When the symbol of freedom becomes more important than freedom itself, then we have no freedom.
- Roland Louis Hansen
The question "What is the importance of freedom?" was posted on the political science pages of eNotes. Click here to read the responses.
In the United States of America, our flag is the world's symbol of freedom; and, symbols of freedom are taught to 1st grade children.
Freedom is a valued aspect of American democracy; and, yet many Americans want to limit the freedom of other people, especially when they place a higher value on the symbol of freedom, such as the Flag of the United States or the Pledge of Allegiance, than they place on freedom itself. Read what Ron Gibbons wrote in Letter: A symbol of freedom not more important than freedom itself.
You might find it interesting to read what American children write about freedom. Click on over to American Freedom Essay Contest, Student Winners, and from there you may follow the embedded links to read the actual essays.
Now, how about going on over to read:
Freedom quotes from ThinkExist.com, "You think, therefore You exist."
Freedom Quotes courtesy of BrainyQuote.com.
Quotations about Freedom from The Quote Garden.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Dumb Obama Bashers Need To Wake Up And Support President Barack Obama
Take a look at this excerpt from an article I recently read:
Leonard, Andrew, Bush vs. Obama: Jobs, During George W.'s first term, big government boosted employment. For Obama, it's the opposite, Salon.com, May 4, 2012.
You know, I cannot help but wonder, WHY ARE OBAMA'S CRITICS SO DUMB?, especially after having read
In Newsweek Magazine, Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics, January 16, 2012, The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.
And over at The Huffington Post, you can read:
Obama One Of Five Presidents To See Dow Jones Gain More Than 50 Percent Over First Three Years
There are over 200 reasons to support the re-election of President Barack Obama as listed in the Forbes magazine article of February 24, 2012 written by Chris Weigl. Go on over to read:
What Do Americans Think Of Obama's Performance As A President?
There is a number buried in today’s government labor report that deserves closer examination: 35,000. That’s the net number of private sector jobs created during the Obama administration to date. That’s right, it’s a positive number. After the worst economic disaster to befall the United States in 80 years, that’s a number that maybe we should be applauding. ..... But the real eye-opener comes when we compare Obama’s numbers to George W. Bush’s. In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000!Now, go read the entire article:
Leonard, Andrew, Bush vs. Obama: Jobs, During George W.'s first term, big government boosted employment. For Obama, it's the opposite, Salon.com, May 4, 2012.
You know, I cannot help but wonder, WHY ARE OBAMA'S CRITICS SO DUMB?, especially after having read
"When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course."That is an excerpt from a Newsweek article written by Andrew Sullivan. Here go read more of the article over at The Daily Beast:
In Newsweek Magazine, Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics, January 16, 2012, The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.
And over at The Huffington Post, you can read:
Obama One Of Five Presidents To See Dow Jones Gain More Than 50 Percent Over First Three Years
There are over 200 reasons to support the re-election of President Barack Obama as listed in the Forbes magazine article of February 24, 2012 written by Chris Weigl. Go on over to read:
What Do Americans Think Of Obama's Performance As A President?
Monday, May 14, 2012
Gay Marriage. President Barack Obama. Mitt Romney.
The 2012 campaign for President of the United States of America is heating up. However, neither of the two major political parties has yet officially nominated their respective candidate. None-the-less, it does appear that the Democratic Party will nominate incumbent President Barack Obama, and that the Republican Party, i.e. GOP, will nominate Mitt Romney.
President Obama is viewed by many as a liberal, some people even allege that he is a Socialist or a Communist. And then there are the zealous, self-righteous, self-appointed religious experts who incorrectly proclaim that President Obama is a Muslim, his Christian church membership and attendance notwithstanding.
Some people (read that to include me) see Mitt Romney as a rogue conservative who fluctuates on the issues given the situation of the moment, as a billionaire who could not care less about low and moderate income Americans or the middle class, and as a Mormon who worships three different and distinct entities while concurrently professing to be Christian.
These two individuals, Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, have recently addressed the issue of same-sex marriage; and, that subject has now been injected into the 2012 Presidential campaign, and done so wrongly, in my opinion. Gay marriage is now all over the news. But, why??? Since when does the President of the United States have the authority to make public policy concerning the issue of marriage? And, why should the government, any level of government, even be involved in the personal and domestic topic of marriage?
Mitt Romney has gone on the record with this statement:
"I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution to make that expressly clear."
Hey, don't take my word for it; you can see and read that Mitt Romney statement and more for yourself in the web page Romney position on Same Sex Issues. And yet, Mr. Romney claims his perspective on the issue is not religiously based. You can read that for yourself, also. Just click over to The Washington Post Election 2012 Blog to read Romney: Gay marriage stance was ‘not a religious decision’
Meanwhile, many individuals and the news media are incorrectly stating that President Obama is "in support of gay marriage" - or perhaps I should say that it is my belief that the wording being used is incorrect and misleading. The wording is in many news stories like the following, for example:
Obama's gay marriage endorsement could sway state battles, by Dan Springer, published May 14, 2012, FoxNews.com.
It is my perspective that the wording is incorrect and misleading; because, I view the approach by the President as one that concerns equal rights for individuals in determining their own personal domestic arrangements among consenting adults.
Who am I and who the hell are you to determine which adult should be able to wed which other adult??? It is none of my business; it is none of your damn business; and, it damn well should not be the business of any freaking government!!!
Whatever happened to the perspective held by many Republicans, by many Conservatives, and by many, many members of the Tea Party Movement that individual rights are sacrosanct and that there should be limited government? OR, do they apply that value only as it relates to their own strongly held beliefs?
I put forth that this whole brouhaha over same-sex marriage, or as some may call it, gay marriage, is nothing but a prejudicial, discriminatory smoke screen to deny people equal rights under the law.
Oh, and by the way, I really believe that all marriages should be gay, as in happy.
President Obama is viewed by many as a liberal, some people even allege that he is a Socialist or a Communist. And then there are the zealous, self-righteous, self-appointed religious experts who incorrectly proclaim that President Obama is a Muslim, his Christian church membership and attendance notwithstanding.
Some people (read that to include me) see Mitt Romney as a rogue conservative who fluctuates on the issues given the situation of the moment, as a billionaire who could not care less about low and moderate income Americans or the middle class, and as a Mormon who worships three different and distinct entities while concurrently professing to be Christian.
These two individuals, Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, have recently addressed the issue of same-sex marriage; and, that subject has now been injected into the 2012 Presidential campaign, and done so wrongly, in my opinion. Gay marriage is now all over the news. But, why??? Since when does the President of the United States have the authority to make public policy concerning the issue of marriage? And, why should the government, any level of government, even be involved in the personal and domestic topic of marriage?
Mitt Romney has gone on the record with this statement:
"I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution to make that expressly clear."
Hey, don't take my word for it; you can see and read that Mitt Romney statement and more for yourself in the web page Romney position on Same Sex Issues. And yet, Mr. Romney claims his perspective on the issue is not religiously based. You can read that for yourself, also. Just click over to The Washington Post Election 2012 Blog to read Romney: Gay marriage stance was ‘not a religious decision’
Meanwhile, many individuals and the news media are incorrectly stating that President Obama is "in support of gay marriage" - or perhaps I should say that it is my belief that the wording being used is incorrect and misleading. The wording is in many news stories like the following, for example:
Obama's gay marriage endorsement could sway state battles, by Dan Springer, published May 14, 2012, FoxNews.com.
It is my perspective that the wording is incorrect and misleading; because, I view the approach by the President as one that concerns equal rights for individuals in determining their own personal domestic arrangements among consenting adults.
Who am I and who the hell are you to determine which adult should be able to wed which other adult??? It is none of my business; it is none of your damn business; and, it damn well should not be the business of any freaking government!!!
Whatever happened to the perspective held by many Republicans, by many Conservatives, and by many, many members of the Tea Party Movement that individual rights are sacrosanct and that there should be limited government? OR, do they apply that value only as it relates to their own strongly held beliefs?
I put forth that this whole brouhaha over same-sex marriage, or as some may call it, gay marriage, is nothing but a prejudicial, discriminatory smoke screen to deny people equal rights under the law.
Oh, and by the way, I really believe that all marriages should be gay, as in happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)