Which is more important to you?

why would anyone wanna live in a world where everyone was kept equal? asks the pokemon nearly 150 years after Robert E Lee's death, i guess some things never die.
we would want to live in a free and equal world because, we listen to our hearts not our wallets...
no one is useless, everyone is good at something ,rather its a high threshold to cold temperatures (as most homeless people are): david blane made 5 mil off that stunt where he froze himself alive. or knowing which people to target when asking for spare change: thats basically what menchants and telemarketers do, pressure the weak into buying something they dont necesarily want or need. Everyone can do something, except those with mental, physical disabilities, in ur system they are tossed aside, in socialism theyd be protected...

i chose freedom and equality, in socialism

 

you have a really great point, didnt blane hollow out part of the ice though? lol

 

shit, i knew there was a loophole....hahaha get it? loop hole, hollow?
hahahahahah

 

if u prefer slave societies and the middle ages to soviet russia thats ur bowl of pits...

 

Apparently, Fonz, more people are voting for FREEDOM...thank goodness.

 

Neither.

Intellectual and Cultural Progress comes before both of them.

 

i still say anyone who wants it will acheive it

 

true dat

 

i vote 4 both, so im really winning. socialism brings both freedom & equality...
if u gave equality a fair definition, and put a both option, ud see both would prevail, because freedom is an aspect of equality

 

Even people in parts of the world with no sign of change in sight? Africa? Latin America? South East Asia?

 

freedom is in your mind, thats all im saying

 

now days that is true ...we have the luxory now to free ourselves ....but long ago .. we unfortunately had to fight for it and that is why we must still endeavor to keep it a priority ...

 

thank god someone understands

 

they arent americans so they arent real people, obviously, so no they dont count.

 

was not the goal of that freedom however to reach equality...

 

Freedom

 

i have a question for everyone who voted freedom...
Lets say a band of Nazis go to ur town hall and plan a nazi recruitment rally to take place in the center of town, ur the mayor would u let them?

 

AWWWWWEEEEE This could be a contradiction or a set up waiting to happen. lol ....Dammed first...why am I the mayor ..?.... I thought I was freak'n free, but if I must ... Yes let them rally so long as its peaceful, doesnt require a permit from whoever may own the property that that they wish to assemble and doesn't interfer with practical functions within the city or on behalf of the people. Yeh..... yeh limitations everyhwere. Being free doesnt mean dump your brain on the left side of the road and go about running over everything saying .. "Hey Man I will do whatever I want man cuz I am free eeeeee.. " ...yeh free to move your butt somewhere where it is may be more practical to rally or what have you- maybe? The reality is that if that were presented to me to me I would see under these particular circumstances that it could be reasonable to guess that this rally was the purpose of a point or test and nothing more becuase we know who I am..and..what the town stands for-FREEDOM. What is this Nazi rally stand for in comparison? Lets focus-its only a rally. A rally is only a gathering which is intended to recover, improve, inspire, motivate, overcome, organize, exchange and nothing more, but I would have to screen that this intention is for a "rally" since Nazis are about right wing political, dictorial, racists communing in a FREEDOM based town? Would be not think to ourselves well are they planning to cross stich together .....or .... I have to protect freedom becuase Nazi's are somehwat in opposite view -no? I would have to think on it seriousely and have a back up plan in the case that the "town" folk were in protest against it or vice versa becuase we can expect the two to possibly come face to face. How it turns out is a whole other matter. Typically the Mayor may go with majority vote of the town people and typically they vote for the man/woman based on what they are all about .. right .. so if I am about Freedom then we should not have too many issues there in the freedom for others beliefs to be excercised, discussed etc ......we hope ??? Anything other than a rally woudl be monitored for the safety of others. Key word SECURITY. The right is freedom so allow them, but monitor it for safety purposes and nothing more.
Sorry its hard for me to write this stuff on a 15 minute break!
K

 

If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you despise, you don't believe in freedom of speech.

If you don't stand by the philosophy of freedom, then YOU are just as bad as those who want to limit your freedom.

 

thank YOU ....unlike me you can put it into simple terms .. like I said any fool can make it complicated ..and I am the worst about over analyzing it .. lol - oh well - well said

I wanted to clarify my purpose would not be to keep "anyone" regardless of their belief from communing, expressing,researching, education , knowledge, talking etc , but as a mayer -head of that town it would be thier responsibility as any basis to leadership to guide and direct "all" persons there. If I felt that this would result in a potential riot for example then I would have no other choice than to consider other grey area that would make it safe for "everyone" including the nazi folks that wish to rally without disruption or injury due to the obviouse contrasts between the majority of this town and this small Nazi group. I say small becuase if the town elected a mayor based on majority vote on the basis of freedom. Its possible to be more secure if they are from out of town and they do come in larger numbers. I would have to do a back ground check in order to query as to "why" they had to come to my small freedom based town and not their own. Was there a previous risk or a negative incident? The Mayor still answers to the people that elected him or her. The Mayor in a sense are not "free" for these reasons. For the reasons stated above is why I felt the scenario was a little grey already. This scenario forces them to think of that majority and thier purpose. True guidance in leadership also is requires prevention, protection, and intervention to all when their is "true" interest in the people and their purpose. We have to defend and protect our freedom in the case that it is threatened in this even an organized enviroment as a town. Its one thing to do your thing and me to do mine, but when they start to enforce a certain way upon each other then that is where the line is drawn in this way of living. Freedom is also part of humanity to I have to look at all aspects and find a medium that still allows a person to utilize their belief...so this would be a tough job no?
I still say that true freedom as we excercise it on a daily basis is nothing compared to the way it should be ... or was/is meant to be, but it could be worse. Yes again, I cannot complain because it could be worse if we didnt have protection for what we believe in even in a controlled enviroment which is not entirely free. There is so much diversity. I wish that we learned to blend it and make it whole rather than tear each other down. I dont mean to sterotype, but I think that the Indians before thier land was taken had a better idea of what it really means. I dont mean to just say only they know or knew ..but its an example of one ...of many ..that know freedom as it was intended before we started organizations ...towns .. ownership ...purchasing etc ..so when we talk about modern freedom as we are brought up to know as a majority......that/its nothing compared to the desired/deserved freedom one should truly have..real freedom. That is why I saw freedom also comes from within. If you dont want the majority way then break away and create a self sustained way.
Yes, Create a self sustained way of living .. that may be closer to true freedom ? maybe?