Why is it only a free country if?

Question

I've seen a lot of Conservatives (certainly not all) saying that if you don't like Bush, then you're against freedom and should go to France or Canada. First of all I think if someone is against freedom they definitely shouldn't go to a free country, DUH.

But is telling people that their views aren't accepted really freedom?

What're your views on this point? Are you a conservative who believes people who don't support the president are bad? Are you a liberal who thinks that people who do support him are bad? Should they be forced out of the country?

If so, how is that freedom?

Please keep name-calling and insulting to a minimum. Intelligent answers only!

Answer 1

I am a conservative and I've already been scolding some conservatives who are posting here because they've said dumb and malicious things. I don't agree with the idea that if you criticize the President, get out. In fact, I don't agree with Pres. Bush, either. I voted for him in 2000 but I didn't vote at all in 2004 and I won't defend anything that he has done. The only thing I don't like about liberals is when they arbitrarily call Bush a fascist.

But the truth is, I, too, have used the expression that if you don't like it here then you can move. I used that expression last year on a different website and I used it precisely because of what a particular liberal said. That liberal had made a very general endorsement of the idea that Europe is, in certain ways, better than the U.S. That liberal said that he believes sex is an open book. Anybody can do anything that they want to do, sexually, without there being any rules -- nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with politics. He said that this country is so puritanical that it has choked the living daylights out of enjoying life as we should and have a right to. So I told that liberal (in ALL CAPS) that if he is so in love with Europe and all of its supposed sexual permissiveness then he should pack his bags and move there.

A large part of why I say that is because of this: "Sodomy" became a matter of "human rights" in Europe in the early 1980's because of a ruling by the European Court on Human Rights, which was interpretting an international treaty on human rights that was created in the mid-20th Century. Some 20 years later, in 2003, "sodomy" became a matter of constitutional law here in the U.S. because the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be more interested in applying the precedent of the European Court than in applying legitimate precedents of our own Court when it interprets the U.S. Constitution. Those of us who are conservative get really very outraged when we see our courts applying INTERNATIONAL law in determining the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. And furthermore, the U.S. S.C.'s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas was just plain outrageously deceitful and hypocritical. I am convinced that this ruling and the ruling in Mass. about gay marriage are elements in -- they are forces of -- social divisiveness and the increase in partisan bickering.

So when I see a liberal proclaiming that this is country is too puritanical and that our government takes away from people the right to have sex -- "nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with politics," that liberal had said -- I am extremely worried that the social divisiveness and the partisan bickering is going to just keep getting worse and worse. And I myself reacted the wrong way, as I later admitted to that liberal. I don't want to say things like that, but I felt very, very embarrassed by what he said and, as I've said here, I think that what he had said is just soooooooooo divisive.

Answer 2

I've been coming here a lot. Frankly, way too much, but it's really hot outside. I've never seen a conservative say, "You're against Freedom, Go to Canada". I've seen them say leave the country when someone complains about how awful the US is or how the US is the terrorist. Over the top? On both sides. I've seen, "You just don't believe in Freedom" when discussing whether or not the Iraqi people were better under Saddam. Over the top? On both sides. I've never seen those two statement together the way you have them. Not to say it hasn't happened.

Please be advised that the terms "Ignorant" and "Moron" are probably the most common words used at yahoo.answers/politics no matter whether they're liberal or conservative. It's really quite funny.

Answer 3

I like to come back at them and say, "... since you obviously want a dictatorship then you need to move to one... then after a few years when your point of view or belief system is the minority... and after you beg awhile... we MIGHT let you back in...." LOL

Seriously, when ppl say that, my first thoughts of that person are that they do not even understand the freedoms they are talking about, they have a low level of self-control by not being able to handle an opposing view and they truly do not understand this country is beautiful for protecting the rights of the individual over the majority.

Ya know, now that I think about this more, Bush's idea of defending freedom is forcing a culture change on another country. So, geez how can we be surprised that his supporters don't realize thier argument for us to leave is defying freedom.

Answer 4

Freedom is the ability to express your opinions. And respecting freedom means respecting the rights of others to disagree with you.

Don't forget that speech and religion aren't the only guaranteed protections in the First Amendment. Also there is the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". That includes speaking out when you think your government or your elected representatives have done you wrong.

This country was founded on the principle that it is not only our right to question the government, it is our responsibility. Read the Declaration of Independence. That presents the idea that the government has only what power its populace grants its, and that "We the People" hold the ultimate power to decide what our government is or is not allowed to do.

When the government can tell people to shut up just for pointing out what we think the government is doing wrong, we're not on the verge of losing our freedoms. We'll have already lost them.

Answer 5

It's what people call freedom of speech.That way everybody can force thier believes on you and get mad when you disagree.That's just one of the things that make the world go round.There is no such thing as freedom you are looked down on by somebody no matter what you do or say!

Answer 6

I think this question can readily be answered in an absolute - it's never appropriate to accuse someone of being "against freedom". However, arguing that putting someone's beliefs into practice would cause an irreconcilable loss of freedom is still fair play.

Answer 7

Freedom is the choice to believe in whatever you want and say it. So people who say if you're against Bush you're against freedom are basically against your "freedom" of choice. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion just as long as it doesn't get violent.

Answer 8

It isn't the difference in ideas, it is the way they are presented. If a party's stated goals are the same as the enemies then there is a problem. During WWII the parties had differences, but they united against a common enemy. We can have a good debate but our goals need to be the same.

Answer 9

sure and no. in assessment to international locations with the two no/little or no government like somalia and afghanistan, it may look as though the U. S. had much less freedom because of the fact we've greater rules. yet out financial opportunities supply us freedom that maximum in those failed states don't have. while in comparison with totalitarian governments like North Korea, we've heavily greater freedom in our each and daily lives, yet we are nonetheless chained to the social settlement that each and each democratic government has with that's human beings. finally, the question of whether or no longer we are loose is according to plenty greater complicated aspects than merely how plenty it expenditures to stay interior the U.S.

Answer 10

Listening to the politicians on T.V. make me sick. They are only worried whether they are going to have a job or not. They do not care about our safety. If they did they would be supporting Bush 100%. Whether they agree with war or not. We are there and cannot back down now. That is just what Iran thinks we are going to do, back down. Would we rather have the war on U.S. soil. I wouldn't.