.

[kres24GT]

even if we arent one of the freest country by idealist standards... most other countries that you might define as free, countries where people are at liberty to do what they want, are in complete chaos.

take the Darfur situation. its complete anarchy and genocide over there becuase there werent any rules, no one stopping anyone from doing what they wanted. and now look, its like hell on earth over there, with thousands of people dying every single day becuase they have no one protecting them and complete anarchy has taken over.

i can understand the argument that america isnt the freest country, but isnt that ok in terms of the fact that we live in a place where our government atleast tries to protect us, and keep us safe? sure, some laws are crazy and outright wrong, but the overall standard to which we live by is far better than that of most of the rest of the world.


Not wanting anarchy. Ones freedoms should end when they infringe on another's. We are way past that point.

[sbroadley1025]

Not wanting anarchy. Ones freedoms should end when they infringe on another's. We are way past that point.

i absolutely understand what you are saying...my only point is that it could definitely be worse. i guess my attempts to look at the bright side could seem arrogant, but as someone who as been all over the world, i just cant help but think that america is better off that most may realize.

[kres24GT]

i absolutely understand what you are saying...my only point is that it could definitely be worse. i guess my attempts to look at the bright side could seem arrogant, but as someone who as been all over the world, i just cant help but think that america is better off that most may realize.


It could be worse is irrelevant. And yes it can and will be worse. Do you see and end to the increase in power of government any time soon? I don't. Socialized medicine is their next step, where does it end? It doesn't.

[sbroadley1025]

atleast we dont have organized crime overruling our country and killing citizens unneccessarily. atleast the majority of our citizens arent malnurished and starving.

what is your idea of freedom? you say we're not free, but whats a good example of a successful country that is?

[kres24GT]

atleast we dont have organized crime overruling our country and killing citizens unneccessarily. atleast the majority of our citizens arent malnurished and starving.

what is your idea of freedom? you say we're not free, but whats a good example of a successful country that is?


How many do you want?

Let's say you want me to cut your hair. Let's say I agree to cut your hair and in exchange you will give me $8. Do you know this illegal in most states without first going to my state government and asking them for permission to cut your hair in exchange for the $8?

[KevinG]

It's crazy to say america is free - we're one of the least free countries in the first world.

I am looking forward to setting off some of those "safe" chinese fireworks in the front yard.

Can you name a few countries that you view as more free than us who also meet the following requirements:

1. Have a GDP greater than the U.S.
2. Have a standard of living greater than the U.S.
3. Have a larger majority of wealthy individuals than the U.S.
4. Have a higher quality health care system than the U.S.
5. Pay less taxes than U.S. citizens.

Most people don't understand what freedom really is until it is truly taken from them. I consider you one of these people; an unrealistic detachment from reality. Fireworks ordinances aren't equal to a dictatorship that prosecutes for dissension. Housewives in Russia would consider you immensely free simply because you can drive to the grocery store and purchase an unlimited assortment of products with your own money rather than a severely limited selection with a nationally mandated monetary allotment.

I suppose freedom is relative in your case. Can we get better? Of course. But the chicken liberals running around screaming about the Patriot Act dragging husbands from their beds at night is a little ridiculous.

[Bill]

But the chicken liberals running around screaming about the Patriot Act dragging husbands from their beds at night is a little ridiculous.

Never heard that one. But I thought the one about faux conservatives selling off the american political and justice system to the highest bidder - that was a hoot.

[KevinG]

Never heard that one. But I thought the one about faux conservatives selling off the american political and justice system to the highest bidder - that was a hoot.

Both parties do this daily. The bottom line is that they can't be trusted. We need to start electing individuals and patriots rather than politicians. If one calls them self a politician we can immediately assume they are not a good choice for office; in my opinion.

[Linkster]

Actually - I have to equate the Patriot Act with a similar document/law produced in the 1930s called the Enabling Act that was voted on by the German "Congress/Parliment" that had very similar terminology
Fortunately the items that werent in the Patriot Act (if any of you have taken the time to actually read it???) are covered in the signing statements that Bush has been attaching to every bill he signs from establishing prison camps for the case where the populace rises against the government - to specific prohibitions against talk and speech against the government in public

It is rather obvious to me that most people that argue the merits or distractions of the Patriot Act and Signing Statements have never bothered to read the contents, depending instead to spread what they hear as talking points in the media (I assume)

[kres24GT]

Can you name a few countries that you view as more free than us who also meet the following requirements:

1. Have a GDP greater than the U.S.
2. Have a standard of living greater than the U.S.
3. Have a larger majority of wealthy individuals than the U.S.
4. Have a higher quality health care system than the U.S.
5. Pay less taxes than U.S. citizens.

Most people don't understand what freedom really is until it is truly taken from them. I consider you one of these people; an unrealistic detachment from reality. Fireworks ordinances aren't equal to a dictatorship that prosecutes for dissension. Housewives in Russia would consider you immensely free simply because you can drive to the grocery store and purchase an unlimited assortment of products with your own money rather than a severely limited selection with a nationally mandated monetary allotment.

I suppose freedom is relative in your case. Can we get better? Of course. But the chicken liberals running around screaming about the Patriot Act dragging husbands from their beds at night is a little ridiculous.


Naming other countries is irrelevant. I still believe America is the best country to live in, but we are on a path to where that isn't the case. We shouldn't wait until we have government mandated diets before we start to protest the never ending increases in the power and size of government.

Already the politicians seek to limit our freedom of speech, the limit our freedom in the "free" market all the time. They want us dependent on them for education, health care, retirement, etc.

Their quest for power know no bounds.

[Linkster]

. They want us dependent on them for education
Their quest for power know no bounds.

Wasnt Reagan wonderful for this country :lmao2:
Thank goodness I was able to go to the state college without having to pay tuition like Jefferson and the other framers intended with their words - damn shame that now we are being subjected to school taxes as well thanks to Reagan as well

[KevinG]

Naming other countries is irrelevant. I still believe America is the best country to live in, but we are on a path to where that isn't the case. We shouldn't wait until we have government mandated diets before we start to protest the never ending increases in the power and size of government.

Already the politicians seek to limit our freedom of speech, the limit our freedom in the "free" market all the time. They want us dependent on them for education, health care, retirement, etc.

Their quest for power know no bounds.

The main "big government" ideology is found in liberalism. Yes, the last republican congress and presidency was out of control with spending and social programs, but that isn't true conservatism; it was merely a case of the people electing liberal Republicans.

Liberalism is inherently pro-government and socialism-driven. Education, health care, retirement, and welfare are all liberal social programs--failing social programs by the way.

But you are correct, both parties are out of control at the moment and this country needs a stricter libertarian belief system with libertarian idealists leading it, straying away from the current elitist and disconnected beliefs of our present-day "leaders."

[kres24GT]

The main "big government" ideology is found in liberalism. Yes, the last republican congress and presidency was out of control with spending and social programs, but that isn't true conservatism; it was merely a case of the people electing liberal Republicans.

Liberalism is inherently pro-government and socialism-driven. Education, health care, retirement, and welfare are all liberal social programs--failing social programs by the way.

But you are correct, both parties are out of control at the moment and this country needs a stricter libertarian belief system with libertarian idealists leading it, straying away from the current elitist and disconnected beliefs of our present-day "leaders."


Of course they fail, government programs are corrupt, inefficient, and many times monopolies, so no surprise they fail. However as long as we vote for Big Government parties like the Republicans and Democrats they will continue to pass more and more of these programs, robbing Americans of their freedom in exchange for safety and comfort. Liberal vs. conservative doesn't really matter to me. For me it's strictly big government vs. freedom.

[kres24GT]

Wasnt Reagan wonderful for this country :lmao2:
Thank goodness I was able to go to the state college without having to pay tuition like Jefferson and the other framers intended with their words - damn shame that now we are being subjected to school taxes as well thanks to Reagan as well



The main problem with government education is that it creates a huge conflict of interest.


I won't go as far to say tax dollars shouldn't educate the people. I will say though government shouldn't educate the people.

[Bill]

Both parties do this daily. The bottom line is that they can't be trusted.

That is true, which is why I am anti-incumbent.

Thanks for writing your own opinion, rather than just repeating talking points, which is how I experienced your first posts.

[Bill]

The main "big government" ideology is found in liberalism.

This is a faux conservative talking point that can't be supported by the facts on the ground.

Unless you are about to claim that the Bush administration is liberal. That would be an intersting tack.

[KevinG]

This is a faux conservative talking point that can't be supported by the facts on the ground.

Unless you are about to claim that the Bush administration is liberal. That would be an intersting tack.

George Bush is a liberal Republican. And yes, my "talking points" can be supported by the "facts on the ground." Liberals are pro-big government. Is socialism considered "big government?" Liberals are the new socialist party in America. What facts don't support my argument?

[kres24GT]

George Bush is a liberal Republican. And yes, my "talking points" can be supported by the "facts on the ground." Liberals are pro-big government. Is socialism considered "big government?" Liberals are the new socialist party in America. What facts don't support my argument?


Depends on your definition of liberal. A classic liberal is what many today would call a libertarian. However, most people who refer to themselves as liberal today are not a classic liberal. They are socially liberal, and prefer a statist government when it comes to other matters. However even this is changing where liberals today want a speech police and tolerance police, hardly supporting freedom when it comes to those issues. Some liberals prefer s a socialist state, while others prefer a fascist one.


The point is these terms get confusing and using them to refer to certain people or groups isn't always accurate, as your definition may defer from theirs.

I like to look at issues as big government vs. individualism. Even this can be difficult at times though as not everyone agrees on what the basic functions of government are.


If you want to give me a label I am a borderline anarchist. I like the idea of government, and recognize it's place, purpose as well as a need for it. However we have yet, as the human race, to find a system of government that doesn't corrupt itself and become too big for it's britches so to speak. It seems that no matter what system of government a society starts with, it eventually leads to a totalitarian state.

As we see with our government, the ideals set in place by the founders were honorable, however it just doesn't work anymore.

Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying, "The government which governs best governs least."

FDR said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Would you dare hear a politician make these quotes today? Not bloody likely. Today politicians preach fear, big government, and government dependence. How did we get so far away from where we are supposed to be.


Here is a quote I love. It is credited to a man name Alexander Tyler.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

[KevinG]

Depends on your definition of liberal. A classic liberal is what many today would call a libertarian.

Don't play word games with us. We're not talking about a 1776 liberal. In case you didn't notice, this is 2007.

However, most people who refer to themselves as liberal today are not a classic liberal. They are socially liberal, and prefer a statist government when it comes to other matters. However even this is changing where liberals today want a speech police and tolerance police, hardly supporting freedom when it comes to those issues. Some liberals prefer s a socialist state, while others prefer a fascist one.

Most of the prefer socialism.

The point is these terms get confusing and using them to refer to certain people or groups isn't always accurate, as your definition may defer from theirs.

This is hooplah. In politics, people have to make generalized statements to make their points because it's obvious to most people over the age of 5 that when you talk about a general group of people you can't possibly be talking about all 100% of them.

To state this known fact as some sort of counter argument is ridiculously elementary.

I like to look at issues as big government vs. individualism. Even this can be difficult at times though as not everyone agrees on what the basic functions of government are.

The constitution does.

If you want to give me a label I am a borderline anarchist. I like the idea of government, and recognize it's place, purpose as well as a need for it. However we have yet, as the human race, to find a system of government that doesn't corrupt itself and become too big for it's britches so to speak. It seems that no matter what system of government a society starts with, it eventually leads to a totalitarian state.

The republic we founded here in America would be doing much better off if it hadn't been corrupted by people who claim that we should "interpret" the constitution rather than READ IT!

And we have 50% of a population that is about to knock it another notch toward socialism and communism by electing another fraud into office who wishes she lived in old Russia.

As we see with our government, the ideals set in place by the founders were honorable, however it just doesn't work anymore.

Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying, "The government which governs best governs least."

FDR said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

JFK's quote doesn't fit by the way. Strong individuals make a strong nation. I'm going to be asking what I can do for myself for a long time because the country isn't going to do anything for me.

Would you dare hear a politician make these quotes today? Not bloody likely. Today politicians preach fear, big government, and government dependence. How did we get so far away from where we are supposed to be.

I already told you how, in addition we need to realize that most of our population is too stupid to live in a free society. With education being dished out by the government in an attempt to create a lemming-like society, we have dumbed down our citizens and transformed them into dependent slaves.

Here is a quote I love. It is credited to a man name Alexander Tyler.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

This is why I'm glad we don't have a democracy here in the U.S. Now all we have to do is get on the ball with who our representatives are and start making some changes.

Oh, I forgot, most of our population is too stupid to figure out what needs to be done.

Oh well, we tried our best.

[Bill]

George Bush is a liberal Republican. And yes, my "talking points" can be supported by the "facts on the ground." Liberals are pro-big government.

There's no such thing as a "liberal" party. Attempting to create one is cheap rhetoric, straight from your FOX masters.

But, to address your "facts on the ground" - let's hear em.

I've yet to see the faux-conservative republicans actually reduce the size of government.

What I see - on the ground - is a cheezy attempt to service big business by cutting taxes to the super-rich, while _increasing_ the size of government, especially increasing military expenses and police and government intrusion into the home.

You do understand basic economics, don't you? Cutting taxes while increasing government just means we all have to pay more later.

You can't defer taxes perpetually. The bill comes due.

If any republican, anywhere, actually reduced government, maybe I wouldn't laugh so much when I hear this inane chatter about liberals promoting big government.