Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know, I'm tired of the whole "subsidizing corporations with welfare" argument. The government set up a broken system that is designed to supplement the incomes of the working poor. It's an idiotic system, and most of us would prefer that it didn't work that way, but that's the system that the government set up. Somehow the fact that the working poor are being subsidized - which is exactly what the system was designed to do - is now the fault of the corporations who employ unskilled and low skill workers? Perhaps Walmart and McDonalds should raise their wages - while at the same time raising their requirements for employment. For some reason, I doubt that anyone who is griping about the whole "subsidized corporation" system would want to see the average employee of Walmart and McDonalds sitting at home collecting full welfare benefits because they no longer meet the requirements to get those low skilled jobs.
For the TLDR crowd, just shut up already about the whole welfare subsidized corporation issue. It's exactly what most liberals voted for in the first place.
People who want health insurance that isn't dependent on their employers are animals?
People who get sick and don't have health insurance, so they lose everything to stay alive, are animals?
Yes people are in fact animals. Are you one of those who believes that the earth is only 6000 years old? All animals, perhaps even those born and raised in captivity, have an innate desire for freedom, IMO.
But even apart from that, giving someone or something security is not the same as giving them freedom. These are two different words with two different meanings, no matter what Pres. Obama tries to claim.
In a recent speech to the Democratic National Committee, the president lamented that "we've let the other side define the word 'freedom' for too long." Then, as he often does, Obama set up a straw man argument, claiming to Republicans freedom means "what's in it for me?" or "I've got no obligations to anybody."
Of course his interpretation is entirely wrong of what freedom is. He sets us his self made straw man as a platform to redefine what freedom is.
"Freedom," he said, "is the peace of mind of knowing that if you got sick, you won't lose everything.
"Freedom is the ability to change jobs and start a new business, chase a new idea without fear of losing your health insurance.
"Freedom is signing for that new home and knowing it can't be taken from you because you actually understand what you're signing.
"Freedom is getting that new credit card and knowing the stakes and understanding how you're going to manage it.
"Freedom is the knowledge that ... you're not going to be treated like a second-class person once we fix our broken immigration system. That's freedom."
These are not facets of freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with outcome or results.
Freedom is about a person living as they want to live (without infringing upon others), which includes enjoying and supporting ourselves as we see fit. This doesn't mean that all things will turn out like we want. At minimum, we should be holding to the freedoms defined in the framework documents.
Freedom (definition),
1. the quality or state of being free.
2. a political right.
And I must admit that I fully agree with your definition of freedom.
But doesn't every American have the right to their own personal meaning of freedom?
And Obama is a black man, and with America's past a black person (may) have slightly different feelings about the word freedom. Obama also grew up around "poor" black American culture, this (may) also cause him to have slightly different feelings about the word freedom.
But then the #2 definition of freedom is "a political right."
Obama is highly educated, could he have used the word freedom meaning "a political right" ??
"Freedom," he said, "is the peace of mind of knowing that if you got sick, you won't lose everything.
1. Are you (feeling) free when you fear loosing everything you own?
2. Is it a political right to keep your house if a sickness effects your life?
"Freedom is the ability to change jobs and start a new business, chase a new idea without fear of losing your health insurance.
1. Are you (feeling) free when you are scared to change jobs?
2. Is it a political right to be able to change jobs without loosing your insurance?
"Freedom is signing for that new home and knowing it can't be taken from you because you actually understand what you're signing.
1. Are you (feeling) free when you fear someone taking your home?
2. Is it a political right to understand contracts that you sign?
"Freedom is getting that new credit card and knowing the stakes and understanding how you're going to manage it.
- The above sure sounds like freedom.
"Freedom is the knowledge that ... you're not going to be treated like a second-class person once we fix our broken immigration system. That's freedom.
1. Are you (feeling) free when you fear being treated like a second class citizen?
2. Is it a political right to not be treated like a second class citizen?
Liberals just love the folding, spindling, and mutilation of words. It's what they do.
The very word "liberal" once meant individualist, pro-liberty, pro-property rights etc. In the 1960's, personal freedom was a strong hippie value, so the left adopted the term "liberal" to appeal to them. At the time "progressive" seemed outdated, and it had some embarrassing links to fascism and racism. "Socialist" was unpopular among American voters so could not be resuscitated either. "Liberal" was selected almost at random and so became the left's new pseudonym.
Medieval Jewish mystic Isaac the Blind (1160-1235) held that creation was the materialization of divine speech, using the neo-Platonist idea of logos (see also John 1:1. Isaac the Blind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. John
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
Luckily liberals were not on the scene yet for creation or things would have gotten very confusing, very fast.
Liberals just love the folding, spindling, and mutilation of words. It's what they do.
The very word "liberal" once meant individualist, pro-liberty, pro-property rights etc. In the 1960's, personal freedom was a strong hippie value, so the left adopted the term "liberal" to appeal to them. At the time "progressive" seemed outdated, and it had some embarrassing links to fascism and racism. "Socialist" was unpopular among American voters so could not be resuscitated either. "Liberal" was selected almost at random and so became the left's new pseudonym.
And most conservatives are unable to have an intelligent conversation about anything. Today's conservatives can only repeat what their CEO leaders at Fox news, Rush radio, and their CEO politicians tell them. Or they attack, whine, and complain like young children.
Conservative used to mean to watch spending, have family values, have respect, and stand for whats right. But today's conservatives only stand for CEO tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, and corporate deregulation (while they say to hell with everything else.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
