PDA

View Full Version : What freedoms and liberties has Obama taken away from YOU


tony hipchest
03-21-2010, 07:35 PM
a wise political guru on this board has brought it to my attention that our personal freedoms and liberties have been stripped away from us because of obama and the democratic platform he represents.

i have repeatedly been called a socialist and a communist, for voting democratic, and have been accused of not respecting the values our country was founded upon.

it has repeatedly been demanded that i justify, and show support of the freedoms and liberties i support (under the false and weakly played assumption that there are none).

being that i dont hide, and all my beliefs are on the the table and open board for all to see, i shouldnt feel compelled to reitterate what is already known.

so i ask the wise ones who feel that the democrats should be abolished and that going with a 1 party system is the way to go, what freedoms liberties have been stolen from you?

tony hipchest
03-21-2010, 07:40 PM
here are some of the freedoms and liberties i support that my vote counted for. the DFC endorsed my guy bill richardson for president. i dont think some of the members with their inflamatory, hate speech, rhetoric, and propoganda accusing me of being a communist (gb) were around then.

http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/

DFC Platform
The Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC) is a progressive, pro-freedom caucus in the Democratic party. The purpose of the DFC is to promote individual liberty, constitutional democracy, and social responsibility.
Individuals should have the freedom to live their lives the way they want to, as long as they respect the right of everyone else to have the same freedom. Each person should have personal liberty and economic liberty. Liberty also requires social responsibility.

1) Personal Liberty

Personal liberty includes the right to control your own body, and make your own choices about how you live.

a) Freedom of Speech, Belief, and Lifestyle. The government should not favor any religion, belief, or philosophy over others, and should not restrict freedom of speech or of the press, or the freedom to practice any peaceful religion, belief philosophy, or lifestyle.

b) Equal Freedom. People of any race, ethnicity, minority opinion, gender, or lifestyle should have the same legal rights as everyone else. Laws should not discriminate against any group, and should also not favor one group over another.

c) Privacy. The right to privacy, as implied by the Bill of Rights (Articles 4 and 9), should be upheld.

d) Reproductive Rights. Each individual should have the right to control his or her own body, including making choices about family planning. The decision of whether or not to have an abortion is an extremely sensitive one, and should remain chiefly with the woman and her doctor, not the government.

e) Food and Medical Decisions. Each individual should have the right to make decisions regarding what foods or medicines to put into his or her body, which medical treatments to use, and when to stop treatment.

f) Freedom from Crime. One of the basic functions of government is to stop crime. In order to use police resources wisely, the government should distinguish between victimless crimes and crimes in which there is a victim. Murder, bodily attack, kidnapping, vandalism, robbery, and fraud all involve victims. However, gambling, pornography, and use of tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana in private are victimless crimes, if no one is forced to participate.
Police resources should focus on crimes that involve victims. It is usually impractical to enforce victimless crime laws. For example, if many people wish to use a particular food, drug, or beverage that is prohibited by law, the demand creates a black market. Since the courts will not handle black market disputes, rival gangs then settle disputes with violence. Furthermore, the black market price becomes so high that people commit robberies in order to obtain enough money to afford the artificially high price of black market products. The harm of many prohibition laws, then, outweighs the benefit. Therefore, government should only prohibit particular foods, drugs, beverages, etc. if there is overwhelming evidence of a public benefit in doing so.

Freedom from crime includes the right to self-defense. Since criminals can always find ways to obtain weapons, it is unwise to unilaterally disarm honest citizens, since police cannot be everywhere. Law-abiding individuals should have the right to own hand-held weapons, including rifles and pistols. This right should only be restricted when there are compelling and demonstrably effective reasons of public safety. For example, government may restrict children and convicted criminals from access to weapons.

g) Freedom from Involuntary Servitude. There should be no military draft, which is a form of slavery. A military draft is often used as a means of forcing American soldiers to fight unpopular wars in far off countries. When the military is restricted to its proper role of defending U.S. territory, then military duty is a patriotic service.

2) Economic Liberty

Just as an individual should have the right to control his or her own body, each individual should also have the right to control the fruits of his or her labor. People should have the freedom to engage in voluntary economic exchanges, and to form voluntary economic organizations, whether for non-profit or profit purposes, as long as they respect the equal rights of others.

a) Property Rights Based on Justice. There are two forms of property:

1) human-made products, such as cars, houses, and machinery; and

2) land, which refers to spatial locations, along with the natural resources within those locations - therefore, land was not produced by any person.
Out of justice and practicality, it is proper to allow an individual to keep the rewards from his or her labor. So, there should be the least taxes possible on labor, because taxes on labor take the fruits of labor. Such taxes are not only unjust, but also lower the incentive to be productive. Taxes on income, sales, or buildings all take away the rewards of labor and productivity, so they are the most harmful kinds of taxes. The least harmful tax is a tax on land location value or on extraction of natural resources, because those are not products of labor, but are fixed resources.

Land is fundamentally different from products made by human effort, because no person can produce land, meaning locations and natural resources. So, property in land needs to be treated somewhat differently from other types of property, in order to prevent over-concentrated ownership of land and natural resources.

b) End Corporate Welfare. Government should not subsidize special interests. For example, corporate welfare should not be provided by government. Also, government should not protect corporations from competition, by such means as monopolistic types of licensing laws, not related to safety or consumer protection. For example, license fees should be no higher than administrative costs, and there should be no arbitrary quotas on the number of licenses issued.

c) Consumer Protection. There should be strong laws against business fraud and false advertising, which violate agreements made with others.

d) Worker Protection. There should be strong laws against fraud in employment practices. For example, no company should be allowed to mislead a worker into believing that working conditions are safe if there are chemical or other hazards the company is aware of.

e) Environmental Protection. There should be strong laws against polluting the air or water that others must use. In addition, we should remove government obstacles that prevent individuals from suing companies for polluting. For example, we should repeal the Price-Anderson Act, which severely restricts the right of victims of nuclear accidents to sue the owners of nuclear plants. In addition, we should remove laws that require victims to first spend time asking government administrative bureaucracies to look into a situation, rather than letting the victims immediately pursue a court action against a company. The government also should not subsidize developers.

f) Free Trade with Free Countries. We should phase in free trade with other free countries, at the same time that we are phasing in more freedom within our own country. It is unjust and impractical to suddenly allow open imports of goods from other countries before we have removed the obstacles that hinder productivity within our own country, such as high taxes on production, and hoarding of land (see 2-a). Also, it is unjust to allow imports of foreign products made using slave labor. There are shades of gray in defining slave labor. In countries that have very little freedom, such as those with high taxes on labor, or monopolistic licensing and landownership patterns, the workers’ lack of freedom can sometimes border on slavery. U.S. policy on tariffs and free trade should be based on general standards of how free a country or foreign industry is, rather than on arbitrary criteria or special interest protectionism.

3) Limited Government

a) Essential Government Services. Government should provide any necessary services that cannot currently be provided adequately by the non-government sector (non-profit or for-profit groups). However, government should not provide any services that can be provided adequately by the non-government sector.

b) Government Incentives. For those essential services that need to be provided by government, we should attempt to introduce incentives for government efficiency.

c) Constitutional Democracy. The U.S. government was founded as a constitutional democracy, which means a democracy that respects the wishes of the majority of voters, as long as the rights of minorities are not violated (including minorities based on race, religion, lifestyle, or opinion). That is why the U.S. Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, which lists individual rights that are not allowed to be violated. Since everyone is in the minority on at least some issues, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of all of us. The Bill of Rights should be strictly enforced.

d) Fully Informed Juries. Juries should be informed of their traditional right and duty to judge the law as well as the facts. If a jury believes a person is being prosecuted for a law that is unconstitutional, then the jury has the right to let that person go free. The jury’s right to judge the law was considered by some of the writers of the U.S. Constitution to be one of the most important checks to prevent the government from violating the Constitution and individual rights.
The right of juries to judge the law has played an important historical role: protecting newspapers against censorship laws (such as the famous Peter Zenger case); protecting runaway slaves against pro-slavery laws - in cases where they were allowed to have jury trials; and protecting workers against laws that prevented them from forming unions.

Juries should be selected at random, rather than carefully packed by the prosecution or the defense - who should not be allowed to screen out prospective jurors except in very limited cases, such as when a prospective juror has a close relationship with the defendant. (Some outrageous cases of jury-packing have involved selecting all-white juries for trials of racially-motivated crimes.) When citizens become informed of the full rights, powers, and importance of juries, it is likely that more citizens will see jury service as a part of responsible citizenship, like voting. With fewer people trying to get out of jury service, and less packing of juries, the quality of juries would also be likely to improve.

e) U.S. Defense, Not World Police. The military should defend the territory of the U.S., rather than being the world’s policeman. The U.S. military should only be involved in situations where there is a direct threat to U.S. territory. Our military should certainly not be used to prop up foreign dictators, or to subsidize multinational corporations.

4) Social Responsibility

Individual liberty can only be upheld when there is also responsibility. Individuals should be responsible for helping themselves, and for cooperating in ways that help each other. In the case of essential services, such as assistance for the needy, there should only be cuts in these services if adequate services can be provided by the non-government sector. Recipients of government help also have a responsibility to help themselves if they are able. The goal of government assistance should be to try to get people to the point where they can help themselves, if at all possible. In general, able-bodied people should not be on welfare, with the possible exception of certain emergencies, in which case government help should only be temporary, until the person has been helped through the emergency situation. In cases of able-bodied people, government assistance should be conditioned on responsibility on the part of the recipient.


i readilly admit there is no single platform that can easilly encompass the entirety of ones beliefs. (i am strongly in favor of public executions for profit).

again, i am dying to know what freedoms and liberties are beeing stolen from under my nose. perhaps there really is something i should be equally paranoid about...

theplatypus
03-21-2010, 07:44 PM
There you go deflecting again.

GBMelBlount
03-21-2010, 07:45 PM
Forcing government controlled healthcare that 2/3 of the people don't want down our throats.

Doubling the deficit from $8 trillion to $16 trillion in just 4 years which is our debt that we didn't ask for.

Lying to us and deficit spending money we don't even have to government spend us out of recession???

These are debts that are being forced down our throats that we are shackled with and will be forced to pay one way or another as will our grandchildren.

I love the way Obama is shoving HIS version of freedom and liberty down out throats.

Leftoverhard
03-21-2010, 07:46 PM
Obama stole my homework...I saw him, I swear

MACH1
03-21-2010, 07:50 PM
Freedom of choice comes to mind. Never before has it been mandated by the government that the population is to purchase anything from public, private or government sources. And threatened with fines and jail time.

Whats next, being told to by a car from Government Motors to support the company so it doesn't fail again.

GBMelBlount
03-21-2010, 07:56 PM
Freedom of choice comes to mind. Never before has it been mandated by the government that the population is to purchase anything from public, private or government sources. And threatened with fines and jail time.

Whats next, being told to by a car from Government Motors to support the company so it doesn't fail again.

Well said Mach. :drink:

Thanks Tony. I am enjoying this thread. And thank you for introducing it so tactfully :drink:

GoSlash27
03-21-2010, 08:00 PM
Tony,
You were the guy railing loudly against Dubya when he was lying, ignoring the Constitution, marginalizing his opponents, and strong-arming the Congress into ignoring the will of their constituents.
You were right to do so and I was right there beside you.
So after this whole campaign about "hope and change", what has really changed? That is... aside from your opinion about the nuclear option, government transparency, and respect for the Constitution?

In pursuing legislation that America doesn't want, the Democrats have become exactly the same thing they were protesting. If you were truly objective you would see that.

So to answer your question, what rights did you lose under Bush?
The answer is the same for both.
When you have one party controlling both houses as well as the executive (as was the case the last 8 years) you lose your checks and balances and the system reverts to totalitarianism.
Without representatives who honor their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution and actually listen to their constituents, the entire concept of a representative republic breaks down and nobody has any "rights" at all.

I've gotta wonder what your deal is. Do you only recognize you're getting screwed when the Republicans are the ones doing it?

"We the People" aren't so easily fooled. The "hope" we sought was for a "change" in government that obeyed the constitution and listened to us. We won't forget what the Dems did with their chance in November. The Dems refused to learn from the history of 2006. Now they're doomed to repeat it.

tony hipchest
03-21-2010, 08:28 PM
Tony,
You were the guy railing loudly against Dubya when he was lying, ignoring the Constitution, marginalizing his opponents, and strong-arming the Congress into ignoring the will of their constituents.
.

oh really? :chuckle:

you have me mistaken for somebody else. im not "that guy".

i didnt even really engage in any political discussions on this board, because i found it all rather mundane and boring, until the race was on between obama and mccain (when the thoughts of having either the 1st black person or woman in the white house made it much more intriguing).

i voted for and supported bush his 2nd go around, for nothing more than the principals of national solidarity and not changing presidents in a time of war. i stand by that vote and dont cowher away from it, iven if i feel it wasnt the "best" vote in regards to my own personal opinions and beliefs... :tt03:

:cool: im cool like that.

tony hipchest
03-21-2010, 08:32 PM
Thanks Tony. I am enjoying this thread. And thank you for introducing it so tactfully :drink:yet you are still deflecting.

what personal freedoms and liberties have been stripped away from YOU?

GoSlash27
03-21-2010, 08:45 PM
i voted for and supported bush his 2nd go around, for nothing more than the principals of national solidarity and not changing presidents in a time of war. i stand by that vote and dont cowher away from it, iven if i feel it wasnt the "best" vote in regards to my own personal opinions and beliefs...
Wow... I stand corrected. You're *that* guy. :doh:
Shame; I woulda had more respect if you were just another misguided partisan hypocrite.
As it is, there's no point in bothering to explain concepts like Constitutional Law, Due process, and the like to a statist.

tony hipchest
03-21-2010, 08:52 PM
You were the guy railing loudly against Dubya when he was lying, ignoring the Constitution, marginalizing his opponents, and strong-arming the Congress into ignoring the will of their constituents.

care to expand or explain where you get this false notion that i was bitching and whining like a little baby about supposedly losing rights under bush?

So to answer your question, what rights did you lose under Bush?

i think it is clear you have been busted barking up the wrong tree. :busted:

maybe its a case of mistaken identity.

either way, as wrong as it was, atleast the record has been set straight. :thumbsup:

GBMelBlount
03-21-2010, 09:18 PM
Tony,

You were the guy railing loudly against Dubya when he was lying, ignoring the Constitution, marginalizing his opponents, and strong-arming the Congress into ignoring the will of their constituents.

I've gotta wonder what your deal is. Do you only recognize you're getting screwed when the Republicans are the ones doing it?



Well said. :drink:

tony hipchest
03-21-2010, 10:03 PM
Well said. :drink:he failed the same principles of debate as you so i can see why you would think it was so well said.

what freedoms and liberties have you been stripped of, mel?

if you got no answer, then fine. but to see you hijack a third consecutive thread is kinda sad. :applaudit:

oh... and "bu..bu..bu..bush" :sofunny:

GBMelBlount
03-21-2010, 10:17 PM
tony hipchest

what freedoms and liberties have you been stripped of, mel?

We've actually been discussing this in the Obamacare thread.

Hurry! Go there quickly before I hijack that one too! :sofunny:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=49511

MACH1
03-21-2010, 10:54 PM
We've actually been discussing this in the Obamacare thread.

Hurry! Go there quickly before I hijack that one too! :sofunny:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=49511

I'll post this here to.

http://amightywind.com/images/rip_america.jpg

tony hipchest
03-21-2010, 10:57 PM
nice deflect!

if you can discuss it so haphazardly in all other threads, why do you seem so unwilling to dicuss it in a thread devoted to the topic.

i hear for over a year how all of our liberties and freedoms would be stripped away with a democratic president.

i have heard how he has supposedly stolen 50% of all our earnings.

it really isnt that difficult of a question to answer.

what freedoms and liberties has obama taken away from you?

this is your premise and now your stage, mel.

specific examples please....

tony hipchest
03-22-2010, 01:00 AM
Freedom of choice comes to mind. Never before has it been mandated by the government that the population is to purchase anything from public, private or government sources. And threatened with fines and jail time.

.

how bout car insurance?

i go with GEICO (Government Employees Insurance Company)

not because i am military (im not), or because i dig the gecko and caveman commercials (theyre okay), or even that they guarantee me the cheapest rates (they dont). i just like the company and choose them as my provider on my own free will.

Since its founding in 1936, GEICO has worked to offer members of the U.S. military the most affordable insurance options. We continue to recognize the troops' important service to our country with special discount programs and service options. Whether they are deployed domestically or abroad, in peacetime, or in times of conflict, GEICO is always committed to providing members of the military the service and respect that they deserve.

i should get a tax write off simply for using GEICO! :idea:

does anyone have any specific and real life examples of their freedoms and liberties being taken away by obama and democrats in the past year?

this is the central premise of the GOP. all their thoughts, hopes, and dreams, hinge on this if they wanna take back capito hill and then the white house in '12.

you guys who support the overthrow of this current govt better come up with something better than the nothing offered up in this thread. :noidea:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-22-2010, 02:29 AM
how bout car insurance?

:

poor argument...

1) Not everyone is required to have auto insurance. You have the choice to use public transport, walk, etc. and not have to pay for auto insurance since you don't drive a car. (you can't choose not to have health insurance under the new bill)

2) You have the choice of many different companies where you can shop around and get the cheapest/best plan to fit your needs. (much like our current health insurance)

3) Auto insurance is required to operate a motor vehicle for the concern of others. They don't care if your insurance covers your car to be fixed or not, as long as it covers damage to others and their medical bills. (if you choose not to have health insurance and gamble that you won't get sick or injured, that should be your call)


Having the Federal Government in firm control of 1/6 of our economy (healthcare) and one of our largest auto manufacturers doesn't seem very free.

GBMelBlount
03-22-2010, 06:56 AM
nice deflect!

if you can discuss it so haphazardly in all other threads, why do you seem so unwilling to dicuss it in a thread devoted to the topic.

i hear for over a year how all of our liberties and freedoms would be stripped away with a democratic president.

i have heard how he has supposedly stolen 50% of all our earnings.

it really isnt that difficult of a question to answer.

what freedoms and liberties has obama taken away from you?

this is your premise and now your stage, mel.

specific examples please....

OK tony, you win. I can't think of any.

Now I'm going back to the healthcare thread. :wink02:

GBMelBlount
03-22-2010, 06:57 AM
tony hipchest

how bout car insurance?



I_Bleed_Black_&_Gold

poor argument...

1) Not everyone is required to have auto insurance. You have the choice to use public transport, walk, etc. and not have to pay for auto insurance since you don't drive a car. (you can't choose not to have health insurance under the new bill)

2) You have the choice of many different companies where you can shop around and get the cheapest/best plan to fit your needs. (much like our current health insurance)

3) Auto insurance is required to operate a motor vehicle for the concern of others. They don't care if your insurance covers your car to be fixed or not, as long as it covers damage to others and their medical bills. (if you choose not to have health insurance and gamble that you won't get sick or injured, that should be your call)


Having the Federal Government in firm control of 1/6 of our economy (healthcare) and one of our largest auto manufacturers doesn't seem very free.

Nice post B&G.

But as Tony pointed out in the debate he clearly won, Obamacare taking control of 1/6th of our economy is not infringing on our freedoms in any way. :thumbsup:

...and thank you Tony for helping me see the "light". :drink:

MACH1
03-22-2010, 12:09 PM
how bout car insurance?

i go with GEICO (Government Employees Insurance Company)

not because i am military (im not), or because i dig the gecko and caveman commercials (theyre okay), or even that they guarantee me the cheapest rates (they dont). i just like the company and choose them as my provider on my own free will.



Poor "choice" of an example.

The government didn't just pass a bill mandating you buy car insurance whether you want to or not, own a car or not. Maybe they should, just so they can make sure everybody has full coverage and bring down the rates, because there would be no more uninsured motorists(car owner or not). Which in turn would bring down shop rates, labor rates and parts prices, because everybody has full coverage. :noidea:

:drink:

Dino 6 Rings
03-22-2010, 12:43 PM
I'll Bite Tony

how about signing the patriot act extension without any changes

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

I'm sure I could find some of my liberties in there being violated. Like warrantless wiretaps because I'm "suspicious"

chacha
03-22-2010, 12:48 PM
^ So isnt that a liberty and freedom that Bush took from us? I woul dlike to see that Patriot act gone, that's for sure

Dino 6 Rings
03-22-2010, 12:49 PM
So my wife and I earn under 150,000 dollars per year together.

Yet we owe the Feds because my payroll deduction was less than it normally was due to the "obama" tax cut that was part of the "stimulus"

Now we owe the Feds 400 bucks.

Obama is Stealing $400 dollars from me. Stealing it, like a criminal with a gun.

Dino 6 Rings
03-22-2010, 12:50 PM
^ So isnt that a liberty and freedom that Bush took from us? I woul dlike to see that Patriot act gone, that's for sure

Yes it is, and one that Obama actually said he would consider doing away with parts of it to give us our liberty back. Instead, he cowardly signed away without any real notion of changing a dang thing about it.

Dino 6 Rings
03-22-2010, 12:51 PM
But there it is, a Clear example of Obama having a chance to grant back some liberty to the people, by fighting for some parts of the Patriot Act to at least be changed, tweaked, or done away with, he had the Pen, he could have fought for it, instead, he ran scared.

ricardisimo
03-22-2010, 04:02 PM
Freedom of choice comes to mind. Never before has it been mandated by the government that the population is to purchase anything from public, private or government sources. And threatened with fines and jail time.

Whats next, being told to by a car from Government Motors to support the company so it doesn't fail again.

Actually, that's not true, and demonstrably so. Obviously, whether we're talking about the armed forces, the police, FBI, National Highway System, etc., you have never had any choice. This is not new.

Secondly, as for the government mandating from whom you must purchase a product, you can look at least as far back as the Telecommunications Act of 2005, which barred communities from forming their own broadband utilities to compete with Verizon, AT&T and the rest. The companies saw what Philadelphia, Champagne and other cities were doing, realized that they simply couldn't compete, and so they had the government shut it down. Communities now have to ask Verizon for permission to form their own LANs, and take a wild guess what Verizon is going to say.

So much for never having it happen before.

MACH1
03-22-2010, 04:11 PM
Am I now mandated to have a phone, join the military, fbi, build a raod ect.

tony hipchest
03-22-2010, 04:31 PM
Am I now mandated to have a phone, join the military, fbi, build a raod ect.no... but you can be. from the 2nd post in this thread-

g) Freedom from Involuntary Servitude. There should be no military draft, which is a form of slavery. A military draft is often used as a means of forcing American soldiers to fight unpopular wars in far off countries. When the military is restricted to its proper role of defending U.S. territory, then military duty is a patriotic service.

MACH1
03-22-2010, 04:38 PM
no... but you can be. from the 2nd post in this thread-

I'm to old and decrepit, they wouldn't take me anyway. If I was drafted I'd just move to Canada, I hear they have pretty good health care up there. :chuckle:

Obaaama might just decide to put me down though. :wink:

SteelCityMom
03-22-2010, 04:52 PM
Am I now mandated to have a phone, join the military, fbi, build a raod ect.


Lol, no of course not....he obviously meant that you have no choice in paying for these things (other than the choice to own a phone I suppose).

And this is not directed specifically towards you, I just found this piece and though it was interesting.

Freedom On A Leash

Rights

A lot of people who talk of their 'freedoms' (eg Freedom Of Speech) are really just talking about the length of their leash. There's a difference between being free and being granted a certain amount of clothesline by an authoritarian keeper. Particularly, those who have it deeply engrained in them (via psychological pressure, etc.) to obey can be given more leash (the leash has been internalized). But the leash is still there.

The principle of freedom requires an entity called an "individual". No one else can grant you freedom, they can only grant you an amount of leash (an amount of limitation), for in the act of 'granting' they are assuming control, and you are assuming an obedient role. Only you can grant yourself freedom, by acknowledging whatever strengths and resources you possess, acting according to your own individual values and aspirations, and facing the consequences with whatever is at your disposal. This same principle applies to an organization which seeks to be free - it all depends not on what others grant them, but what they assume for themselves. With freedom implicitly comes responsibility.

The etymology of the word 'right': Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht right, Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight, direct, rule, rogare to ask, Greek oregein to stretch out

If you are granted a 'right' that is proof that you are NOT free, that you do not possess liberty. Liberty is not, cannot be a right. That is an oxymoron. Whether the writers of the American constitution understood this I cannot say. But you can understand it if you choose.

If you ask others to grant you rights, at least acknowledge that you are granting them the right to dictate to you, to lord over you. You are abdicating your liberty and acknowledging their lordship. There are benefits to having an overlord, which is why people abdicate their liberty in some circumstances. But if it is liberty you seek, then assume it, seize it; make your own decisions, obey your own values. You may ask others to respect your individuality and personal sovereignty, but don't ask others to give you liberty.

Liberty requires two ingredients: freedom and power. Liberty is the employment of freedom.

Consider those who are granted "Freedom Of Speech". Are they permitted to speak whatever they wish? Of course not. There are exceptions, qualifications, subtle and implied limitations. Say the wrong thing and the leash gets shorter, or the master comes to move you to different accommodations (ones less visible and with fewer rights). Those granted "Freedom Of Speech" like to show us how splendidly long their leash is, polishing it with pride and making speeches about it, but they are mistaken in calling it freedom.

But you already have the freedom to say what you wish. Can you not operate your own mouth, your own pen? What this so-called Freedom of Speech right really grants is a promise that, within limits, your keeper will not attack you for what you say, and will stop those who would attack you. (Whether this promise is kept is another issue.) Thus you are granted the right not to be attacked by your master, and you are granted his (promise of) protection (or often merely his promise of retaliation which is far less useful). In other words you are not given anything, merely promised that you will not have something stolen from you. And this makes sense, because the keeper is not really in a position to grant freedom, merely to take it away, to limit it. He does not possess your freedom so he cannot give it. You possess your freedom.

Can your freedom be stolen? In fact no. Your goods can be stolen, you can be beaten, killed. Your resources, means, power, liberty can be diminished. But freedom cannot be stolen. At best others can convince you to obey them, to lend them your freedom, your obedience, usually in return for something.

(there is more if you wish to continue to read...it was just too lengthy to post it all IMO)
http://www.hevanet.com/kort/LEASH1.HTM

tony hipchest
03-22-2010, 10:30 PM
I'll Bite Tony

how about signing the patriot act extension without any changes

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

I'm sure I could find some of my liberties in there being violated. Like warrantless wiretaps because I'm "suspicious"thank you. thats all i was asking. and no need to bite me, :chuckle: although some others can. to this point, really only you and mach have even attempted to give an example how you feel your personal freedoms or liberties have presently been taken away by obama.

im not looking for any rhetoric and propoganda fear mongering over what is supposedly gonna happen in the next ten years. i can get that in any other thread in the locker room. anyways, as has been stated, the patriot act is not obamas. those freedoms and liberties were taken away from us by a republican.

but what you say is interresting if you know without a doubt that you have been wiretapped for "suspicious" behavior. do you know this to be true?

So my wife and I earn under 150,000 dollars per year together.

Yet we owe the Feds because my payroll deduction was less than it normally was due to the "obama" tax cut that was part of the "stimulus"

Now we owe the Feds 400 bucks.

Obama is Stealing $400 dollars from me. Stealing it, like a criminal with a gun.okay. 2 things here-

first of all the collection of taxes is covered by the 16th amendment in the constitution, so i dont see how this would be a violation of your constitutional freedoms and liberties. :noidea:

secondly (and by no means am i an accountant or tax specialist so you will have to forgive me), let me know if i got this straight-

you feel violated and infringed upon because your paycheck was actually BIGGER due to an obama tax cut?!?!?

that is rich!

do you mind me asking by how much your paycheck suddenly increased?

for mathematical purposes i will assume you get paid every 2 weeks/26 times a year (not too big of a difference from getting paid bi-monthly= 24).

isnt the common thing to do is fill out a new w-4 form and on line 6 (additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck) put $15.00 in the box?

the great thing is that you were afforded the freedom and liberty to keep that $400 bucks in a savings account and earn interest on it, before paying it back. :thumbsup:

some people like to have the maximum amount always deducted in hopes that they get a return. this is good, but it allows the govt to earn "interest" on that amount over the year instead of the tax payer.

its a personal preference i guess.

BrandonCarr39
03-22-2010, 11:41 PM
The most dissapointing thing about all this is that today's modern 501c3 church(99.99% of them) have said NOTHING about any of Obama autrocities, including his deathcare bill.

Why? B/c they would lose their TAX-EXEMPT status - the reason why people give offerings to these churches is b/c they can write it off of their taxes.

tony hipchest
03-23-2010, 12:33 AM
The most dissapointing thing about all this is that today's modern 501c3 church(99.99% of them) have said NOTHING about any of Obama autrocities, including his deathcare bill.

Why? B/c they would lose their TAX-EXEMPT status - the reason why people give offerings to these churches is b/c they can write it off of their taxes.while i have absolutely no idea whatsoever how this post represents a personal freedom or liberty obama has already taken away from you, you do kinda raise an interesting point in a strange and roundabout way.

what about the amish? is it right to provide them with healthcare of modern technology that they may never use? does that infringe on their freedom of religion?

what about the uber rightwing religious kooks who think that abortion is the worst thing in the world, but will idly sit by and watch their 8 year old suffer by denying them the simplest medical and drug advancements, saying that it is God's will if their child dies?

MACH1
03-23-2010, 12:56 AM
What about the people who would rather make their house payment than be forced to buy health insurance.

tony hipchest
03-23-2010, 01:03 AM
What about the people who would rather make their house payment than be forced to buy health insurance.

do you mean people like antoine walker, allen iverson, and latrell spreewell?

i would say that if it is that big of an issue, they were probably overextended in the first place.

plus most of the people i encountered on this board couldnt give a shit about those who were struggling to pay off their fannie mae or freddie mac loans about a year ago.

Leftoverhard
03-23-2010, 01:04 AM
the reason why people give offerings to these churches is b/c they can write it off of their taxes.

I thought people gave offerings to churches as sort of a "tax" to get into heaven, no?

MACH1
03-23-2010, 01:09 AM
do you mean people like antoine walker, allen iverson, and latrell spreewell?

i would say that if it is that big of an issue, they were probably overextended in the first place.

Yeah, I meant millionaires in general. :rolleyes:

People that already live from paycheck to paycheck. Now they'll have to burden this bs, guess they could always stop feeding the kids. Oh wait, what am I thinking, obaamas going to pay for the house too. :doh:

tony hipchest
03-23-2010, 01:26 AM
poor argument...



its called an example. not an argument.

atleast mach1 knows the difference.

have you ever been forced to educate a child? i know i have. its the law.

i guess the simple solution in your eyes is to just not have children, right? are you consistant in those beliefs when it comes to abortion? personally i think having a child is a freedom and liberty all should have. and that child should have an education. even if it means the government step in and require said education.

you ever enroll a kid into public schools and see the list of shit you are expected to buy when they step in the door?

paper, pencils, kleenex, rulers, snacks, erasers, notebooks, crayons, watercolors, and that is just the tip of the iceberg for a kindergartener.

of course that is all cheaper than a private school, or requiring a parent of a 2 income household to quit a job and homeschool.

tony hipchest
03-23-2010, 01:46 AM
Yeah, I meant millionaires in general. :rolleyes:

People that already live from paycheck to paycheck. Now they'll have to burden this bs, guess they could always stop feeding the kids. Oh wait, what am I thinking, obaamas going to pay for the house too. :doh:all 3 are virtually broke, out of work, and living "paycheck to paycheck".

they are in debt just like our nation.

but for the people you are talking about in general, there are provisions.

obama is looking to provide those people with health care, not put them out on the streets.

make no mistake about it, obamas health care plan is targetting people like me. i dont have health insurance but i can afford it.

i have seen a physician 3 times in the past 25 years. once for a z-pac prescription for a nasty flu (i finally went and got a free flu shot for the first time this year), once for a cortizone shot for a wicked pinched nerve, and once for some maalox when i had food poisonning.

i hobbled around on a severely high ankle sprain for 2 months w/o seeing a doctor, because i felt the 3 ligaments pop and knew exactly what the doctor would tell me and what the treatment would be.

who needs a doctor to tell me i need and ace bandage, some crutches, and some painkillers? if i needed them, i could easilly have someone pick them up for me in juarez.

but now that i am gonna be forced to purchase insurance, i am almost certain big companies such as marlboro or anhauser busch will be a bit miffed to lose some profits. :chuckle:

MACH1
03-23-2010, 02:04 AM
i am almost certain big companies such as marlboro or anhauser busch will be a bit miffed to lose some profits

So are the insurance,drug companies and unions.

GBMelBlount
03-23-2010, 07:57 AM
I thought people gave offerings to churches as sort of a "tax" to get into heaven, no?

Thanks for your input Leftover. Very interesting perspective.

I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Are you making an analogy to the taxes that we pay to government here?

Texasteel
03-23-2010, 08:12 AM
I thought people gave offerings to churches as sort of a "tax" to get into heaven, no?

No, tithing is giving back to God a portion of that he has supplied to you. The government can only give back a portion of what it takes from you, if it finds you worthy. I do understand that there are some that see the government as sort of a God, but it is not mine. That government that governs lest governs best. These are not my words, I'm afraid I stole them from someone.

Godfather
03-23-2010, 10:28 AM
I thought people gave offerings to churches as sort of a "tax" to get into heaven, no?

I don't know of any church that does that.

There are TV hucksters who say that, but no religions of any significance.

Dino 6 Rings
03-23-2010, 10:46 AM
Hey Tony, I get what happened to me with my Federal Tax was me not paying attention to details. I didn't realize not enough was being with held each pay check, and yeah, I should have planned for the big grab the ankles.

Its just funny that I remember being told that no couple that earns under 250,000 bucks a year would pay any new taxes.

I'm a little tired of the out right lying out of Washington. You know, for that 400 bucks every other week, I didn't really see a difference, what was it like 20 bucks each check? Seriously, that's not that much money, not enough that I'd realize what was going on since I basically get Direct Deposit, then Auto Pay most of my bills or pay them all online. I get paid on a Thursday, pay all my bills that pay period with that money, whatever is left Tuesday, is gravy and grocery money. So that 20 bucks didn't "click" My bad, I get it, but don't pretend you're helping me, over there in Washington, when really, you aren't helping me. Helping me would be to mandate a Tax Cut across the board so that instead of paying what I am paying in Taxes.

Year to date, I have already paid 1400 bucks in Taxas, 1100 just to the Fed with another paycheck this month still to go.

This is what I hate about the entire system. These taxes are outrageous Tony. You have to admit it. And it doesn't look like they are going down any time soon. That's what bothers me. This "spending" in Washington is outrageous and what do we get for it?

I'm all for funding the military, yeah, get the bad guys. But we don't have secure borders, our ports are a mess, our dollar gets weaker every day, roads aren't being built at a good pace, schools are a mess, bridges fall down, cops and firemen are still underpaid, teachers sleep with students all over the place, I got criminals getting out of jail to 'save money' in some states. What the EF am I paying for again? People that don't pay taxes are getting medical care on my dime, people that don't pay taxes are getting welfare, and food stamps and abusing the system. Here I am, struggling, family of 5, doing it all the right way, and what do I get for my money?

Iran with Nuclear Weapons?

Effing Great.

Fire Haley
03-23-2010, 01:20 PM
You have the right to PAY for health insurance. If you don't, the IRS will take it out of your paycheck anyway to pay for everybody else.

We are a village

"Can I have more fries with that?"

http://blog.bioethics.net/fat-kid.jpg

Yes you can! - Uncle Tony will pay for it.

SteelCityMom
03-23-2010, 02:41 PM
What about the people who would rather make their house payment than be forced to buy health insurance.


I understand what you mean here to a point. There are a lot of people though that have lost their houses because of hospital bills due to the fact that their insurance company dropped them for preexisting conditions.

My family and I moved into our home when I was almost 5. My parents paid their taxes, kept up with their payments and we lived happily there until my father had a heart attack (I was 18). He had trouble finding a job and getting on a decent health insurance plan. My mom began to work 2 jobs (cleaning houses...under the table and at the local assisted living facility) just to make ends meet. Then my father, under very poor health insurance coverage, was diagnosed with RA, shingles and then cancer. The cost of the Enbrel (for his RA) was hundreds of dollars a month. The costs of hospital visits, chemotherapy and the eventual 2 months my father spent in the hospital before his death were astronomical. My mother was forced (by the bank) to foreclose on the house...she had to chose between doctors bills and the house. She still lives in the same apartment (on section 8) that she got 8 years ago. She is STILL paying the hospital bills. It is nothing short of f-ed up.

The only thing I really despise about the healthcare bill is the IRS getting involved. I hate the IRS. There is no need for them whatsoever. BUT...healthcare in this country was already a joke. While I may not agree with the entire bill, I understand the approach to it (minus the IRS).

As for people trying to choose their house payments over health insurance, I think if some were given the option to have cheaper health insurance there wouldn't be as big of a problem in making the house payments....if that makes any sense.

lamberts-lost-tooth
03-23-2010, 03:33 PM
I thought people gave offerings to churches as sort of a "tax" to get into heaven, no?

:doh:

Well....my faith says that 10% is enough.

Apparantly my Government thinks it's 4X more important thatn God.:noidea:

steelreserve
03-23-2010, 03:50 PM
so i ask the wise ones who feel that the democrats should be abolished and that going with a 1 party system is the way to go, what freedoms liberties have been stolen from you?

The freedom to not be made to pay thousands of dollars for stupid shit.

SteelCityMom
03-23-2010, 04:05 PM
The freedom to not be made to pay thousands of dollars for stupid shit.


Wait...don't we do that no matter who is in office?

RunWillieRun
03-23-2010, 04:07 PM
:doh:

Well....my faith says that 10% is enough.

Apparantly my Government thinks it's 4X more important thatn God.:noidea:



LOL....Win.