Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to Go Tarheels
Re: Stop living in a fantasy world... Tarheels Fan - since I haven't seen Ben's quote in this thread yet, here ya go:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
security theater and violating constitutional liberties hasn't saved lives either. neither has stupidity or invading countries that neither attacked us nor were involved with 9/11.
here's another quote: we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
you sound scared; I'm not. |
|
 JKM
join:2009-06-08
Seymour, MO
1 edit | First, I couldn't care less about this fight over documents. What troubles me is our bleeding heart, liberal friends who think freedom is free!
The biggest mistake made by any administration is allow the people to know the facts of war. The truth is as simple as a movie line, "you can't handle the truth".
I wish those who don't have the stomach for what has to be done would keep their opinions to themselves. However, in this great country we all have a right to our opinions. That does not make it any easier for me to tolerate. It is a shame you can't live somewhere that you aren't protected.
I wish you could realize your liberty without the protection afforded to you by the people who lay it on the line. I am certain you would find that liberty non-existent without those willing to do what ever it takes to protect it, while you criticize their actions.
--
Begin with the end in mind!
EDIT: I forgot to mention, I'm not scared. When the facts are clear enough to make even Obama see the light, what do we have to fear? |
|
| I pretty much disagree with almost everything you said.
Whats to say the reaction of the people you say "can't handle the truth" isn't warranted or needed? But what is obvious is that you fear the truth of this argument. Why you fear it is a mystery as well. Do you have something to lose from this report going public? Or do you just follow blindly in your patriotism believing that whatever the President thinks is good for us must really be good?
And your comment of "I wish those who don't have the stomach for what has to be done would keep their opinions to themselves." is especially curious. It sounds to me that it is you who does not have the stomach for the truth getting out?
You are basically another "nanny state" supporter and whats worse is you don't even realize it. Or maybe you do and you just don't realize that not all of us are "followers" like you. Some of us are "leaders" and demand the truth. |
|
JKM
join:2009-06-08
Seymour, MO | I'm not surprised that you disagree.
It is neither needed or warranted. What part of "I couldn't care less about these documents " do you not understand? Turn them over, I don't care! I am, however, troubled by people who think we have liberty because our forefathers wrote it on a piece of paper. Those same forefathers fought tooth and nail for said liberty. They would have shot anybody who stood between them and that liberty right between the eyes. They would have done, and did do, whatever it took to make it happen. As proof I give you the great United States of America.
I don't have the stomach for people who think they are entitled to anything they want, whatever the cost to whomever.
Yeah, I'm a follower. That is why I am wasting my time trying to get liberal-minded people to see the light. What makes you think you know whether I am a leader? Is it the same thing that makes you want the truth, so you can criticize the people who keep you safe? I suspect yes, as you drew improper conclusions in both cases.
--
Begin with the end in mind! |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to JKM
said by JKM:.... I wish you could realize your liberty without the protection afforded to you by the people who lay it on the line. .... initially I thought you were being sarcastic, but I guess not.
regarding those who "lay it on the line", are you talking about the people who:
engage in torture?
engage in rendition?
engage in actions that violate the constitution, statutory law and international treaties?
or are you talking about the poor shmucks that are dying in combat for no apparent purpose?
oh, I forgot to add: those pieces of paper that you deride? It's not the piece of paper that needs defending, it's the ideas and concepts embodied on those pieces of paper that deserve defending at all costs. It seems clear that you have no respect for either the pieces of paper or what they represent. |
|
| reply to JKM
Re: Stop living in a fantasy world... The problem is that we now need protection from those who are supposed to be protecting us. Who is watching the watcher? |
|
| reply to JKM
On the other hand our founding fathers would have NEVER tortured an enemy. Might execute them but they wouldn't have water boarded them. See our founding fathers believed in the sanctity of life and honor. Torture accomplished nothing, Bush's policies aggravated the Muslim extremists and made the chance of terrorism on US soil an even bigger risk. Al Queda's statements condemning and attacking Obama are proof that his soft diplomacy and refuting of the Bush "with us or against us" bullshit has provided dividends in reducing the risk of terrorism.
As far as the documents go, they should be provided because the Bush administration violated the law. We are a nation of law and order and no one should be above the law. I actually support the need for these aggregate taps that allow the government to search broad communications for key words, phrases and voices. The problem is I believe that such a system needs to be approved by congress and implemented in such a way as to prevent abuse. Such a wide ranging breach of privacy needs monitors, controls and systems to verify abuse and prosecute those that abuse the system. Until such a system is in place the system is illegal, the companies that participated broke the law and everyone needs to be punished. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Those qualifiers mean Franklin believed there were unessential liberties, and permanent safety. That it could be reasonable to trade increasingly essential liberties for increasingly permanent safety.
And, guess what? That's exactly what the founding generation did in 1789 when they ditched the relatively libertarian "Articles of Confederation" for the relatively *massive* federal government.
The founding generation wanted larger, more efficient, effective and remote government like no other generation since (except, perhaps the Civil War generation). And, they wanted it just 12 years after attaining independence. In other words, they couldn't even foresee their own social needs just 12 years later!
Every generation since has faced the same calculus. Balancing collective versus individual needs. How improving the collective's condition can improve the individual's. Whether ideology is paramount over reality.
BTW: The funny thing about people quoting Franklin (to support absolute principles) is that just 4-5 years prior to the Revolution, Franklin praised King George and criticized Wilkes's supporters. Wilkes was jailed by the King for political reasons, and elected 3 times from prison. The very kind of oppression that the Founders rebelled against.
Franklin (like many humans) was an opportunist and his ideology was based upon who buttered his bread.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by amigo_boy:Those qualifiers mean Franklin believed there were unessential liberties, and permanent safety. ... you have absolutely no clue if that's what Franklin believed. sounds more like your interpretation for purposes of argument.
I'll grant that he probably believed there were unessential liberties; when he used the phrase "essential liberties", I'm guessing he was referring to those liberties enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
I'm also guessing Franklin was probably too smart to believe in permanent safety, but I have no idea. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by nasadude:I'll grant that he probably believed there were unessential liberties; when he used the phrase "essential liberties", I'm guessing he was referring to those liberties enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This is the problem with people quoting revolutionary rhetoric out of context.
What you quoted was said in 1755, and republished in 1775 -- a full 34 (and 14) years before the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Mark |
|
