Political Crossfire Forums

[callous]

lovebush wrote: callous wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

oooff,...that made me a little hot and bothered.

Well done sir. Well done.


This really begs the question, Are you unable or unwilling to understand those you disagree with?

What are you talking about?

[cool_chick]

Thrilla wrote: cool_chick wrote: If I cannot live free, I don't want to live.

Wonderful saying....we all know it....

Give me liberty or give me death.

I live those words. I live in Chicago, travel frequently to NY. for about 8 years now. I've always been around "high profile" areas, but I swear to God, I will not give up my liberty or freedom for a damn pathetic criminal. and there are people providing security in hopes that you wont have to give up your liberties :wink:

Who? Policemen?

[lovebush]

Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

So true! what was the quote? the government big enough to supply all your needs is big enough to take everything you have. or something to that effect.

[lovebush]

mr.snruB wrote: Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

Looks like you're the only one who voted to give up your liberties, not liberals

Actually I think the question is somewhat loaded and not clear. What are essential liberties? are you saying < Will you live your life in a bomb shelter so you can be safe? No Or are you asking, Do you care if the gov uses any and all legal means to disrupt terrorist activitys, even if it means deporting someone for the slightest infraction of our laws because he might be a terrorist? YES Asta lavista Abdul!

[callous]

lovebush wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

Looks like you're the only one who voted to give up your liberties, not liberals

Actually I think the question is somewhat loaded and not clear. What are essential liberties? are you saying < Will you live your life in a bomb shelter so you can be safe? No Or are you asking, Do you care if the gov uses any and all legal means to disrupt terrorist activitys, even if it means deporting someone for the slightest infraction of our laws because he might be a terrorist? YES Asta lavista Abdul!

You people have a debilitating way of assuming that humans with absolute power will use absolute power sparingly.

[lovebush]

Patriarch wrote: callous wrote: Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

Except that you support an administration that is doing exactly that.

So do you understand what a liberal is?

Oh really? I wasn't aware GW was pushing bigger taxes, more welfare, bigger govt, and more intervention into businesses, and more socialism.

Oh wait he hasn't been. You were probably thinking of John Kerry the democrats nominee in '04. But no, he lost by the way.

Yes I am aware of what liberalism means. Real question is are you?

Well there was that prescription drug fiasco. :roll:

[lovebush]

Ozzone wrote:

Oh, I know that those phone calls I might make to Tehran and Islamabad, in Farsi, might get intercepted but then I'll be damned careful not to say the words nuclear and allah and other stuff like that.

at least not in the same sentance!

[thefranzkafkafront]

lovebush wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: mr.snruB wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: He wasunt just talking about national security you know.

Who, me?

Well the orginal franklin quote, it applies to socail security as much as it dose national security.

When the goverment intervenes to make you 'safe' you only become less free, thats what he was talking about.

Wait a minute! are you saying Franklin was actually warning against the nanny state?

The state in general.

[lovebush]

The dane wrote: Think the point of this poll is to point out dishonesty on the part of some, more specifically anyone who vote no here yet support the patriot act or the military commissions act.

Ok I support the patriot act, could you tell me how Im dishonest?

[DMS]

Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

Actually both sides do and as long as so called conservatives and liberals are too busy cheering on their crap party of choice, their will never be any significant change in our government. The Clinton administration proposed a bill very similar to The Patriot Act after the OKC bombing fortunately at that time the opposition controlled the house and senate. Not so lucky during the Bush administration though. Both parties need to be reigned in, complete control by either is no good for the majority of Americans.

[lovebush]

Patriarch wrote: [

Why not make a poll about if aliens landed and took over Canada would that be bad?

depends, would they lighten up on the soft lumber imports?

[thefranzkafkafront]

I'd just thought i'd note, the most effeictive form of the supression of rights is by the state. Nothing else even comes close.

Also the biggest killer in history. Yeap also the state some thing in the region of 900 million people direclty killed by state action in recorded history.

With thanks to mr. rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

So why trust the state with your protection? Prehaps some will answer 'oh we don't need to fear the american goverment'. But what exaclty makes it immune to authoritarianism and totalitarianism. You think democracies with codified consitutions, nations founded on liberty havent fallen before?

[DMS]

Thats why the founding father set up a system of checks and balances that Bush did his best to destroy. If some of the so called patriots got their way the United States would turn into a dictatorship with all rights going to wealthiest classes. Balance of power is necessary in any free society.

[The dane]

lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: Think the point of this poll is to point out dishonesty on the part of some, more specifically anyone who vote no here yet support the patriot act or the military commissions act.

Ok I support the patriot act, could you tell me how Im dishonest?

Should be obvious but ok, you support the patriot act which puts safety over privacy, last I checked privacy was an essential liberty, which would make you dishonest. Unless ofcourse you don't consider privacy an essential liberty ?

[Mr. Sunshine]

Theoretically, yes. In reality, I haven't had to(on American soil). As a law abiding American nothing has made me change my lifestyle or quality of life other than having to smell peoples' stinky feet while boarding planes at Airport. I know I am supposed to theoretically be upset by the Patriot Act and other neo-con acts of legal fascism, but in reality the only downside is toe jams. :lol:

[Somebloke]

As an agnostic, I always thought that there was no belief system that I would die for.

I stand corrected. Better the bear the fullness of one's ills for the sake of your decendant's rights than hide behind walls as anything less than a free man.

[DMS]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Theoretically, yes. In reality, I haven't had to(on American soil). As a law abiding American nothing has made me change my lifestyle or quality of life other than having to smell peoples' stinky feet while boarding planes at Airport. I know I am supposed to theoretically be upset by the Patriot Act and other neo-con acts of legal fascism, but in reality the only downside is toe jams. :lol:

You probably never will, even if dissent becomes illegal because you are a Republican drone that supports your party regardless of what they do.

[Somebloke]

DMS wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Theoretically, yes. In reality, I haven't had to(on American soil). As a law abiding American nothing has made me change my lifestyle or quality of life other than having to smell peoples' stinky feet while boarding planes at Airport. I know I am supposed to theoretically be upset by the Patriot Act and other neo-con acts of legal fascism, but in reality the only downside is toe jams. :lol:

You probably never will, even if dissent becomes illegal because you are a Republican drone that supports your party regardless of what they do.

History is full of those who find no fault in the ruination of liberty.

[micfranklin]

Thrilla wrote: micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first. what happens when faced with a scenario in which ensuring security is the only way to ensure liberty?

Freedom and security IMO are on opposite ends of the thread. And how can you guarantee that the government will follow through on ensuring liberty through security?

[mr.snruB]

lovebush wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

Looks like you're the only one who voted to give up your liberties, not liberals

Actually I think the question is somewhat loaded and not clear. What are essential liberties? are you saying < Will you live your life in a bomb shelter so you can be safe? No Or are you asking, Do you care if the gov uses any and all legal means to disrupt terrorist activitys, even if it means deporting someone for the slightest infraction of our laws because he might be a terrorist? YES Asta lavista Abdul!

Sorry. The thread subject is derived from a Benjamin Franklin quote. They're his words, not mine