Thoughts on Liberty

Posted Monday, February 7, 2011, at 4:46 PM
View 37 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I just replace the words "left" and "liberal", with the words "right" and "conservative", and it makes for better reading. Those in glass houses should not cast stones.

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 5:29 PM
  • *

    I love conservatives touting what a great man Reagan was.I'm not sure if that is wrought by self delusion, or some other equally idiotic mechanism.

    I will give the man credit for the desire to abolish nuclear weapons, but he didn't appear to terribly useful in that capacity either.

    -- Posted by Damu on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 7:00 PM
  • *

    And just what is my glass house Dawg?

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 7:25 PM
  • *


    It's always interesting when any ideaologue rants about "liberty". Amazing that you feel justified in decrying "liberals" for taking away "liberties" when you are often ranting in favor of the theft of "liberties" you agree with.


    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 8:10 PM
  • everyone in our government does what they accuse the other side of doing. Some are just better at hiding it or lying about it then others.

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 8:37 PM
  • *

    Corporations should not be people. This should be common sense. Kind of gives you an idea who is pulling the strings on both sides.

    -- Posted by Damu on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 8:47 PM
  • *

    SW Trans - I have come to expect a bit more in your responses. Was Jefferson, Adams or Henry ranting? Or was it just me?

    Typical? You don't think we are loosing liberties?

    Is Obama an ideologue, or just me? I am beginning to suspect that you are intellectually dishonest.

    But then again, I have never met an honest liberal, maybe you have. Introduce me to one will you?

    Also, was Jefferson correct in his assessment, or is he worthy of your petulant rebuke?

    You'd call Patrick Henry a ranter too wouldn't ya?


    -- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 9:18 PM
  • *


    It was just your rant I was referring, using their rants as a basis. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with passion.

    Both Obama and you are ideologues in my opinion.

    I think you can expand your honest liberal analogy to any ideologues, conservative or liberal.

    Actually I would call Patrick Henry a ranter, doesn't mean I don't agree with him.

    My point is that when you go on and on about how liberals taking away "liberties" while at the same time supporting the infringement of "liberties" of those you don't agree with you come off as a hypocrite, just as Liberals do.

    I believe you have honest reasons that you believe in for your views, but I also believe whacko liberals also have reasons for their beliefs.

    The reality of our situation is much bigger than any one sided view explains.

    How am I intellectually dishonest? Because I don't agree with you 100%?

    I think Jefferson has a valild point, it was not that idea that I was "rebuking petutantly"

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 9:09 AM
  • *

    I also am not sure if we are loosing liberties, I think that was part of our stated purpose in Iraq, and I disagreed with that statement at the time and still do.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 9:13 AM
  • Speaking of Iraq, I'm asking a question, not arguing a point. How would Saddam Hussein ever have been taken out of power by anyone? The United nations Security Council began sanctions against Iraq, they began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and continued until May 22, 2003, after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

    In this period of 12 years plus,"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period" for sanctions-related excess deaths.

    Do we just leave dictators alone and hope they go away, or does the first world countries do something about it?

    -- Posted by Keda46 on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 7:44 PM
  • *


    As with Hussein in the 80s or Mubarak or the Saudis, as long as they are our dictators we support them, the only problem comes if they are some one else's dictators.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 7:41 AM
  • *

    @SWNEBR You hit the nail on the head. With the US's history in regard to foreign affairs. It surprises me that people don't understand that regions anger with us.

    -- Posted by Damu on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 9:16 AM
  • *


    I think you are too generous in your estimation of the people in the middle east. You sound as if you believe the extremists are justified in their anger towards us. That same reasoning could apply to Timothy McVeigh, he felt he was justified in his extremism as well.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 11:07 AM
  • Thank you gentleman for your perspective on this subject!

    -- Posted by Keda46 on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 11:34 AM
  • *

    @SWNEBR I think your comparing apples to oranges in your example with McVeigh. I personally don't think killing innocents in any instance is justified. I'm just somewhat bewildered when people try to say the reason the middle east has so much anger towards the US is our "freedoms". The lack of knowledge on the publics part to the actions our government has taken over there is bewildering to me.

    -- Posted by Damu on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 10:01 PM
  • *

    I'm still wondering where in the article Sam was ranting about removing liberties he doesn't agree with.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 11:11 PM
  • *


    If you are referring to my post, I would direct you not to this post but to other posts Sam has made. I didn't mean to imply that he was ranting about liberties he doesn't agree with in this post.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 1:24 PM
  • *

    @Mickel Simply look at the 9/11 Mosque post from a while back.

    -- Posted by Damu on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 2:50 PM
  • * could you specifically cite some liberties, guarenteed by the Constitution that Sam wants removed? Or, actually, to use your words...What specific guarenteed Constitutional liberties does Sam not agree with that he is ranting about?

    Damu...Perhaps you are implying the blog about voicing opposition to the Mosque being built on ground-zero? I can see how poking holes in a Christian on this topic would create joy for you...but I have to tell you that there is no Constitutional amendment concerning church location. That is actually a private matter. However, voicing opposition to where a church is being built IS constitutionally protected. Just because you or somebody else doesn't like the opinion, doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 1:04 PM
  • *

    @Mickel I would necessarily say joy is the term I would use. Entertainment is much more accurate in terms of definition.

    Whatever happened to that debate we had going on. You stopped answering :(.

    Now, in regard to the 9/11 mosque. Sams entire argument against it was based on the religious pretexts he believed it was about. I think one could easily construe that Sam feels that Christianity is the only religion that has any place in America. I don't believe Sam would have any problems at all with the rescinding of freedom of religion in regard to Muslims.

    -- Posted by Damu on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 4:49 PM
  • *


    If that is your criteria for comparison, I would have to ask you what constitutionally guaranteed liberties are being infringed upon that led to this rant? Where in the constitution does it say we can't have debt?

    What constitutionally guaranteed rights is anyone trying to take away, left or right?

    If as you say to Damu this is just about differences in opinion or expression, what is wrong with leftists expressing their opinions?

    I was merely referring to the problem that all ideologues seem to run into in that it is quite easy to point out the hypocrisy in their beliefs.

    I will pose a question, should homosexuals be allowed to marry, why or why not?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 8:31 PM
  • The same thing could be ask about an animal, should you be able to marry one, if you both truly loved each other, why or why not?

    Who knows? As fast as the world is changing, I could see it happening in a few centuries. I may not agree with it, but that hasn't stopped to many things that have changed that I didn't like.

    -- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 11:31 AM
  • *


    According to Mickel's criterion there is no reason why I can't marry an animal, it doesn't say so in the constitution.

    P.S. In the spirit of Valentine's day, I really hope my wife doesn't read this and think I consider her an animal :)

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 1:15 PM
  • LOL

    For your sake, I hope she doesn't either.

    -- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 4:00 PM
  • *

    Why would anyone care what someone else is doing if it didn't directly effect them? I simply don't understand why anyone would care.

    -- Posted by Damu on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 4:53 PM
  • Gosh! I don't know, you mean, like child molestation, or kill someone? It's not effecting me directly. If I may suggest, ask better questions.

    -- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 6:23 PM
  • *

    @Keda64 Fair enough. If what someone else is doing, doesn't effect you, and doesn't hurt anyone. Why would you care?

    -- Posted by Damu on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 6:58 PM
  • *

    @keda64 Lets make the question a bit more "spicy". If whatever act is done between two consenting adults, or a consenting adult and animal. What business is it of anyone else's?

    I personally don't care if people are out bangin animals. Thats their prerogative. I also don't care if people are out with members of the same gender. Why would anyone?

    -- Posted by Damu on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 7:02 PM
  • *

    If the republican party is any indication, your much more likely to be a closeted (Fill in the blank with whatever you want) speaking out against something you disagree with, than speaking for it.

    -- Posted by Damu on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 9:22 PM
  • I'm neither republican or a closet queen, I'm just an older man that is somewhat set in my ways. Your right, if its consenting then what business is it of mine. If someone wants to marry there mother or father, sister or brother and its ok with them, it's none of my concern. I just can't help taking jabs once in awhile, sort of like you and the religious thing. Its none of your concern how people feel religiously, but that doesn't keep you from ******* on there parade.

    -- Posted by Keda46 on Tue, Feb 15, 2011, at 1:04 AM
  • *

    @Keda64 Your sentiments are in the right place. Your somewhat wrong on the religious portion though. The large portion of Christians in this nation effects people in a multitude of ways.

    From electing oblivious retards to high office. To continuing the fight against equality for people with differing ideals from themselves.

    -- Posted by Damu on Tue, Feb 15, 2011, at 8:40 AM
  • *


    Please refrain from using the r-word.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Feb 15, 2011, at 2:02 PM
  • *

    Wow! Again Damu! You are showing yourself to be quite the savory individual! I imagine that you are doing as great a job for your causes as mike does for his!

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Feb 16, 2011, at 9:07 PM
  • *

    @SirD I know facts are difficult things to deal with. Don't worry, with time it becomes easier to change your course. Believe me, I've been there.

    -- Posted by Damu on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 12:54 PM
  • *

    SW...??? I asked you to specifically name a rant that you claimed Sam had espoused...and you liken my question to some bestial equivocation? It may take me awhile to get that one to sink in.

    Also, I didn't bring ideology into this debate...I'm re-reading the posts and it looks like you did. Could you at least try to fake being objective? I didn't bring up the question of gay or animal marriage either.

    Damu - so what if Sam believes Christianity should be the only religion in the US or the world for that believe religion is a waste of time, yet you hold your own ideology as dear as Sam holds his. Religious freedom is about the protection of our beliefs and the freedom to exercise our right to worship (or not) in the manner in which we so choose. I don't agree with Voodoo...but I recognize that folks who believe it have the right to practice their faith. You want people to recognize your beliefs...the reciprocation of that recognition is in order.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Feb 17, 2011, at 9:12 PM
  • *

    @Mickel There is no belief in my system, its based on disbelief. I have no magical sky fairies or intricate mythology. You will have to excuse my skepticism of other peoples logical ability when they believe that bearded men in the sky dictate what happens on the ground.

    -- Posted by Damu on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 6:22 PM
  • *

    Damu - admittedly then, your belief system is disbelief. So, you, what...believe in a void from which all matter and life suddenly sprang; and then try to link morality derived solely from your own point of reality which emanates from nothing?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sat, Feb 26, 2011, at 12:15 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: