POLL: WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT EQUALITY OR LIBERTY ???

My God you Chicken Little wanna be"s are funny!


Half of you are already brain dead...death would be but sweet charity !

Most people do not understand what equality is as it relates to the human element.
We as humans are not equal, never have been and never will be.
the fact is that each and every one of us is different in one way or another at the minimum and many ways almost to infinity.
As an example; how would any of you like to be my equal?How would you like to be exactly like me?

For some, not knowing me, they may jump at the chance to be me.
For some, they may be well aware that they are much better off than I am and there is no way they would be me.

I personally know a lot of people that I would not want to be their equal. Some are alcoholics, some are amputees, some were born with mental retardation, some have heart disease, some have emphysema, some have cancer. Why would I want to be like them. I also know some very wealthy people that have more money than they will ever spend in their lifetime but are completely dysfunctional when it comes to their family.

I really do not want to be their equal; would you.

How about being the equal of Stevie Wonder or the really smart dude Stephen Hawkin.

So what does equality mean to you?
For me Liberty means something. It is free will, the right to choose and make your own decisions and face the rewards or the consequences. It is opportunity that is unfettered by the oppression of others.

Give me liberty any day over equality. I dont want to be a blind due in a wheelchair.

I think you misunderstood the context of equality

Yes, he missed the context. Good opinion, but not in the context of the discussion.

CJ7 - You said you would write in Ron Paul. I know he's not going to win, but let's assume he does. I like his stance across many things, but where he loses me is when he promises to cut $1T from the budget in the first year. First of all, he can't do it on his own, he needs congress to do it and do you think all those congressmen are willing to give up their pork? Hell no, they won't. Everybody wants the budget balanced but when it comes time to cut their interests, they're the first ones to jump and bitch. Second, if he were to succeed, cutting $1T in 12 months would be devastating for the economy. Not only we would inflate the number of unemployed people from all the government agencies, but think of the impact on the private sector as well. Every major corporation is a supplier to the US Government and cutting $1T means that corporations won't see a significant amount of revenue, therefore they'll also cut people, and with reduced profits the markets would tank. Cutting the deficits has to be done, but in a gradual and non-disruptive way. Let the private sector and the consumer make up for the lost revenue as money from the US government budget is removed from the GDP. Cutting the deficit has to be a multi-year plan, but it has to be non-partisan, otherwise every 2 or 4 years we'll be starting from scratch again.

CJ7 - You said you would write in Ron Paul. I know he's not going to win, but let's assume he does. I like his stance across many things, but where he loses me is when he promises to cut $1T from the budget in the first year. First of all, he can't do it on his own, he needs congress to do it and do you think all those congressmen are willing to give up their pork? Hell no, they won't. Everybody wants the budget balanced but when it comes time to cut their interests, they're the first ones to jump and bitch. Second, if he were to succeed, cutting $1T in 12 months would be devastating for the economy. Not only we would inflate the number of unemployed people from all the government agencies, but think of the impact on the private sector as well. Every major corporation is a supplier to the US Government and cutting $1T means that corporations won't see a significant amount of revenue, therefore they'll also cut people, and with reduced profits the markets would tank. Cutting the deficits has to be done, but in a gradual and non-disruptive way. Let the private sector and the consumer make up for the lost revenue as money from the US government budget is removed from the GDP. Cutting the deficit has to be a multi-year plan, but it has to be non-partisan, otherwise every 2 or 4 years we'll be starting from scratch again. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

I totally agree with all of the above

Say what, Olivia? That you're a broken record? That the bitter nonsense you spout today means the same thing it did when you spouted the same bitter nonsense 2 years ago? Originally Posted by Doove

I don't like bread or milk and I absolutely detest white pepper and all because Hillary didn't get the nomination. Yep, dats twrue; dats twrue!

I don't like bread or milk and I absolutely detest white pepper and all because Hillary didn't get the nomination. Yep, dats twrue; dats twrue! Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

But you do absolutely detest the mandate because Hillary didn't get the nomination. And smart political ploys. And writing books while in office.

Yup, dat's twrue, dat's twrue!

If there is liberty for everyone then everyone is equally free. "Equality" these days, though, tends to mean that everyone must be "equal" in terms of material well-being and that this must be forcibly acheived.

Nope, I did not miss the context of equality.
My point is that you cannot have equality without limitations.
Equality means finding the denominator and either bringing everyone down to that level or up to that level.
Since all humans are different you must handicap those that are achievers and benefit those that are not.
The question is where do you stop when you attempt to artificially achieve this equality.
Do you take away the free will of man in order to achieve this equality?
What do you do when you have those that refuse to rise up to the lowest denominator that is set"? Is this when you send them to the camps to be "retrained" or eliminated?

How about equality of opportunity? Where and how far do you go to insure that everyone has an equal chance? If I apply for a job and there are say a million other people that are out of work; do you insure that all of those people have the same opportunity for that job as I do?

How about I get the job and decide I want to advance and work 10 or 12 hours a day and on the weekends too; should I get passed over for a promotion by someone that only puts in their 50 because at some point they did not have the same opportunity that I had?

The concept that we are al created equally is a bit flawed but as a bisis is somewhat true. Generally speaking we are all born as human beings, from that point it is a fight for survival with the hope that the parents will assist for as long as possible. During that time we learn to make decisions that will affect our lives going forward. In society, we attempt to help guide those decisions but have limited resources to insure that each individual choose the best path. At times we even pick them up and place them on a better path but some choose a path that again and again that will not lead them to success.




Give me Liberty each and every day so that I can choose how far I am willing to go.

I feel that both go hand in hand.

" Equality, it seems to me, is part and parcel of that. That is there is no meaningful liberty without equality. The liberty of the slave owner to dominate the slaves is a false liberty. Human dignity is an indispensable part of meaningful self-realization. Dignity can’t flourish when some people are in a position of domination over others. I think that the best way to understand the role of liberty and of equity in the Constitution is to think of the Constitution as centrally concerned with protecting the equal liberty of citizens. And so liberty and equality, rather than being in some inherent tension, I think deeply understood go hand-in-hand."

Bigthink.com

Talking about hiring practices you forgot about the employer. If a 30 something man who is equally qualified as a 30 something woman approaches you for a job. You know traditionally that if you offer her 30 dollar an hour she will probably take it but you will have to offer the man 32 dollar an hour. Should you be forced to offer them both the same? Doesn't the business owner have the right to get the same quality skills for a lesser price?

Nope, I did not miss the context of equality.
My point is that you cannot have equality without limitations.
Equality means finding the denominator and either bringing everyone down to that level or up to that level.
Since all humans are different you must handicap those that are achievers and benefit those that are not.
The question is where do you stop when you attempt to artificially achieve this equality.
Do you take away the free will of man in order to achieve this equality?
What do you do when you have those that refuse to rise up to the lowest denominator that is set"? Is this when you send them to the camps to be "retrained" or eliminated?

How about equality of opportunity? Where and how far do you go to insure that everyone has an equal chance? If I apply for a job and there are say a million other people that are out of work; do you insure that all of those people have the same opportunity for that job as I do?

How about I get the job and decide I want to advance and work 10 or 12 hours a day and on the weekends too; should I get passed over for a promotion by someone that only puts in their 50 because at some point they did not have the same opportunity that I had?

The concept that we are al created equally is a bit flawed but as a bisis is somewhat true. Generally speaking we are all born as human beings, from that point it is a fight for survival with the hope that the parents will assist for as long as possible. During that time we learn to make decisions that will affect our lives going forward. In society, we attempt to help guide those decisions but have limited resources to insure that each individual choose the best path. At times we even pick them up and place them on a better path but some choose a path that again and again that will not lead them to success.




Give me Liberty each and every day so that I can choose how far I am willing to go. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

strike 2



try and expound on the subject of equality in the eyes of the law before you swing at the next pitch


just sayin

...that it is equally important for all to have Liberty. Without equality in this regard, there is no true Liberty for anyone in society.


Did blacks have Liberty in 1850?
Did women?

Not one single person has true Liberty if there is one single person in society denied equality of Liberty. The gays are todays blacks and women of yesteryear...

Picking which is more important is like picking between the H2 and O in water. Senseless without both.

Nope, you can twist the term "equality" any way you want;l it doe not make me anymore wrong than your view of equality.
That is the problem with people like yourself, you only want to see things in a very narrow context when it comes to another opinion, but in a very wide context when it is your opinion. That is unless you are picking for a needle to suit your interpretation.

\It is like discrimination. Discrimination is what has enabled the human to survive yet depending on how you choose to view it, it is bad thing. Discrimination is a learning process that is developed from the time we are infants. It is the process of learning how to choose what is best for you. This carries on to business and the desire to hire the best person for the work to be done.
Now we are told that making the best choice regardless of race3, sex, etc. can be considered discrimination because you did not hire this person or that person based on a perceived notion that it was motivated by anything other than the best fit for the job.

Let me say I am interviewing two candidates for a job that requires a person to interact with people in a sales role.
The first applicant is a tall young white male. He interviews wearing a pair of polished shoes, dress slacks that are neatly pressed, a belt, a long sleeved shirt with a time, his hair is neat and he is well mannered. The other applicant is black young man. He is wearing some air jordans that are loosely laced, his jeans are bagging and barely cover his ass, he has on a muscle shirt with some sort of gang looking writing on it, chansons hanging from around his neck, he has a few tats and some piercings and his hair is all out of sorts. He speaks an urban lingo that sounds a bit ghetto.
Which one would I hire?