"Freedom" Definition is Tested

Superman · 10-06-2005, 05:10 AM

I have remarked here that "freedom" has taken on a twisted meaning, for political marketing propaganda purposes. It is a buzzword that lemmings will glom onto, but when used by Republicans actually has a much narrower meaning. It now means "freedom from business regulations." I and many others have long pointed out that liberals favor FAR more personal and civil liberties and freedoms, FOR PEOPLE, than does the current conservative position. We point at the so-called Patriot Act, etc.

Well, the Supreme Court, largely appointed by conservative "presidents," is considering Oregon's assisted suicide freedom. This is a clear opportunity for an individual justice to place his or her cards on the table. This new fellow, who is clearly conservative and has vowed to "strictly interpret the Constitution," a buzz phrase for "protect freedom," will now begin to show his true colors.

I think this question, this assisted suicide thing, is the kind of question that is tearing at the fabric of true freedom in my country. And it's not the libs who are gunning for my freedoms. It is the cons.

slakjaw · 10-06-2005, 05:24 AM

I agree with you 100%

its no longer about freedom

it is about money and the freedom to make money

Follow the money and you will have your answer.

RallyJon · 10-06-2005, 05:29 AM

I, too, hope he does some writing on this one.

My opinion is that Roberts was the perfect George Bush stealth nominee. Looks conservative enough to placate the one-issue mouth-breathers on the religious right, but will be much more of a centrist at heart. Kind of like Bush's entire political career.

gaijindabe · 10-06-2005, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman

I think this question, this assisted suicide thing, is the kind of question that is tearing at the fabric of true freedom in my country.

Huh?

RallyJon · 10-06-2005, 06:16 AM

Not sure about tearing fabric, but it's a nice juicy test case that pits traditional states' rights conservatives against "neo" holy roller conservatives.

gaijindabe · 10-06-2005, 06:22 AM

Assisted suicide? It happens ALL the time. Un-assisted as well.

Just wait till the money guys get a hold of such a law... Imagine the guy from the HMO with a clipboard and 100 point "quailty of life worksheet" walking around hospitals like some kind of Grim Reaper.

BGCarrera32 · 10-06-2005, 06:22 AM

The real issue is moral b.s. like doctor assisted suicides to begin with and if society as a whole stopped taking the "anything goes as long as its convenient for me" attitude it wouldn't even be on the court docket.

The judges that Bush has attempted to appoint are ones that will interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. Wether his picks prove to uphold that basis over time remains to be seen. Until then, keep skewing the verbage anyway you want...

Rodeo · 10-06-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BGCarrera32
The real issue is moral b.s. like doctor assisted suicides to begin with and if society as a whole stopped taking the "anything goes as long as its convenient for me" attitude it wouldn't even be on the court docket.

The judges that Bush has attempted to appoint are ones that will interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. Wether his picks prove to uphold that basis over time remains to be seen. Until then, keep skewing the verbage anyway you want...

Do I understand correctly, then, that you are AGAINST the Court overturning Oregon's duly-enacted law? That would be "legislating fromt he bench" right, to overturn a legislative enactment?

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

I was thinking about this one last night too. As a conservative who wants the government out of my life as much as possible, I am against them overturning the Oregon law. If the people of Oregon want euthanasia and they can find doctors who can do it on a clear conscience then so be it. Here is my question: If you are for euthanasia and Oregon's right to allow people to end their lives in their state, why would you be against giving people the same right to decide whether or not to have abortion in their state?

Rodeo · 10-06-2005, 07:28 AM

Because like you I want the government out of my life as much as possible. I'm not against "giving people the same right to decide whether or not to have abortion in their state," I'm in favor of giving people the right to decide. If there is a law against it, they do NOT have a right to decide, they must do with their bodies what the state tells them to do with their bodies.

Look, I don't like the idea of abortion at all. I also don't like the idea of a state telling anybody that they (the state) control a person's body for 9 months if that person gets pregnant. Its a bad choice either way, and I come down in favor of privacy, of freedom to choose. I think its somewhat easier for me because I don not believe that life begins at conception. So while abortion is ugly and distasteful to me, its not murder.

It also easier for me, because I am absolutely certain that the constitution contains a right to privacy, a right to be left alone by the government. It has not right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies.

RallyJon · 10-06-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo because I am absolutely certain that the constitution contains a right to privacy, a right to be left alone by the government

Real conservatives understand that this has to trump any distasteful feelings one might have about abortion, euthanasia, men in leather pants, etc.

Superman · 10-06-2005, 07:51 AM

Real liberals understand it, RallyJon. And a portion of conservatives.

RallyJon · 10-06-2005, 08:20 AM

You mean like gun control and employment-at-will?

Superman · 10-06-2005, 08:41 AM

Jon, I've killed plenty of game. No gun control for me.

Employment at will is fine by me. As long as workers are free to choose a representative and bargain collectively.

As I said, some of you guys have a twisted view of "freedom" and a caricaturized view of what it means to be a "liberal." Fortunately, most of you hold fast to what real "freedom" is, and agree with the basic principles that liberals hold. This notion that liberals somehow want to control peoples' lives is propaganda. Look at the names we are using. "Liberal." Where do you think that came from? Sure, there are liberals who favor gun control. But nobody's really trying to take anybody's gun away. That's a tiny minority, but it's been blown out of proportion as though we've got to elect Republicans to save us from those intrusive liberals who want to run our lives. *****! We've got Republicans in our bedrooms, in our hospital rooms, in our bank accounts, in our library records,.....and the nation is imagining that the danger is coming from the liberals. The ones who think we should be liberated. Free.

It's about who gets regulated. The Republican party has always been the party of Industry, and the Democratic Party has always been the party of the People. Republicans want to regulate people and deregulate industry. Democrats want to regulate industry and deregulate people. And now, the nation is temporarily confused into thinking that the Republicans are for "freedom." Most clever political marketing I have EVER seen.

Rodeo · 10-06-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
*****! We've got Republicans in our bedrooms, in our hospital rooms, in our bank accounts, in our library records,.....and the nation is imagining that the danger is coming from the liberals.

****

And now, the nation is temporarily confused into thinking that the Republicans are for "freedom." Most clever political marketing I have EVER seen.

Well said! The people running around calling themselves "conservatives" are NOT conservatives, not in the sense that most people understand that term. I've been saying that over and over to little effect, so I hope that people read what you have written above, and re-think their views.

The "Christian Conservative" base that has hi-jacked the Republican party wants to control who you have sex with, who you marry, how you die, who decides when you die, what you can ingest in your body, and on and on and on. They don't care about "judicial activism" or "states rights," or any of the tag lines we continue to hear about. They care about enforcing their religious, moral code on you, no matter what it takes. If its an "activist judge" they need to keep Terri Schiavo alive, fine. If it’s a "strict constructionist" they need to outlaw abortion, bring them on.

They don’t hold a POLITICAL philosophy, they hold a moral one. Whatever legal/political means they can use to enforce their moral code, that suits them just fine. These people are polar opposites of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, yet somehow they continue to get lumped together.

Now one more thought, and some may think this cynical. I firmly believe that the "conservatives" IN POWER are using the Christian conservative base not because they share this desire to enforce these moral/religious views on the populace, but BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM AND THEIR FRIENDS MONEY. Spouting the moral conservative line keeps them in power, and that power is used to shift wealth where they want it – to their true "base," the wealthiest 1% of the population.

So when I see wage earners supporting this administration, because they think the president is a "conservative," are all I can think to myself is "sucker."

gaijindabe · 10-06-2005, 10:30 AM

Oh brother, what time is chorus practice??

The Internationale:

Arise ye starvelings from your slumbers
Arise ye criminals of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
and at last ends the age of cant.
Now away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise!
We'll change forthwith [or henceforth] the old conditions
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

CHORUS

Then come comrades rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale
Unites the human race. (repeat).

RallyJon · 10-06-2005, 11:04 AM

Did the christian conservatives hi-jack the republican party, or did a very savvy group of republicans decide that they could use the christian conservatives to gain and hold power?

I think the two supreme court nominees clearly show that it's the latter. If you think the administration has been good at fooling the great unwashed of middle america, I would suggest they've been even better at fooling the christian conservative extremists.

Superman · 10-06-2005, 11:12 AM

RallyJon and Rodeo have it figured out. In fact, the differences between real conservatives and real liberals are, in most instances, so minute as to be dismissable for most poltical discussions. Rodeo, you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Or at least that's what they call us. I'd assert we are realists who understand that it's all about power and money and ego. And propaganda and marketing. The wage earners who support the current "administration" have been duped BIG TIME. Dubya has consistently pursued a war against wage earners since his first weeks in office, and those wage earners still think it's about something else.

speeder · speeder's Garage

There is an old saying, "There are two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools".....

Dan Mc Intyre · Dan Mc Intyre's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
I have remarked here that "freedom" has taken on a twisted meaning, for political marketing propaganda purposes. It is a buzzword that lemmings will glom onto, but when used by Republicans actually has a much narrower meaning.

I couldn't agree more. I believe it is similar how the word "Democracy" has been twisted by conservatives. When applied to foreign governments, it now means that their foreign trade policies are Pro-American business and has little to do with governing policies.

Basically, if you allow US business interests access to your natural resources, and then allow US goods to be sold in your country, you have a Democracy. Doesn't matter what else you do. If you don't, you're not democratic and far less flattering labels get applied. You know what happens next. That's right, the US government gonna give yo a$$ an attitude adjustment!

Dan

edit - I like that saying, speeder.