Freedom of Speech.  It's the lamest excuse I have ever heard of someone being total jerk.

 

~Rebekah~

lol. qualify your use of the word "jerk". what does it mean?

Let me rephrase that.   Freedom of Speech is just a lame excuse to allow someone to be a complete and total jerk about someone else's beliefs and an excuse to not really care if they offend someone. 

 

~Rebekah~

understood. but remember. you would be the only one with freedom of speech. (see origninal question).

Heh, of course....

 

I'm still freaking using that.  It's ridiculous.

 

~Rebekah~

:-D Thank you for agreeing or disagreeing or whatever! lol

 

 

~Rebekah~

lol. It is not about agreeing but about learning. you from me. me from you.

*imitates Anakin*  Yes, Master

   Kidding...lol.  It is about learning. I agree

 

~Rebekah~

lol

lol

~Bekka~

No, there is not one that I'd wish others could not exercise. 

all of them?  good.

Although the original intention was good, I'd prefer if people didn't have the right to bear arms.

 

(I'm okay with bare arms, particularly during warmer weather.)

What harm comes to you if you neighbor exercises that right? What was the original "intention" as you understand it? Is that intention still valid or not?

My neighbors (locally as well as nationally) are idiots with short fuses armed with weapons instead of social skills.  They shouldn't be allowed to have anything more dangerous than a butter knife.  The potential for harm to me and others is enormous.

 

The original intention was to give the citizens power to rise up against the government if it became corrupt.  We haven't done that.  Instead, we shoot each other.

"My neighbors (locally as well as nationally) are idiots"

 

You think your neighbors are stupid? are at least, relative to you.

 

"The original intention was to give the citizens power to rise up against the government if it became corrupt."

 

Is that still a valid intention? or not?

 

no arms....no arms..

we don't have to hunt our food any longer...We have Safeway.. 

joking?

yes and no...

Why should anyone bear arms...

 

Weapons destroy....why should carrying them be some's right?

 

Do we need them as protection against the other..."bad" dudes who also carry them...

I would vote to elimate guns..

They have no useful purpose...in my opinion..

 

 

"Weapons destroy....why should carrying them be some's right?"

 

Funny.  None of my weapons have ever destroyed anything? How is it that destroy? I always thought they preserved?

None of your weapons?  I know you have weapons...but you have guns...big ones?

Georgie...your words are weapons....you aim ...you shoot...you .............put smiles on my face.

always..

now.....I love these questions but are you always the moderator?....

I want to hear your loudmouth opinion Georgie...lots of words...not a hmmmmm but a whole lotta words...Give us your opinion on your question if you dare..

My opinion is buried in the questions I pose.

 

I have many weapons. Those who would cause me harm are seldom interested in poetry.

hmmmm.

you're right...poetry man.

of course I am.  It's my blog.

.yes...it is...

earth...moon...stars...

it's your blogg.

 

two g's?

hmmm?????

2g's

hi funny girl.

Hello you...

I had a terrible day today which ended with me reacting instead of waiting...not assuming and being diplomatic....Then because of my reaction, I felt terribly embarrassed....very very embarrassed....I want to put a bag over my head for at least a week...ever feel like that?  oh dear............I may be funny...but today was no laughing matter...Oh sweetie....sending hugs...cuz I do need some too...

I have to ask you something Georgie....If I were the woman in the boat....would you put a life preserver on me and throw me in?  or make me swim with the sharks?  well?  I hope I get the answer I want to hear.

 

if it were you, everyone else would be tossed out. 

no.....not true....

I hate being alone...in a boat....especially in a storm...

Georgie....I wouldn't toss anyone out...I would  find a way for everyone to survive.

my last comment was a joke. I would do what I had to do to ensure that some survived versus none. If that means throwing some off of the boat, that is what I would have to do.

I see.....I think.

If the choice is some survive or none survice, one must choose some or none. In my opinion, it would be immoral to take any course that puts into jeopardy the "some". If that requires sacrificing three, that would be the moral course.  Sacrifice three or lose twelve.

For what purpose do we need weapons?

 

Not true, I know quite a few people who rely heavily on reaching their limit during every hunting season.

Venison is tastier, cheaper, and healthier anyway.

Of course there are responsible gun owners....but...

 

more harm than good comes from guns...so in the long run...are they protecting society?

When everyone needs one...."just in case" or "because my neighbour has one"  ...then I believe.. society suffers from it     as the murder statistics prove.....

 

More harm than good comes from illegally owned guns; more good than harm comes from legally owned guns.

Sounds like we don't need less guns, just a better ratio of legal gun owners to illegal ones.  Since bad guys are already planning on breaking in to your house and shooting you and your family as you sleep while making off with your valuables, I really don't think they mind acquiring illegal weapons.

All weapons are tools, all tools, potentially, weapons.

It isn't so much I wish it weren't exercised, so much as I wish it weren't abused.

Freedom of press.

Freedom of press does not mean news conglomerates have a freedom to buy up and manipulate news agencies and journalists...

"Freedom of press does not mean news conglomerates have a freedom to buy up and manipulate news agencies and journalists"

 

why not?

Because, that's covered by completely other freedoms.

In all seriousness, being a constitutionalist, I'd much rather see more of our rights exercised than fewer.

"Because, that's covered by completely other freedoms"

 

Is it? might have to look into that.

 

"I'd much rather see more of our rights exercised than fewer."

 

Is that a flop flop?

 

 

No.

As for other freedoms covering my first complaint, so long as a corporation isn't violating antitrust laws(if they're even applicable or enforced these days), then I think they're within their rights.

Law aside. Do you think antitrust laws promote freedom or deny it?

Undecided.

actually, a very good answer.  it lets me know you are a thinking man.

On one hand, I do believe that within our system as it stands, we need such laws, but I am a supporter of a true free market, in which such laws are unnecessary because I tend to think that if some corporation practices such bad business that it is a true problem, competition and a change in consumer behavior would force a change.  Of course, it(just like democracy) requires a population that isn't complacent, which we don't have.

what democracy?  we are a representative republic.  Other than that, I think i agree.

We're a representative democracy, which is a republic.  Not sure what you'd call a representative republic... a rerepublic I guess.  I was just making a comparison to democracy because both require a similar type of ideal culture to survive.

just testing you (forgive me.  blame lack of sleep) .  I agree  with you psychoguns.

Yes. The right to never be wrong!

i did not know that to be one of the options.