ForumGarden

WHO SHOULD WE LET BE FREE?

When Charles Cooper got his first Purple Heart, after the explosion went off and the shrapnel peppered him, it was personally presented by the secretary of defense.

It was one of those flukes.

Rumsfeld was in theater, Private Cooper was up for the medal, and it made a pretty good picture to send home to the folks.

That was about a month ago.

Which was about 10 months after his senior prom.

Charles Cooper graduated from Jamestown High School last June. Jamestown is where Lucille Ball was from, a pretty little city on the shores of Chautauqua Lake in Western New York. But he graduated and went in the Army and they stationed him at Fort Drum.

Which is pretty good.

Because if you’re in the Army and you’re from New York there aren’t that many places you can be stationed that aren’t a long ways from home.

But Fort Drum is just up past Rochester and Syracuse by Watertown, a good long drive, but still in New York. Though when orders came for Iraq it didn’t make much difference anymore and Charles Cooper, the youngest of six, shipped out.

That was around the holidays.

And then he got wounded.

And maybe it got him thinking or something because last week he got to a phone in Baghdad and called home to talk to his girlfriend.

Her name is Ashley.

And long distance from the war he asked her to marry him.

That’s the kind of thing you talk about to your grandchildren. You pull them up on grampa’s knee and tell them how, when you were in the war in Iraq, you asked their grandmother to be your bride. It’s a sweet, all-American kind of thing. The kind of thing that love is all about.

And that’s what Charles Cooper did.

Which is pretty good for a 19-year-old.

And this would be a pretty good story if it ended here. But it doesn’t.

It ended a week ago, when Charles Cooper got his second Purple Heart. A week ago today. They were out on patrol and there was another explosion and it killed him. It killed Private Cooper and a friend of his, a kid from Indiana who was supposed to go home next week. His name was Darren Deblanc. He was 20 and a private first class.

And they’re both dead.

Darren’s mom can cancel the welcome-home party and Ashley can try to forget her dreams of a life with Charles.

They are two more men who gave their lives for freedom.

A freedom which, ironically, neither of them were able to fully enjoy.

See, all this talk about freedom and liberty isn’t a hypothetical. It’s not theory. It’s reality. And when it comes to freedom, you either have it or you don’t. And the sad fact is that these two men – these two young men – were denied by their home states some of the freedoms you’d expect Americans to enjoy.

Namely, the right to be an adult.

Let’s talk about New York, Charles Cooper’s home.

As a 19-year-old, Charles Cooper could not apply for a permit to own or carry a handgun.

Period.

It didn’t matter that he was a soldier, that he was a decorated combat veteran, that he was fighting for his country and its security.

Back home in Jamestown, or up at Watertown, the state of New York said that until he turned 21 he wasn’t responsible enough to own a handgun of any sort.

He could carry one into combat, but he couldn’t have one at home.

Neither could he have a beer.

Like every state, New York forbids the sale of alcohol to anyone under 21. It’s meant to protect younger people who are presumably not responsible enough to have a drink.

That is a decision the state must feel they are too immature to make.

You can decide to go in the Army. You can sign a contract. You can vote and owe debts. You can ask your girl to marry you.

And you can die for your country.

But you can’t buy a can of beer.

Which isn’t right.

As has been said a million times: If you’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to enjoy its liberties. And to deny to a man or woman old enough to fight and wear the uniform of our country the full privileges of adulthood is a violation of their civil rights.

If you denied a right due to race, color, religion, sexual orientation or old age, you’d have people shouting discrimination all day long. But you deny a whole class of people the simple rights of adulthood because they’re 18, 19 or 20 and everybody thinks you’re doing them a favor.

Well, you’re not. You’re oppressing them.

The sacrifice of these two young men, and of hundreds of others under 21, should bring to those like them the full freedoms of this society.

It’s time to let people be free, it’s time to get the government off their backs, it’s time to let people live their own lives.

Isn’t that what we say about Iraq?

Isn’t that what Charles Cooper fought for?

Shouldn’t that be true in America?

Even if you’re 18, 19 or 20?

If you're old enough to fight for freedom, you're old enough to have freedom.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2005

It is our country - it is our children...........

Nice. Emotional. Manipulative. And utterly ridiculous. Is that what America's freedoms are all about now? Buying a beer?

flopstock wrote: I say we should send the older men and women of the country to war. Might make us hesitate a tad longer before we decide it's the only solution.

40+ sounds about right..kids are grown(or a lot closer ), pensions and social security benefits inplace to protect the family, homes well on the way to payoff.


You are not too far off base flopstok. We are sending our older citizens to war.The average age of reservists in all services is 33, according to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. A quarter of all reservists are over age 40.

flopstock wrote: But at a minimum, we should not ask men and women to act as adults, while we are still treating them as children. It's just not right.How are we treating them as children? They have choices, and they made their choices. Noble ones. Lethal ones. But still free to choose. Just as the citizens of the state they resided in chose to have a minimum age drinking law, and/or gun ownership law. If those citizens don't like the law, let them change it.



But let's not confuse the issues here. These young men had freedom, and died defending freedom. Not a drinking age. I wonder what they would say if they could see their sacrifice being used in this way.



See what I'm saying?



And, for the record, it would be a lot easier on us 40-year-olds to go ourselves than it is to send our kids. Just something to think about.

I agree with the title of this thread. When Iraqis are old enough to fight occupation they will be on the road to freedom, not as defined by Mullah Bush but by real human beings in a heroic war of liberation against the US invaders. Long Live Iraq's Freedom Fighters!!

David813 wrote: I agree with the title of this thread. When Iraqis are old enough to fight occupation they will be on the road to freedom, not as defined by Mullah Bush but by real human beings in a heroic war of liberation against the US invaders. Long Live Iraq's Freedom Fighters!! David, you and i have become friends over the weeks~~when once you were a cop-disliker~~so i know you are reasonable. i have a sincere question since i have not followed this thread~~ do you defend those who beheaded people? i have seen EVERYTHING but that video of Nick Berg being beheaded blew my mind with horror and sorrow for his loved ones. and the others who followed.

David813 wrote: I agree with the title of this thread. When Iraqis are old enough to fight occupation they will be on the road to freedom, not as defined by Mullah Bush but by real human beings in a heroic war of liberation against the US invaders. Long Live Iraq's Freedom Fighters!! That was so intelligent david, I just had ta see it again.

Attached files

lady cop wrote: David, you and i have become friends over the weeks~~when once you were a cop-disliker~~so i know you are reasonable. i have a sincere question since i have not followed this thread~~ do you defend those who beheaded people? i have seen EVERYTHING but that video of Nick Berg being beheaded blew my mind with horror and sorrow for his loved ones. and the others who followed. LC it's tragic anyone has to die for Bush and his Saudi masters but ugly things happen in wars and invasions. If you are up against the only superpower you can't fight with a marked army on the battlefield or you will be exterminated. You have to drive out the invaders by any means necessary. The US has regularly financed and taken part in a menagerie of atrcities in the name of "Freedom, To Stop Communism, To Protect Corporate Profits" and Rotting Reagan's war on Central America is one example. Vietnam has some gruesome US stories, etc. The list goes on. The US invaded a sovereign nation, unprovoked. Now we have to deal with the consequences, including seeing our troops die. Nick Berg would be here today if he weren't riding on the backs of the Invading Horde. The Arabs have every right to defend their country and if the US intends to "Spread Freeedom:yh_rotfl" around the globe then we better get used to alot worse than an invader being beheaded.

BTS wrote: That was so intelligent david, I just had ta see it again.Damn. I can't read it. The print's too small. Can you enlarge it?

David813 wrote: Damn. I can't read it. The print's too small. Can you enlarge it?
Typing slow so you will understand...........

Click on one of the three pics to enlarge

BTS wrote: Typing slow so you will understand...........

Click on one of the three pics to enlargeI'll try that! Thanx!:yh_glasse

David813 wrote: I'll try that! Thanx!:yh_glasse No problem

BTS wrote: That was so intelligent david, I just had ta see it again.Got it! I don't get it though. Michael Moore is a Democrat! Another capitalist pig. You Family Values guys tend to lump everyone together that isn't an uneducated racist redneck. I do like the cartoonists drawing though.

David813 wrote: Got it! I don't get it though. Michael Moore is a Democrat! Another capitalist pig. You Family Values guys tend to lump everyone together that isn't an uneducated racist redneck. I do like the cartoonists drawing though. david:

You show me one RACIST remark I have ever made anywhere...........



This is the SECOND time you have tried to label me a racist.

If you do it again I am going to lodge a complaint with our administrators.



This is from Forum gardens use agreement:

You agree to not use the Service to:



upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;





David:

I challenge you quote me anywhere on this forum in regards to me being a racist...... as you have tried to label me.



Your flaming post the other nite, removed by LC (still wondering why it was removed and not you) broke about every rule above in my book and I would have booted you then. (MY Opinion)



PS:......... Isn't calling someone you know nothing about a "REDNECK" also listed above? But that is OK I am a REDNECK and pretty damn proud of it too.

But your "racist" remark is over the line.

BTS wrote: david:

You show me one RACIST remark I have ever made anywhere...........



This is the SECOND time you have tried to label me a racist.

If you do it again I am going to lodge a complaint with our administrators.



This is from Forum gardens use agreement:

You agree to not use the Service to:



upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;





David:

I challenge you quote me anywhere on this forum in regards to me being a racist...... as you have tried to label me.



Your flaming post the other nite, removed by LC (still wondering why it was removed and not you) broke about every rule above in my book and I would have booted you then. (MY Opinion)



PS:......... Isn't calling someone you know nothing about a "REDNECK" also listed above? But that is OK I am a REDNECK and pretty damn proud of it too.

But your "racist" remark is over the line. that was the first and only post i ever removed.(besides spammers) i don't want to be the post police. i removed it because it called for death to certain ethnic groups, a little over the top. he and i discussed it, it is OK. won't happen again.

BTS wrote: david:

You show me one RACIST remark I have ever made anywhere...........



This is the SECOND time you have tried to label me a racist.

If you do it again I am going to lodge a complaint with our administrators.



This is from Forum gardens use agreement:

You agree to not use the Service to:



upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;





David:

I challenge you quote me anywhere on this forum in regards to me being a racist...... as you have tried to label me.



Your flaming post the other nite, removed by LC (still wondering why it was removed and not you) broke about every rule above in my book and I would have booted you then. (MY Opinion)



PS:......... Isn't calling someone you know nothing about a "REDNECK" also listed above? But that is OK I am a REDNECK and pretty damn proud of it too.

But your "racist" remark is over the line.I wish I were more savvy on the computer but look at your own history and the Confederate flag sticker on your pickup and figure it out. I don't need you to go over rules with me Gomer! In my view you fit the criteria of a redneck. Thought you'd be pumped & proud of it! Now that being PC is soo last year it's cool to be an open racist bigot! Do not be ashamed BTK; Be Proud!

David813 wrote: I wish I were more savvy on the computer but look at your own history and the Confederate flag sticker on your pickup and figure it out. I don't need you to go over rules with me Gomer! In my view you fit the criteria of a redneck. Thought you'd be pumped & proud of it! Now that being PC is soo last year it's cool to be an open racist bigot! Do not be ashamed BTK; Be Proud!
Thanks david, all the ammo I need

BTS wrote: Thanks david, all the ammo I needEeeeeeeek!:yh_battin Don't tell Miss Landers on me Beave!

lady cop wrote: that was the first and only post i ever removed.(besides spammers) i don't want to be the post police. i removed it because it called for death to certain ethnic groups, a little over the top. he and i discussed it, it is OK. won't happen again. YES LC WAY over the top.

Calling me a racist is over the top too.

Read the users agreement.

Also his refernce to me as BTK..............



I am all for free speech and all but I will not stand to be labeled a racist for one minute.



"Defamatory" gcide "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Defamatory De*fam"a*to*ry, a.

Containing defamation; injurious to reputation; calumnious;

slanderous; as, defamatory words; defamatory writings.

[1913 Webster]

"defamatory" wn "WordNet (r) 2.0" defamatory

adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to

discredit or malign [syn: calumniatory, calumnious,

denigrative, denigrating, denigratory, libellous,

libelous, slanderous]

Legal definition of 'libelous per se'



Libelous per se. A publication is libelous per se when the words are of such a character that an action may be brought upon them without the necessity of showing any special damage, the imputation being such that the law will presume that any one so slandered must have suffered damage. Robinson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 273 N.C. 391, 159 S.E.2d 896, 898. To render words "libelous per se," the words must be of such character that a presumption of law will arise therefrom that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his friends or of the public or has suffered some other loss either in his property, character, reputation, or business or in his domestic or social relations. When a publication is "libelous per se", that is, defamatory on its face, it is actionable per se; i.e. one need not prove that he received any injury as a result of the publication in order to recover damages, and in such a case general damages for loss of personal or business reputation are recoverable and no averments or proof of special damages are necessary. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., D.C.Pa., 289 F.Supp. 737, 743. Compare Actionable per se.



SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

flopstock wrote: We are treating them as children anytime they are restricted from doing anything every other adult can do legally..because of their age. We tell them that they are adult enough and level headed enough to make a life threatening decision, because it is in 'our' best interest. And yet they are too immature to handle a beer?
Very good point on the immaturity. I have a few lines of thought on it -

1. Your son is the exception rather than the rule for 18-year-old behavior and wise choices.

2. It's really up to the citizens of the area to make that determination. Based on averages (which is the best we can do, really), the laws are drawn up in hopes of protecting the majority. It's never going to be perfect, but I still firmly believe that these young men had the freedom to choose the most important things.



Do you really feel that "we" allow them to enlist because it is in our best interests? I'm asking, not attacking. Hard to tell on threads sometimes.



flopstock wrote: And I wasn't being sarcastic in my suggestion that 40+ serve in our wars. If given a choice, me or him..I'm out of here.
I wasn't too sure whether sarcasm was intended or not. I'm glad it was not.

And I agree - it's much easier to risk ourselves than our children.



Respectfully back atcha! (seriously!)

AK

BTS, please don't feed the beast. Not worth your time or your respect. Plenty of other things to think about besides the opinion of one very closed-minded hypocritical guy. Right?

What age are they legally adults in law? or does it vary state to state In the UK it's sixteen, after that it's no longer a juvenile offence, You can leave school etc. driving age 17 drinking and voting at age eighteen.

BTS wrote: YES LC WAY over the top.

Calling me a racist is over the top too.

Read the users agreement.

Also his refernce to me as BTK..............



I am all for free speech and all but I will not stand to be labeled a racist for one minute.



"Defamatory" gcide "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Defamatory De*fam"a*to*ry, a.

Containing defamation; injurious to reputation; calumnious;

slanderous; as, defamatory words; defamatory writings.

[1913 Webster]

"defamatory" wn "WordNet (r) 2.0" defamatory

adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to

discredit or malign [syn: calumniatory, calumnious,

denigrative, denigrating, denigratory, libellous,

libelous, slanderous]

Legal definition of 'libelous per se'



Libelous per se. A publication is libelous per se when the words are of such a character that an action may be brought upon them without the necessity of showing any special damage, the imputation being such that the law will presume that any one so slandered must have suffered damage. Robinson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 273 N.C. 391, 159 S.E.2d 896, 898. To render words "libelous per se," the words must be of such character that a presumption of law will arise therefrom that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his friends or of the public or has suffered some other loss either in his property, character, reputation, or business or in his domestic or social relations. When a publication is "libelous per se", that is, defamatory on its face, it is actionable per se; i.e. one need not prove that he received any injury as a result of the publication in order to recover damages, and in such a case general damages for loss of personal or business reputation are recoverable and no averments or proof of special damages are necessary. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., D.C.Pa., 289 F.Supp. 737, 743. Compare Actionable per se.



SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition you have no claim or cause for action here, since this is a public and anonymous forum, you invited interaction. you were not named or identified.

lady cop wrote: you have no claim or cause for action here, since this is a public and anonymous forum, you invited interaction. you were not named or identified. So why not take it out of the user agreement then if it is not enforced?!!!



Read the definition again LC.



"libelous per se," the words must be of such character that a presumption of law will arise therefrom that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his friends or of the public or has suffered some other loss either in his property, character, reputation, or business or in his domestic or social relations.



I might have a friend or guest visit here that would think I am a racist by the remarks of David.



If you look at the posts here and other threads, I gave him a warning that I did not apreciate the references one bit, yet he persists in making his profane accusations.



I just want the racist remarks to stop.

I have been reluctant to lodge a complaint with administration as I do like davids dialog and jousting with him. I hope this ends this sort of harrasment here and now.

BTS wrote: So why not take it out of the user agreement then if it is not enforced?!!!



Read the definition again LC.



"libelous per se," the words must be of such character that a presumption of law will arise therefrom that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his friends or of the public or has suffered some other loss either in his property, character, reputation, or business or in his domestic or social relations.



I might have a friend or guest visit here that would think I am a racist by the remarks of David.



If you look at the posts here and other threads, I gave him a warning that I did not apreciate the references one bit, yet he persists in making his profane accusations.



I just want the racist remarks to stop.

I have been reluctant to lodge a complaint with administration as I do like davids dialog and jousting with him. I hope this ends this sort of harrasment here and now.

please feel free to complain to admin, either Tombstone or Anastrophe or both.

gmc wrote: What age are they legally adults in law? or does it vary state to state In the UK it's sixteen, after that it's no longer a juvenile offence, You can leave school etc. driving age 17 drinking and voting at age eighteen.
a lot of people forget what U.S. stands for (and i'm not being cheeky). we are the United States of America. each state has it's own laws, though naturally they fall in line with the overriding/overarching principles as outlined in the constitution. the drinking age is different from state to state. there are some counties in some states that have complete ban on alcohol for anyone. the voting age is uniform nationally at 18.

David813 wrote: I agree with the title of this thread. When Iraqis are old enough to fight occupation they will be on the road to freedom, not as defined by Mullah Bush but by real human beings in a heroic war of liberation against the US invaders. Long Live Iraq's Freedom Fighters!!Bin Laden would love you in his outfit

David813 wrote: I wish I were more savvy on the computer but look at your own history and the Confederate flag sticker on your pickup and figure it out. I don't need you to go over rules with me Gomer! In my view you fit the criteria of a redneck. Thought you'd be pumped & proud of it! Now that being PC is soo last year it's cool to be an open racist bigot! Do not be ashamed BTK; Be Proud!
david, stop. to label a person a racist bigot without an iota of direct evidence is, in a single word, wrong.



i recently - in another topic - stated right out there that another poster was a bigot and a racist. and it was in response to the poster stating quite clearly that he was a bigot and a racist. his words were incontrovertible.



attack the idea, not the person promulgating the idea. attacking the person is what's known as argumentum ad hominem. while being very effective at taking discourse down to the lowest common denominator, and devolving a discussion into meaningless namecalling that is utterly removed from debate, it is not effective at lending any credence at all to your position. if anyone who disagrees with you is a pawn of bush, a raving right wing fundie christian hate filled republican murderer, well, then what's the point of even being here? 'extrapolating' differences of opinion into over-the-top labeling immediately kills the seeds of consensus. nothing grows from a dead seed. at least try to let the discussion grow on its own merits.



if every discussion reduces down to 'yer a commie' and 'yer a neocon', then we might as well just hit the power switch on the forumgarden server and move on to something more interesting.

gmc wrote: What age are they legally adults in law? or does it vary state to state In the UK it's sixteen, after that it's no longer a juvenile offence, You can leave school etc. driving age 17 drinking and voting at age eighteen.Same here,gmc

David813 wrote: I wish I were more savvy on the computer but look at your own history and the Confederate flag sticker on your pickup and figure it out. I don't need you to go over rules with me Gomer! In my view you fit the criteria of a redneck. Thought you'd be pumped & proud of it! Now that being PC is soo last year it's cool to be an open racist bigot! Do not be ashamed BTK; Be Proud!
I was put on "Quiet Mode" for getting into a verbal confrontation with "Koan-nan The Barbaric Mud Squishing Wise Woman of BC" Which by the way was not that bad. I tried to apoligize to her in a PM and she refused it. She came back at me in a hateful way, and I returned the verbal abuse provoked by her. And I got Put in the corner for calling her out on her own aggression.

Then you read the paragraph like the one above, and I wonder WTF? This guys crossed every line that can be crossed and he's still here? Can I rent out the angel that saves him every time?

RedSoxFan wrote: I was put on "Quiet Mode" for getting into a verbal confrontation with "Koan-nan The Barbaric Mud Squishing Wise Woman of BC" Which by the way was not that bad. I tried to apoligize to her in a PM and she refused it. She came back at me in a hateful way, and I returned the verbal abuse provoked by her. And I got Put in the corner for calling her out on her own aggression.



Then you read the paragraph like the one above, and I wonder WTF? This guys crossed every line that can be crossed and he's still here? Can I rent out the angel that saves him every time?Oh I see! YOU get in trouble being nasty with a longtime Gardener and you want ME in trouble! Go back to your corner RSF. You're smalltime.

David813 wrote: Oh I see! YOU get in trouble being nasty with a longtime Gardener and you want ME in trouble! Go back to your corner RSF. You're smalltime.Hey, guys? Let's not stir up ancient friggin' history here. There's enough CURRENT controversy to go around.

Back to the thread....

RedSoxFan wrote: I was put on "Quiet Mode" for getting into a verbal confrontation with "Koan-nan The Barbaric Mud Squishing Wise Woman of BC" Which by the way was not that bad. I tried to apoligize to her in a PM and she refused it. She came back at me in a hateful way, and I returned the verbal abuse provoked by her. And I got Put in the corner for calling her out on her own aggression.



Then you read the paragraph like the one above, and I wonder WTF? This guys crossed every line that can be crossed and he's still here? Can I rent out the angel that saves him every time?
"Koan-nan The Barbaric Mud Squishing Wise Woman of BC"



Hey I like that RSF......Time outs suck huh?...................... But your question about David is fairly relevent. You can be called a stalker by some here with no proof... Even a "Cop Hater" or a lunatic so get use to it.........

Sorry that is the way it goes these days

I just started a koan bashing thread why don't you all go post about me there. In the open.

Be my guest.

Or start your own thread titled whatever you want...as long as you don't hide under the inconspicuous thread of another title. Let me have it. I'm ready. This seems to a place where you can call people out. Have the time of your life. It only matters if I care.

What is this thing called ''Freedom''. would someone explain?

The IRA & Co loved John Fiztgerald Kennedy when he said, Its not what your country can do for you! Its what you can do for your country..

capt_buzzard wrote: What is this thing called ''Freedom''. would someone explain?


I think it's a state of mind.

koan wrote: I think it's a state of mind.It might be on your side of the world. But in Iraq and Ireland,they fight over it:D

peace is also a state of mind and that is, hopefully, what they are fighting for.

posted by anastrophe

a lot of people forget what U.S. stands for (and i'm not being cheeky). we are the United States of America. each state has it's own laws, though naturally they fall in line with the overriding/overarching principles as outlined in the constitution. the drinking age is different from state to state. there are some counties in some states that have complete ban on alcohol for anyone. the voting age is uniform nationally at 18.


I hadn't that's why I asked, just curious, 21 just seems kind of old I'm used to eighteen. You really have dry states? What about communion wine? Not trying to be funny I'm just curious.

Posted by capn buzzard

What is this thing called ''Freedom''. would someone explain


From the oxford English dictionary

freedom // n.

1 the condition of being free or unrestricted.

2 personal or civic liberty; absence of slave status.

3 the power of self-determination; independence of fate or necessity.

4 the state of being free to act (often foll. by to + infin.: we have the freedom to leave).

5 frankness, outspokenness; undue familiarity.

6 (foll. by from) the condition of being exempt from or not subject to (a defect, burden, etc.).

7 (foll. by of) a full or honorary participation in (membership, privileges, etc.). b unrestricted use of (facilities etc.).

8 a privilege possessed by a city or corporation.

9 facility or ease in action.

10 boldness of conception.

[Old English freodom (as free, -dom)]


I think the best one is the power of self determination. a state of mind as koan puts it. I would probably also add and respecting others equal right to the same. Freedom is not what somebody else tells you it is

How to get there though?

koan wrote: peace is also a state of mind and that is, hopefully, what they are fighting for.Tell that to the lizard