GRX Dragon Posted:

Because they’re unwilling to DIE for that freedom. The price of freedom has always been death.

Actually, sometimes the price of freedom is listening to really annoying opinions.

nanafabulous personjesus Posted:

GRX is Ann Coulter.

Hardly.

Ann Coulter supports this war-even if only slightly. I however do not support the current war going on in Iraq. Too many of my brothers and sisters have died fighting for a group of people that deserve nothing but death. Same thing true about Europe, really.

Logic just is a cold-bum killer.

Because they’re unwilling to DIE for that freedom. The price of freedom has always been death.

Yup, that’s why Mahatma Ghandi had to starve himself to death to liberate India from British control.

Oh, wait.

Okay, that’s why Bob Marley was fatally shot before playing a concert organized to ease tension between two warring political factions in Jamaica.

Oh, wait.

Okay…that’s why the American military opened fire on hundreds of thousands of protesters during the Civil Rights Movement.

Oh wait.

...****, I’ve got nothing. Log in to see images!

TheAlbatross Posted:

You dont die for freedom. You fight for it.

You do fight for freedom, but death is also the end of that fight just as easily as freedom is.

“It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it.” – Karl Popper

“Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves.” – Karl Popper

“It is better to die with a sword in your hands, than a chain over your wings.” – Richard Rahl

Could one of you explain how this connects to the presidential elections? it just feels like you’re trading broad characterizations of the concept of freedom.

*Puts on Plato hat*

Maybe it would be productive if we had a definition of freedom we could agree on. Any suggestions?

We don’t need Plato! All we need is William Wallace!

They may take away our lives, THEY WILL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEEDOOOOOMMMM!

This seems a bit, um, one-sided. To say the least.

For starters, all of your sources stem from this group:

http://www.studentgroups.ucla.edu/sgweb/details_frame.asp?OrgID=799

When all your sources have the same stated ulterior motive for attacking a group like planned parenthood, you should reexamine your views.

You’re bumuming their arguments and information are accurate. If they are indeed ‘nuts’, it would stand to reason that they may give biased interpretation of evidence. For example, off the top of my head, I can intuit that Planned Parenthood focuses on minority or low-income areas because groups in these areas may have less money with which to afford abortions. This is simply another possible reason for PP to do what they do, as opposed to some eugenics-derived motivation. As far as the call-in example, it’s not very robust-people accept monetary donations from folks who espouse different views, even those that the recipients find offensive. Generally speaking, it seems disingenuous to present this information without also presenting its slanted background and source, then act as if we just need to ‘decide for ourselves’ as if we’ve been given full disclosure; that’s a Fox News move.