If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicker)   Who would have thought that the man who banned large cups of soda would have a knee jerk reaction to the Boston bombers and want to re-interpret the Constitution?   (politicker.com) divider line 176
    More: Scary, organizations, Boston, emotional reaction, Michael Bloomberg, judicial interpretation  
•       •       •

12141 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-23 09:49:53 AM
"Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin
 
2013-04-23 09:49:56 AM
"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

Yeah Bloomberg. People like YOU.
 
2013-04-23 09:50:28 AM
How about no? Does no work for you?
 
2013-04-23 09:50:30 AM
Lemme guess...

"something, something...9/11. Something, 9/11, something something."
 
2013-04-23 09:51:19 AM

I'm an Egyptian!: How about no? Does no work for you?


Hasn't worked for him in the past, though I do so enjoy seeing his massive poutrage when the courts smack him down.
 
2013-04-23 09:52:32 AM
You know that soda ban never got enacted right?
 
2013-04-23 09:53:38 AM
You're just going to have to give up some of your freedoms to be free.
 
2013-04-23 09:54:36 AM
It's for the good of everyone. What, you want bad things?
 
2013-04-23 09:54:58 AM
The constitution of America not up for interpretivism? Since when? Isn't that why Gitmo exists, because the American constitution can just be cherrypicked anyold way/how depending on whoever is in charge on that day?

Why does fark hate freedom?
 
2013-04-23 09:55:01 AM
It's good that the people will serve as a referendum on opinions like these come election time.

/Here's hoping the people call bs
 
2013-04-23 09:55:15 AM

Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin


THIS
 
2013-04-23 09:57:10 AM

BojanglesPaladin: "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

Yeah Bloomberg. People like YOU.


I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a couple of random Chechens who decided to have a DIY jihad.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than some random Taliban fighter off in Afghanistan fighting because his family needs to be fed and it was the only job he could find.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a ten thousand DPRK soldiers who would run out of food, fuel and ammo within a day if they tried to attack.
 
2013-04-23 09:57:19 AM
They hate us for our freedoms, so let's take a few away from you so they'll hate us less.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-04-23 09:57:38 AM
Dear Bloomie,
Go DIAF you self-important, stuffed-shirt, rich-biatch, pencil-necked elitist POS.
Thank you
 
2013-04-23 09:57:40 AM
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis
 
2013-04-23 09:58:37 AM
You guys should know by now, freedom isn't free.


It costs a $1.05
 
2013-04-23 09:58:39 AM

uttertosh: Isn't that why Gitmo exists, because the American constitution can just be cherrypicked anyold way/how depending on whoever is in charge on that day?


No. That's why Gitmo exists.
 
2013-04-23 09:58:47 AM
02varvara.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-23 10:00:10 AM
This guy has to give partisans fits.  He presides over the second-most segregated city in America and the one with the greatest income inequality, however that city is also the cultural capital for the America Left.  He's a successful businessman, but he also believes in heavy government regulation.  He's big government, but in both a fascist and leftist sort of way.

In any event, I'm glad he isn't my mayor.
 
2013-04-23 10:00:14 AM

Burr: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis


I like that. I like most of what C.S. Lewis wrote on matters of morality, but I hadn't run across this quote. Where is it from?
 
2013-04-23 10:00:36 AM
What a farkface.
 
2013-04-23 10:00:47 AM

Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

I don't get much time to spend on Earth. And it is so pleasant here, with a Starfleet officer on every corner. Paradise has never seemed so well armed.
 
2013-04-23 10:00:50 AM
* feebly raises hand * - I did.  Just the tip of the nutcase iceberg.  Hold on folks, it's gonna get weirder.
 
2013-04-23 10:01:39 AM
There is no safety, anywhere, ever.  Safety is an illusion we have since most bad things that can happen to us are statistically unlikely.  You are not safe, you cannot be made safe.  Deal with it, and go on with your life.
 
2013-04-23 10:02:08 AM

James!: You know that soda ban never got enacted right?


Sure it did.  Just like Mooshel Hussein's vindictive and destructive laws trying to allow access for force children to eat fewer processed foods broccoli.
 
2013-04-23 10:02:18 AM
Dang, I might have to keep this Mayor douchebag in mind when i start biatching about Parking/Traffic in Austin, lol!

I am quickly starting to feel bad for New Yorkers and grateful that I don't live there. No city is perfect, but damn...this Bloomberg dude has got to be stopped!
 
2013-04-23 10:02:47 AM

BojanglesPaladin: uttertosh: Isn't that why Gitmo exists, because the American constitution can just be cherrypicked anyold way/how depending on whoever is in charge on that day?

No. That's why Gitmo exists.


um... good...(?!?)
 
2013-04-23 10:03:04 AM

James!: You know that soda ban never got enacted right?


The courts stopped it, not because Bloomberg came to his senses.
 
2013-04-23 10:03:25 AM

Burr: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis


Stolen and quoted.
 
2013-04-23 10:03:32 AM

uttertosh: um... good...(?!?)


Yeah. typ[ing too fast. should be :

"No. That's NOT why Gitmo exists."
 
2013-04-23 10:04:30 AM
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.

Someone in yesterday's "I h(e)a(r)t(e) NY" thread said NYPD doesn't believe in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/whatever, and I thought he was exaggerating. I see I was wrong.
 
2013-04-23 10:04:45 AM
Can you imagine what Patrick Henry, with cane in hand would physically do to this puffed up popinjay?
 
2013-04-23 10:04:49 AM

Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS


Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.
 
2013-04-23 10:07:07 AM
Yes, great idea, the government interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to take away freedoms from the people and expand the powers of the government.  It is no surprise that a member of the government who is openly anti-Second Amendment would make the claim that reinterpreting the Constitution to take more away from the people is needed.

Any leader, city, state or federal who says such things should be removed from office at once.the founding fathers established a government for the people, not one to rule the people.
 
2013-04-23 10:07:18 AM

syberpud: James!: You know that soda ban never got enacted right?

The courts stopped it, not because Bloomberg came to his senses.


I'm aware.
 
2013-04-23 10:07:25 AM

Smackledorfer: Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.


Then please. discuss the issue at hand. Bloomberg says ""But we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

Agree or disagree, and why?
 
2013-04-23 10:08:13 AM
Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.
 
2013-04-23 10:08:21 AM

Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.


Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?
 
2013-04-23 10:09:19 AM
The goverment exists to protect my freedoms, not my person nor my income.

This is the exact opposite of what you're supposed to be doing, Bloomy.
 
2013-04-23 10:10:45 AM
Lets go with no.

For nanny staters like bloomberg there is NOTHING SAFE ENOUGH and when proven that their current measures don't work they just want to go "SAFER" and turn the nerf ray up to 11.
 
2013-04-23 10:11:50 AM

jfivealive: You're just going to have to give up some of your freedoms to be free.


You know, this is pretty much what John Locke said.
 
2013-04-23 10:11:55 AM
You know what's scary is the thought that so many politicians think the exact same way as Nanny Bloomers. They're just usually savvy enough to keep it from the public.
 
2013-04-23 10:12:14 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Burr: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis

I like that. I like most of what C.S. Lewis wrote on matters of morality, but I hadn't run across this quote. Where is it from?


I don't know where exactly (I have heard it before).  I keep getting pointed to "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics", but I haven't found proof.
 
2013-04-23 10:12:17 AM
The scary thing isn't that he thinks that way. The scary thing is that he will say these things out loud without realizing that he sounds like the greatest oppressor in the state and people will still vote him in the next elections.
 
2013-04-23 10:12:43 AM
I always knew he never stopped being republican.
 
2013-04-23 10:13:01 AM

Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.


Security is best done up to the point where it begins to infringe on the freedoms and rights of the individual. Period.

I don't accept that liberty must necessarily be infringed just so I can feel safe. All we've proven so far in doing so is that people still threaten our safety while we continue to have our rights eroded in the name of trying to stop them. It's proven not to work so far, so I'm loathe to continue down that path.
 
2013-04-23 10:13:51 AM
FTFA:We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.

He added: "So I propose we do it first, thus eliminating their motivation before they can do it themselves."
 
2013-04-23 10:14:03 AM
"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms." Bloomberg said. "And I am one of them. Freedom is dangerous!"

/okay, I added the last part.
 
2013-04-23 10:15:40 AM
So, how is what Bloomberg said any different from what Lindsay graham said?
 
2013-04-23 10:16:06 AM

FLMountainMan: This guy has to give partisans fits.  He presides over the second-most segregated city in America and the one with the greatest income inequality, however that city is also the cultural capital for the America Left.  He's a successful businessman, but he also believes in heavy government regulation.  He's big government, but in both a fascist and leftist sort of way.


Hm, the right is usually ranting about Detroit or Chicago or San Francisco or Hollywood or even Boston, I never heard New York being the "capital of the left".
 
2013-04-23 10:16:14 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Burr: "Of all tyrannies...

-C.S. Lewis

I like that. I like most of what C.S. Lewis wrote on matters of morality, but I hadn't run across this quote. Where is it from?


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
-C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

I searched and found a longer quote. I quite like the end. The essay that is from can a be found in the underlined book (among other places). Did not do an in depth search, so I can't tell you where it first appeared, but I'd wager good money someone will happen along shortly who will be able to tell you more than you want to know...
 
2013-04-23 10:16:42 AM

propasaurus: So, how is what Bloomberg said any different from what Lindsay graham said?


Lindsay Graham is pro-Gulp.
 
2013-04-23 10:16:49 AM

propasaurus: So, how is what Bloomberg said any different from what Lindsay graham said?


Becasue Lindsay Graham was calling for something that the Obama administration had already made an executive order for two years prior? Oh, wait. What was your point?
 
2013-04-23 10:16:57 AM
I say again: FARK Bloomberg!
 
2013-04-23 10:17:39 AM

jaybeezey: will still vote him in the next elections


Question for NYC farkers.  Has he done any good while elected?  Like, improved schools, cleaned up the city?
 
2013-04-23 10:18:46 AM

id10ts: I say again: FARK Bloomberg!


That's why he became mayor, you know. All that sweet, sweet lovin'.
 
2013-04-23 10:19:22 AM

Feral_and_Preposterous: I searched and found a longer quote. I quite like the end.


Nice. Going to go get that book, which somehow escaped my notice. probably becasue it is a collection of essays, rather than a "book" book.

The extended quote also make it even more appropot to Bloomberg's Nanny New York.

Well done Burr.
 
2013-04-23 10:19:42 AM

propasaurus: So, how is what Bloomberg said any different from what Lindsay graham said?


Exactly, and we're talking Senator vs. Mayor.

Also, when did we start pretending that conservatives give a shiat about constitutional protections? I'm thinking Jan 2009.
 
2013-04-23 10:20:39 AM

BgJonson79: Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.

Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?


Some people seem to believe that liberty means an absolute dearth of security, and thus means a total lack of government and social order. No such thing is true. Rather, liberty simply means that the individual is empowered with his individual freedoms and in some sense must take care and responsibility to protect their own security, and to be individually aware that they live in a world where evil and danger exists.

Since 9/11 and the patriot act, we've suffered numerous acts of crime (terror?) that no strict security could have stopped. Several school and public schootings, a bombing, and so on.

We've continually managed to stop plots only by the skin of our teeth.

And when you entrust your safety and security to the hands of any other entity, then you trust in that entity having the resources to be ever watchful for any threat, however small, and then we see the continued panic when that system fails to work.

For me, individual liberty (and it's assumed responsibility for self-protection and so on) trumps demanding others do so for me. I'd rather not have a nanny as I'm an adult.
 
2013-04-23 10:22:01 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.


Because the guy is surrounded by a security force second only to the President?
 
2013-04-23 10:23:28 AM

Gavenger: Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.

Because the guy is surrounded by a security force second only to the President?


How about we just mail him and his guards all to Abu Dhabi?
 
2013-04-23 10:23:29 AM

Burr: jaybeezey: will still vote him in the next elections

Question for NYC farkers.  Has he done any good while elected?  Like, improved schools, cleaned up the city?


I'll leave this here....

Bloomberg is the 25th richest man in America and has instituted and defended a racially-motivated "stop and frisk" campaign on the streets of New York, as well as overseen countless instances of police misconduct and brutality.  Yet for some reason that I won't mention because threadjacking, he's lionized in some progressive circles.

I think he's dangerous, maybe even moreso than Mitt Romney, because he actually pays lip service to populist liberal sentiments, which would allow him to get away with more if he ever bought achieved national office.
 
2013-04-23 10:26:37 AM

Fark It: Bloomberg is the 25th richest man in America and has instituted and defended a racially-motivated "stop and frisk" campaign on the streets of New York, as well as overseen countless instances of police misconduct and brutality. Yet for some reason that I won't mention because threadjacking, he's lionized in some progressive circles.


America in general doesn't give two shiats what the police are doing as long as they're doing it to someone else.
 
2013-04-23 10:27:11 AM

Begoggle: FLMountainMan: This guy has to give partisans fits.  He presides over the second-most segregated city in America and the one with the greatest income inequality, however that city is also the cultural capital for the America Left.  He's a successful businessman, but he also believes in heavy government regulation.  He's big government, but in both a fascist and leftist sort of way.

Hm, the right is usually ranting about Detroit or Chicago or San Francisco or Hollywood or even Boston, I never heard New York being the "capital of the left".


Are you arguing that New York isn't the cultural capital of the Left?  I think the right rants about Detroit because it's such a failure and can be (very simplistically) blamed on black people or unions or Democrats.  Chicago is ranted about because the Great Muslim Satan Obama is from there.  San Francisco does stupid shiat and has gay people, not sure why else the right would rant about them.
 
2013-04-23 10:27:34 AM

Bravo Two: Gavenger: Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.

Because the guy is surrounded by a security force second only to the President?

How about we just mail him and his guards all to Abu Dhabi?


Well I do find it ironic that someone like him who is hyper anti-2A, surrounds himself with a veritble arsenal of firearms.  Remember, his safety is paramount, yours, not so much.
 
2013-04-23 10:28:19 AM
well mickey, you can kiss my ass with that idea.
 
2013-04-23 10:28:46 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

Then please. discuss the issue at hand. Bloomberg says ""But we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

Agree or disagree, and why?


Well to start with, I don't have to speak to issue A to point out that someone's comment about it is asinine.  Surely you understand that.

The phrase "I like apples because freedom is good" doesn't require me to say whether I like apples or not and why as a response. I am well within reason to simply say "your statement is meaningless, moran".  In fact, you will note that your own response to my post didn't discuss what I said in my post either.  Unless one lives in an anarchistic society with no justice system whatsoever, there will always be an infringement on freedoms in favor of security. But in any event, challenge accepted.


Interpretations of the constitution have always changed over the years and as the world changed. His statement is correct in that regard. I bet that for 99% of people if we pored over the history of the nation we could find at least one slight adjustment of interpretation with which they agreed.  One common one is the 4th amendment, something that has changed quite a bit over the years, in some areas granting us more protections and in others less.

I don't, however, believe that rare instances like the Boston marathon bombing or school mass shootings are a good enough reason to justify such reinterpretation, and am not a fan of Bloomberg in general.
 
2013-04-23 10:29:54 AM

Aarontology: Fark It: Bloomberg is the 25th richest man in America and has instituted and defended a racially-motivated "stop and frisk" campaign on the streets of New York, as well as overseen countless instances of police misconduct and brutality. Yet for some reason that I won't mention because threadjacking, he's lionized in some progressive circles.

America in general doesn't give two shiats what the police are doing as long as they're doing it to someone else.


Yep. As is proven by every thread on fark.

What I like even more is that just about every thread involving police boils down to "fark the police, they're abusive assholes." And yet in every gun control thread, more than a few people say that only the Police should have access to things like ARs and high powered weapons and high capacity magazines.

So, basically what I've taken away from this is that we hate the cops and want to see them cleaned up and punished for their abuses, but we would rather let them outgun us and continue to maintain a posture of militarization so that we can be unilaterally controlled at the whim of police.

Personally, it's stop and frisk and the policies of many police that abuse the rights of the individuals that give me a deep-seated desire to be able to shoot back if a SWAT team busts my door down in the middle of the night when they get the wrong house.
 
2013-04-23 10:30:06 AM
"We're going to suspend your rights to protest, bear arms, privacy, and trial by jury."
"Why?"
"To protect you from terrorists."
"Why do we need to be protected from terrorists?"
"They hate you for your freedom."
 
2013-04-23 10:33:50 AM
FTA, he said, ""Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

He should have disappeared in a puff of logic.

/It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife...
 
2013-04-23 10:33:52 AM

Smackledorfer: BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

Then please. discuss the issue at hand. Bloomberg says ""But we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

Agree or disagree, and why?

Well to start with, I don't have to speak to issue A to point out that someone's comment about it is asinine.  Surely you understand that.

The phrase "I like apples because freedom is good" doesn't require me to say whether I like apples or not and why as a response. I am well within reason to simply say "your statement is meaningless, moran".  In fact, you will note that your own response to my post didn't discuss what I said in my post either.  Unless one lives in an anarchistic society with no justice system whatsoever, there will always be an infringement on freedoms in favor of security. But in any event, challenge accepted.


Interpretations of the constitution have always changed over the years and as the world changed. His statement is correct in that regard. I bet that for 99% of people if we pored over the history of the nation we could find at least one slight adjustment of interpretation with which they agreed.  One common one is the 4th amendment, something that has changed quite a bit over the years, in some areas granting us more protections and in others less.

I don't, however, believe that rare instances like the Boston marathon bombing or school mass shootings are a good enough reason to justify such reinterpretation, and am not a fan of Bloomberg in general.


Well, the simplistic quote is generally suggesting that if you you have to decide between less freedom for more security, or vice versa, then it's better to err on the side of more freedom.

Frankly, I know full well that someone could blow something up tomorrow. If my choices are to risk something getting blown up or having someone else monitoring my every move "just in case", with the potential that they'll misuse it in other ways based on the nannying of someone like Bloomberg who feels he knows better than me what I should have going on in my life, I'll take the risk, thanks,.
 
2013-04-23 10:35:18 AM

Smackledorfer: Unless one lives in an anarchistic society with no justice system whatsoever, there will always be an infringement on freedoms in favor of security.


Clearly you have bever encountered complex concepts like "rational middle ground". Neither Ben Franklin nor (presumably) the poster was presupposing absolutes. Your comments are themselves pointless unless either the quote or its usage implies a choice between absolute insecurity or absolute lack of freedom, which it does not.
 
2013-04-23 10:35:27 AM

BojanglesPaladin: "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

Yeah Bloomberg. People like YOU.


Late to the party but I came for THIS.

/so very sadly THIS
 
2013-04-23 10:38:16 AM
Reading this thread is simply fascinating. It is a perfect example of the boiling frog scenario. The removal of freedoms from those you disagree with is a fark staple. I just read an article about Sweden, that is held up as a beacon of what is good about socialism, taking a boy away from his family for years for the crime of home schooling him. Their rationale is that the state gives you all the information you need so it is illegal to teach your kids anything else. Wow. This is the endgame for liberals and so what Bloomberg says and does is perfectly in line with leftist thinking but he went just a tad too far too fast. He turned up the heat a couple of degrees too fast on the frog and the frog figured out it was being boiled. So everyone will tell Bloomberg to shut up and countries like England and Sweden and soon the US will continue the march to opppression one small increment at a time. It makes me sad.
 
2013-04-23 10:39:08 AM

Bravo Two: Security is best done up to the point where it begins to infringe on the freedoms and rights of the individual. Period.

I don't accept that liberty must necessarily be infringed just so I can feel safe
. All we've proven so far in doing so is that people still threaten our safety while we continue to have our rights eroded in the name of trying to stop them. It's proven not to work so far, so I'm loathe to continue down that path.


So no criminal law system then?

Because every single person who has ever been found not guilty or investigatively detained and later released has had their freedom infringed.  That infringement, to me anyways, is certainly worth the existence of a criminal justice system (and no, that doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be a fourth amendment or anything stupid like that - I shouldn't have to say this, but it IS fark, and I know someone will respond with that kind of exaggerated strawman response).

I also like stop lights and speed limits (which I personally think should be higher on many highways, but I definitely like having them in schools and neighborhoods).  Both of these are clear infringements on my freedom to be an idiot and take risks with the security of myself and others.

So do I, and probably 99% of people in any society and Ben Franklin himself no doubt, agree that some freedoms should be given up for security?  Absolutely.  What does that mean about his all too often quoted phrase? That the phrase isn't mean to be applied to all things and repeated ad nauseum instead of discussing the marginal changes of any given security/freedom related law.

I can't think of how any criminal justice system could possibly function without posing restrictions on freedom. If you can, I would probably support that system.
 
2013-04-23 10:40:22 AM

walkingtall: Reading this thread is simply fascinating. It is a perfect example of the boiling frog scenario. The removal of freedoms from those you disagree with is a fark staple. I just read an article about Sweden, that is held up as a beacon of what is good about socialism, taking a boy away from his family for years for the crime of home schooling him. Their rationale is that the state gives you all the information you need so it is illegal to teach your kids anything else. Wow. This is the endgame for liberals and so what Bloomberg says and does is perfectly in line with leftist thinking but he went just a tad too far too fast. He turned up the heat a couple of degrees too fast on the frog and the frog figured out it was being boiled. So everyone will tell Bloomberg to shut up and countries like England and Sweden and soon the US will continue the march to opppression one small increment at a time. It makes me sad.


Some FARK users also love to suggest that people who own guns should be shot and/or dealt with horribly. One poster even suggested that we do the same to anyone who chooses to live a life outside of "society".
 
2013-04-23 10:40:22 AM
Well, I for one do believe that Article II Sec. 3 didn't contemplate the interruption of my sitcom viewing on Tuesday nights.
 
2013-04-23 10:41:53 AM
I say we scrap the Constitution and come up with something better.

/i vote noocracy
 
2013-04-23 10:41:58 AM

Bravo Two: BgJonson79: Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.

Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?

Some people seem to believe that liberty means an absolute dearth of security, and thus means a total lack of government and social order. No such thing is true. Rather, liberty simply means that the individual is empowered with his individual freedoms and in some sense must take care and responsibility to protect their own security, and to be individually aware that they live in a world where evil and danger exists.

Since 9/11 and the patriot act, we've suffered numerous acts of crime (terror?) that no strict security could have stopped. Several school and public schootings, a bombing, and so on.

We've continually managed to stop plots only by the skin of our teeth.

And when you entrust your safety and security to the hands of any other entity, then you trust in that entity having the resources to be ever watchful for any threat, however small, and then we see the continued panic when that system fails to work.

For me, individual liberty (and it's assumed responsibility for self-protection and so on) trumps demanding others do so for me. I'd rather not have a nanny as I'm an adult.


I agree, and I'm interested in what the other poster has to say as well!
 
2013-04-23 10:42:56 AM
can we just deport Michael Bloomberg?
 
2013-04-23 10:43:37 AM
sas-origin.onstreammedia.comthinkprogress.org
 
2013-04-23 10:43:50 AM

Bravo Two: Aarontology: Fark It: Bloomberg is the 25th richest man in America and has instituted and defended a racially-motivated "stop and frisk" campaign on the streets of New York, as well as overseen countless instances of police misconduct and brutality. Yet for some reason that I won't mention because threadjacking, he's lionized in some progressive circles.

America in general doesn't give two shiats what the police are doing as long as they're doing it to someone else.

Yep. As is proven by every thread on fark.

What I like even more is that just about every thread involving police boils down to "fark the police, they're abusive assholes." And yet in every gun control thread, more than a few people say that only the Police should have access to things like ARs and high powered weapons and high capacity magazines.

So, basically what I've taken away from this is that we hate the cops and want to see them cleaned up and punished for their abuses, but we would rather let them outgun us and continue to maintain a posture of militarization so that we can be unilaterally controlled at the whim of police.

Personally, it's stop and frisk and the policies of many police that abuse the rights of the individuals that give me a deep-seated desire to be able to shoot back if a SWAT team busts my door down in the middle of the night when they get the wrong house.


Bravo Two: Gavenger: Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.

Because the guy is surrounded by a security force second only to the President?

How about we just mail him and his guards all to Abu Dhabi?

Well I do find it ironic that someone like him who is hyper anti-2A, surrounds himself with a veritble arsenal of firearms.  Remember, his safety is paramount, yours, not so much.


Gaggle of above-the-law, beyond-reproach cops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines and a history of racism and brutality?

Those are patrol carbines!  How dare you impugn America's heroes!  They're for your protection!

Law-abiding citizen with an AR and a 30-round magazine?

Clearly a lunatic who is probably racist and has a small penis.  Assault rifles and weapons of war have no place on America's streets!  You don't need all that hardware for your protection!

I'm pro-gun and have never been in the NRA.  I also oppose the Patriot Act, am pro-choice, an atheist, against welfare for Israel, pro marriage equality, and generally line up with Democrats when it comes to immigration reform.  I am pro universal healthcare.  I am vehemently opposed to the drug war and I would never convict anyone charged with a drug crime or prostitution, or who shot at the police during a no-knock raid.

Yet to hear the vitriol and hyperbole that gets thrown around on the internet, you'd think I was a robe-wearing klansman right-winger who just wants to shoot darkies.  Sandy Hook and more recently, the Boston bombings have really set us right back to our post-9/11 levels of vitriol directed against those who are popularly viewed as responsible or who aren't displaying populist, chest-thumping nationalism.

Values aren't values until times of crisis, hardship, and malcontent.  Until then they're just platitudes, conveniences.  This country, ever since I've been a thinking, observant adult, has shown me what passes for "values" time and time again, and I don't like what I've seen.
 
2013-04-23 10:45:09 AM
OH MY GOD, THE DANGER!!

I can hardly walk down the street without shiatting my pants. Seriously. It's so scary here.
 
2013-04-23 10:45:12 AM

Smackledorfer: So no criminal law system then?


Dude. Seriously. Middle ground. Try it, you might like it. Sure it's more complicated, and you have to actually think about things, but it really is better. Nad morning or something? You aren't usually this... simple.

No one is advocating for a binary choice between anarchy and totalitasrianism, so stop arguing in absurdum.

The quote is used (as the Farker did properly) to caution against the mistaken idea that giving up freedoms can ever give you security, and even if it could, it would not be worth the price.

So in a discussion of Bloomberg's insinuation that maybe we need to re-think our constitutional freedoms so we can have better security... well it's aboutthe perfect quote to use. It's not applied willy-nilly. It is EXACTLY appropriate in this context.
 
2013-04-23 10:46:39 AM
Somehow, I always knew, on a gut level, that we lived in a "complex word".  Or were we all just part of a rat's dream?I forgot, what with all this reason and justification spewing from a billionaire's pie hole.
 
2013-04-23 10:46:54 AM

Smackledorfer: Bravo Two: Security is best done up to the point where it begins to infringe on the freedoms and rights of the individual. Period.

I don't accept that liberty must necessarily be infringed just so I can feel safe. All we've proven so far in doing so is that people still threaten our safety while we continue to have our rights eroded in the name of trying to stop them. It's proven not to work so far, so I'm loathe to continue down that path.

So no criminal law system then?

Because every single person who has ever been found not guilty or investigatively detained and later released has had their freedom infringed.  That infringement, to me anyways, is certainly worth the existence of a criminal justice system (and no, that doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be a fourth amendment or anything stupid like that - I shouldn't have to say this, but it IS fark, and I know someone will respond with that kind of exaggerated strawman response).

I also like stop lights and speed limits (which I personally think should be higher on many highways, but I definitely like having them in schools and neighborhoods).  Both of these are clear infringements on my freedom to be an idiot and take risks with the security of myself and others.

So do I, and probably 99% of people in any society and Ben Franklin himself no doubt, agree that some freedoms should be given up for security?  Absolutely.  What does that mean about his all too often quoted phrase? That the phrase isn't mean to be applied to all things and repeated ad nauseum instead of discussing the marginal changes of any given security/freedom related law.

I can't think of how any criminal justice system could possibly function without posing restrictions on freedom. If you can, I would probably support that system.


You assume absolutes. You also conflate the fact that laws and other such "infringements" are not forceable restrictions, they are agreed-upon punishments and consequences for behavior.

A law against murder does not prevent you from killing anyone. It simply states that if you do X, you suffer the consequences of Y.

The legal system is likewise a voluntary acceptance that balances responsibility for behavior against the need to mete out punishment.

None of these laws do that which Bloomberg and his ilk demand, and should not. The constitution makes clear how the justice system works, and the prescription for how individuals accused of a crime are treated.  They should not presumptively grant the government or any party or individual the right to supersede my individual rights against the chance I may be guilty without proof.  They should not presumptively restrict my access to voting, free speech, or the right to keep and bear arms because I might do something illegal.

Preemptively banning and restricting rights in the name of security is the problem, because they by their very nature diminish my rights for no tangible benefits other than a perception of safety or security.
 
2013-04-23 10:47:31 AM

TheGreatGazoo: They hate us for our freedoms, so let's take a few away from you so they'll hate us less.


Pretty much this.
 
2013-04-23 10:47:39 AM

rocketpants: I can hardly walk down the street without shiatting my pants.


would you say the shait ...rockets... down your pants?
 
2013-04-23 10:50:43 AM

Fark It: Gaggle of above-the-law, beyond-reproach cops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines and a history of racism and brutality?

Those are patrol carbines! How dare you impugn America's heroes! They're for your protection!

Law-abiding citizen with an AR and a 30-round magazine?

Clearly a lunatic who is probably racist and has a small penis. Assault rifles and weapons of war have no place on America's streets! You don't need all that hardware for your protection!

I'm pro-gun and have never been in the NRA. I also oppose the Patriot Act, am pro-choice, an atheist, against welfare for Israel, pro marriage equality, and generally line up with Democrats when it comes to immigration reform. I am pro universal healthcare. I am vehemently opposed to the drug war and I would never convict anyone charged with a drug crime or prostitution, or who shot at the police during a no-knock raid.

Yet to hear the vitriol and hyperbole that gets thrown around on the internet, you'd think I was a robe-wearing klansman right-winger who just wants to shoot darkies. Sandy Hook and more recently, the Boston bombings have really set us right back to our post-9/11 levels of vitriol directed against those who are popularly viewed as responsible or who aren't displaying populist, chest-thumping nationalism.

Values aren't values until times of crisis, hardship, and malcontent. Until then they're just platitudes, conveniences. This country, ever since I've been a thinking, observant adult, has shown me what passes for "values" time and time again, and I don't like what I've seen.


I hear you, except for the Atheist thing I agree with you 100% (and even then, I'm pretty mellow on the religion thing).

Sucks being non-stereotypical around here.  Say you are an NRA member or support gun rights and you get treated like a teabagger wackjob by the left.  Say you are in favor of marriage equality and universal healthcare and you're called a Marxist/Communist traitor by the right.

We need a party, or a caucus, or some kind of organization for Americans who believe in Freedom, Logic, and Reason.  A group who support all civil liberties, even unpopular ones (this means letting minorities vote without Voter ID law trickery, and it means supporting gun rights).  A group who supports equality for all (marriage equality included)  A group who supports helping your fellow man (social welfare programs).  A group who supports sensible foreign policy not guided by religious mandates (no more blank checks to Israel).  A group who supports responsible fiscal policy (bring the deficit under control, raise taxes to do it if you must, including taxing the rich and corporations).

Good luck finding that in America though.  The media finds it much easier to paint America as a Red team and Blue team slugging it out from diametrically opposed positions, it's much better for ratings.
 
2013-04-23 10:52:07 AM

Silverstaff: I hear you, except for the Atheist thing I agree with you 100% (and even then, I'm pretty mellow on the religion thing).

Sucks being non-stereotypical around here.  Say you are an NRA member or support gun rights and you get treated like a teabagger wackjob by the left.  Say you are in favor of marriage equality and universal healthcare and you're called a Marxist/Communist traitor by the right.

We need a party, or a caucus, or some kind of organization for Americans who believe in Freedom, Logic, and Reason.  A group who support all civil liberties, even unpopular ones (this means letting minorities vote without Voter ID law trickery, and it means supporting gun rights).  A group who supports equality for all (marriage equality included)  A group who supports helping your fellow man (social welfare programs).  A group who supports sensible foreign policy not guided by religious mandates (no more blank checks to Israel).  A group who supports responsible fiscal policy (bring the deficit under control, raise taxes to do it if you must, including taxing the rich and corporations).

Good luck finding that in America though.  The media finds it much easier to paint America as a Red team and Blue team slugging it out from diametrically opposed positions, it's much better for ratings.


I am intrigued by your idea and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2013-04-23 10:52:23 AM

Silverstaff: Fark It: Gaggle of above-the-law, beyond-reproach cops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines and a history of racism and brutality?

Those are patrol carbines! How dare you impugn America's heroes! They're for your protection!

Law-abiding citizen with an AR and a 30-round magazine?

Clearly a lunatic who is probably racist and has a small penis. Assault rifles and weapons of war have no place on America's streets! You don't need all that hardware for your protection!

I'm pro-gun and have never been in the NRA. I also oppose the Patriot Act, am pro-choice, an atheist, against welfare for Israel, pro marriage equality, and generally line up with Democrats when it comes to immigration reform. I am pro universal healthcare. I am vehemently opposed to the drug war and I would never convict anyone charged with a drug crime or prostitution, or who shot at the police during a no-knock raid.

Yet to hear the vitriol and hyperbole that gets thrown around on the internet, you'd think I was a robe-wearing klansman right-winger who just wants to shoot darkies. Sandy Hook and more recently, the Boston bombings have really set us right back to our post-9/11 levels of vitriol directed against those who are popularly viewed as responsible or who aren't displaying populist, chest-thumping nationalism.

Values aren't values until times of crisis, hardship, and malcontent. Until then they're just platitudes, conveniences. This country, ever since I've been a thinking, observant adult, has shown me what passes for "values" time and time again, and I don't like what I've seen.

I hear you, except for the Atheist thing I agree with you 100% (and even then, I'm pretty mellow on the religion thing).

Sucks being non-stereotypical around here.  Say you are an NRA member or support gun rights and you get treated like a teabagger wackjob by the left.  Say you are in favor of marriage equality and universal healthcare and you're called a Marxist/Communist traitor by the right.

We need a party, ...


How about we form the Franklin Party? Reason and Logic without the crap.
 
2013-04-23 10:52:45 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Feral_and_Preposterous: I searched and found a longer quote. I quite like the end.

Nice. Going to go get that book, which somehow escaped my notice. probably becasue it is a collection of essays, rather than a "book" book.

The extended quote also make it even more appropot to Bloomberg's Nanny New York.

Well done Burr.


You said "book" three times. You must really like book. :-)
 
2013-04-23 10:54:17 AM

Bravo Two: Silverstaff:We need a party, ...


How about we form the Franklin Party? Reason and Logic without the crap.

And for our party symbol, the turkey! Oh, wait...
 
2013-04-23 10:54:25 AM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: You must really like book. :-)


Bokos are the best and Book is the best Book!
 
2013-04-23 10:54:46 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Clearly you have bever encountered complex concepts like "rational middle ground".


This is an odd thing to say to the person who is arguing for EXACTLY that, and dismissing overly simplistic repetition of a meaningless phrase instead of arguing the merits of marginal changes WITHIN the middle ground in which we live.

I swear its like you choose not to read my posts when you respond to me.

And fwiw, this is the franklin quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

If people change the wording but then later want to argue that their intended meaning was different then the words they actually used, I recommend they go back to school. If one means A but says B, then they should simply correct themselves upon being called out for saying A.  Call me pedantic if you want, but words have meaning and it isn't my place to change people's posts.  I don't like when people assume I mean something other than what I say, and I try not to do it to others.

For example, when I said "Neither is worth much without some of the other. " in my Boobies and it now turns out that the people arguing with me do in fact agree with my initial statement, I have to wonder wtf they thought I meant and why they felt it necessary to read so much more into my words than the words themselves state.
 
2013-04-23 10:55:01 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Bokos are the best and Book is the best Book!


sigh.

BOOKS are the best and Book is the Best Book!
 
2013-04-23 10:55:11 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-23 10:55:12 AM
Seriously? New Yorkers, how the hell did you elect this chucklefark in the first place?
 
2013-04-23 11:00:02 AM

Bravo Two: For me, individual liberty (and it's assumed responsibility for self-protection and so on) trumps demanding others do so for me. I'd rather not have a nanny as I'm an adult.


How would you have protected yourself against the WTC plane attacks or the Boston Marathon bombing?

My point is that individuals can protect themselves against other individuals, but when you're talking about an asymmetrical, surprise attack against unsuspecting, innocent people, only an organization with sweeping surveillance capabilities even has a chance of stopping it. For instance, as I understand it, BPD swept the area around the finish line with bomb-sniffing dogs prior to the event and determined that it was safe, but they didn't do it while people were milling about. I don't know that they could have done that or that they will increase usage of bomb-sniffing dogs and other detection methods now. But I do know that no amount of self-protection is going to stop a guy with a bomb until we have personal gas chromatographs or whatever is used to detect explosives.
 
2013-04-23 11:03:46 AM

Smackledorfer: example, when I said "Neither is worth much without some of the other. " in my Boobies and it now turns out that the people arguing with me do in fact agree with my initial statement


Except that you were arguing about absolutes, which neither the quote nor it's usage in this context assumes. For instance, you said "Unless one lives in an anarchistic society with no justice system whatsoever, there will always be an infringement on freedoms in favor of security."

So if  agree that Ben Franklin's statement, (original or abridged) does not assume absolutes, then arguing against a position of absolutes by insisting that there are none is, well, .. a waste or time.

I think we have established that you were arguing against a position that no one was taking. So it's all good.
 
2013-04-23 11:06:19 AM

fatalvenom: Lemme guess...

"something, something...9/11. Something, 9/11, something something."


It's like some people don't realize that there's a difference between "don't forget" and "don't shut the fark up about it and get on with life".
 
2013-04-23 11:09:36 AM
Hey Bloomberg!

www.addictinginfo.org

Right there, buddy.
 
2013-04-23 11:14:12 AM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Bravo Two: For me, individual liberty (and it's assumed responsibility for self-protection and so on) trumps demanding others do so for me. I'd rather not have a nanny as I'm an adult.

How would you have protected yourself against the WTC plane attacks or the Boston Marathon bombing?

My point is that individuals can protect themselves against other individuals, but when you're talking about an asymmetrical, surprise attack against unsuspecting, innocent people, only an organization with sweeping surveillance capabilities even has a chance of stopping it. For instance, as I understand it, BPD swept the area around the finish line with bomb-sniffing dogs prior to the event and determined that it was safe, but they didn't do it while people were milling about. I don't know that they could have done that or that they will increase usage of bomb-sniffing dogs and other detection methods now. But I do know that no amount of self-protection is going to stop a guy with a bomb until we have personal gas chromatographs or whatever is used to detect explosives.


We don't protect ourselves from that. But we don't abridge our privacy or our day to day freedoms in order to have the illusion of safety. After all, none of the abridgements that happened after 9/11 or being proposed after any of the school shootings would actually have stopped any of those events.  Look how many news stories we have of the TSA utterly failing to stop guns or bombs or anything from getting on aircraft when the FBI conducts tests of the security. All we've gotten out of it is a bunch of people groping us and taking naughty pictures of grandma that have really not done anything.

My argument is that the police and intelligence systems continue to do what they do to secure and protect public areas and transportation, etc., by looking for threats, not branch out into nanny-state overwatch that turns from looking for the implements and criminal activity to scouring and observing individuals themselves without cause.
 
kab
2013-04-23 11:18:16 AM
""Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11 re-electing me," he said.
 
2013-04-23 11:18:26 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Dude. Seriously. Middle ground.


Dude, seriously, he said "Security is best done up to the point where it begins to infringe on the freedoms and rights of the individual. Period. "

Are you saying that even with the period there, and the clear wording, I was supposed to instead read it as "Security is best done to a level where it has already infringed upon many of the freedoms and rights of the individual". If security stops at the point where it is first infringing upon the freedoms and rights of the individual, then there is no true security at all. I have no problem with someone actually wanting that little security - to each their own. I have no problem with someone saying a phrase like that and upon closer inspection of what they said walking it back a little and evolving their concept.

I quite enjoy when I am on the other end of this discussion and make a phrase of that nature only to have a hole poked in it by another: it improves my own thinking on the matter and expands my understanding and beliefs - or if not the beliefs themselves, then my future ability to articulate them.  When these phrases are unclear, overly simplistic, or technically inaccurate they go from being a good thing to a meaningless platitude. It is this very replacement of facts and arguments with platitudes that has helped our political system go down the road it does today, where so many vague catch-all statements have been made by both sides that they cannot compromise on anything, that no middle ground can be found, and that subsequently the voters on both sides of a fence find themselves worse off.
 
2013-04-23 11:19:15 AM

Fark It: Bravo Two: Aarontology: Fark It: Bloomberg is the 25th richest man in America and has instituted and defended a racially-motivated "stop and frisk" campaign on the streets of New York, as well as overseen countless instances of police misconduct and brutality. Yet for some reason that I won't mention because threadjacking, he's lionized in some progressive circles.

America in general doesn't give two shiats what the police are doing as long as they're doing it to someone else.

Yep. As is proven by every thread on fark.

What I like even more is that just about every thread involving police boils down to "fark the police, they're abusive assholes." And yet in every gun control thread, more than a few people say that only the Police should have access to things like ARs and high powered weapons and high capacity magazines.

So, basically what I've taken away from this is that we hate the cops and want to see them cleaned up and punished for their abuses, but we would rather let them outgun us and continue to maintain a posture of militarization so that we can be unilaterally controlled at the whim of police.

Personally, it's stop and frisk and the policies of many police that abuse the rights of the individuals that give me a deep-seated desire to be able to shoot back if a SWAT team busts my door down in the middle of the night when they get the wrong house.

Bravo Two: Gavenger: Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.

Because the guy is surrounded by a security force second only to the President?

How about we just mail him and his guards all to Abu Dhabi?

Well I do find it ironic that someone like him who is hyper anti-2A, surrounds himself with a veritble arsenal of firearms.  Remember, his safety is paramount, yours, not so much.

Gaggle of above-the-law, beyond-reproach cops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines and a history of racism and brutality?

Those are patrol carbines!  How dare you impugn America's ...


Word. Except for the fact that I was gifted a lifetime membership in the NRA when I was a child, I could have written that to describe myself as well. (Except maybe I'd hedge agnostic.)

I don't know why people feel the need to flatten our multi-dimensional world into 2-D; de-color our existence into just black-and-white. (But they do. I guess it makes them feel safer if they can call themselves a member of a flock.)
 
2013-04-23 11:25:40 AM

Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS


You guys realize that's not a totally accurate quote, right?
 
2013-04-23 11:27:39 AM
2 Jun 1919 New York City, NY 2 3

16 Sep 1920 New York City, NY 38 300
21 Sep 1935Brooklyn, NY01
4 Jul 1940New York City, NY22
22 Jul 1948New York City, NY00
7 Nov 1954New York City, NY04
2 Dec 1956Brooklyn, NY06
21 Feb 1965New York City, NY10
7 Aug 1969New York City, NY020
6 Mar 1970New York City, NY30
20 Oct 1971New York City, NY00
26 Jan 1972New York City, NY213
27 Jan 1972New York City, NY20
4 Mar 1973New York City, NY00
24 Jan 1975New York City, NY463
29 Dec 1975New York City, NY1175
10 Sep 1976New York City, NY13
3 Aug 1977New York City, NY17
16 May 1981New York City, NY10
20 Oct 1981New York City, NY30
31 Dec 1982New York City, NY03
31 Dec 1983New York City, NY01
5 Sep 1986New York City, NY 0 30
25 Mar 1990New York City, NY 8 70
5 Nov 1990New York City, NY 1 1
25 Feb 1991Brooklyn, NY 1 0
26 Feb 1993New York City, NY 6 1040
24 Jun 1993New York City, NY 0 0
1 Mar 1994New York City, NY 1 3
24 Feb 1997New York City, NY 2 6
31 Jul 1997New York City, NY 0 2
11 Sep 2001New York City, NY 2759 8700

Ah, you get the idea. Who would have thought that the mayor of the city which saw 2765 people killed and 9740 injured in two terror attacks in 8 years would have concerns about public safety trumping personal freedoms.
 
2013-04-23 11:28:16 AM

BojanglesPaladin: (original or abridged)


Words matter, the two statements have different meanings, and people are constantly mis-attributing or changing quotes (by founding fathers, from the bible, you name it) so that they support their personal beliefs while keeping the good association. This is a common rhetorical technique; the reverse of guilt by association.

And, fwiw in this case, anarchists (and various levels of extreme anti-law enforcement positions) do in fact exist, so it isn't like I would be accusing someone of thinking something nobody would ever believe here.


BojanglesPaladin: So it's all good.


Yep.
 
2013-04-23 11:29:49 AM

Bravo Two: My argument is that the police and intelligence systems continue to do what they do to secure and protect public areas and transportation, etc., by looking for threats, not branch out into nanny-state overwatch that turns from looking for the implements and criminal activity to scouring and observing individuals themselves without cause


I look at it slightly differenlty. The problem is that we expect the government to provide complete security, and become outraged when they fail to do so. Whether it's a shooting, or a bombing, or an explosion, or a flood, we always begin woth the question "why wasn't MORE done to prevent this?"

And that is an irrational and unrealistic expectation that has become pervasive and chronic (many people will now post disputing that this is not an unreasonable expectation.) What is worse, is that every single time we have an event, and it is 'determined' that the current efforts were innefective, the politicians join the chorus demanding MORE innefective and misdirected attempts to prevent anything bad from happening to anyone, anywhere. And of course, the government will need new laws and more money to turn the futile efforts up to 11.

INSTEAD, what we should be doing is focusing our efforts and finite resources on those activities that are most likely to produce the greatest impact in reducing an infinite amount of potential calamity. We all immediately recognize that it is a waste of resources and time to inspect 80 year old jewish women, yet we continue to do so. We need a fundamental restructuring of our sensibilites and priorities. We need to spend a lot more effort on intelligence gathering and a lot less on random spot checks of fat white families in DeMoine. We need to do a better job of screening immigrants, and spend less time and money training SWAT teams in town of 25,000.

But that means acknowledging and really accepting that we cannot protect averyone from everything. And that we, as Americans, need to stop expecting our government like some omnipotent, omniscient force to protect us from adversity.
 
2013-04-23 11:30:57 AM
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." ―  Adolf Hitler
 
2013-04-23 11:31:53 AM

Wayne 985: You guys realize that's not a totally accurate quote, right?


Haven't read the thread then?
 
2013-04-23 11:36:42 AM
I can't say it better:

i.imgur.com

/New York should be ashamed for electing that arsehole.
 
2013-04-23 11:40:14 AM

BojanglesPaladin: "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."



Approves of this message:
video.foxnews.com
 
2013-04-23 11:42:36 AM

Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin


Done in one.
 
2013-04-23 11:43:24 AM

Bravo Two: Security is best done up to the point where it begins to infringe on the freedoms and rights of the individual. Period.

I don't accept that liberty must necessarily be infringed just so I can feel safe. All we've proven so far in doing so is that people still threaten our safety while we continue to have our rights eroded in the name of trying to stop them. It's proven not to work so far, so I'm loathe to continue down that path.


ThisthisthisthisthisTHIS. So much this. We keep making new laws, we keep pushing against the boundaries of individual privacy, and we keep suffering murder, terrorism and assault despite it. So if it's all the same to you, I'll take my chances with danger, while enjoying full civil rights and privacy, rather than having my freedoms curtailed and STILL taking my chances with danger.

Oh, and when this asshole runs for president/senate, I will hunt down any one of you farkers who votes for or otherwise helps him achieve that goal, because NO.

Jeebus, between this and the CISPA bullshiat, I am really getting tired of this planet's shiat.
 
2013-04-23 11:47:53 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

Done in one.


Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

That is the correct quote.
 
2013-04-23 11:50:20 AM

BgJonson79: Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.

Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?


Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. And free.

(The above note is not to be in anyway interpreted as agreement with the positions of Mayor Bloomberg - who appears to be saying that freedom requires that citizens give up their freedoms)
 
2013-04-23 11:54:58 AM

rattchett: BgJonson79: Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.

Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?

Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. And free.

(The above note is not to be in anyway interpreted as agreement with the positions of Mayor Bloomberg - who appears to be saying that freedom requires that citizens give up their freedoms)


I liken those who argue we must accept limitations on freedom for "Security" to a child given a security blanket by a parent and told it keeps out all the bad things. Only in our case, the child finds the blanket does not keep out all bad things, and demands a thicker, heavier, blanket, continuing the cycle until the blanket slowly suffocates the child into immobility beneath its burden.
 
2013-04-23 12:01:27 PM
"Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us from its great power to harm us."
Ronald Reagan.
 
2013-04-23 12:05:59 PM

BojanglesPaladin: "Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us from its great power to harm us."
Ronald Reagan.


People should not be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of their people.
Codename V.
 
2013-04-23 12:11:41 PM

Silverstaff: We need a party, or a caucus, or some kind of organization for Americans who believe in Freedom, Logic, and Reason.  A group who support all civil liberties, even unpopular ones (this means letting minorities vote without Voter ID law trickery, and it means supporting gun rights).  A group who supports equality for all (marriage equality included)  A group who supports helping your fellow man (social welfare programs).  A group who supports sensible foreign policy not guided by religious mandates (no more blank checks to Israel).  A group who supports responsible fiscal policy (bring the deficit under control, raise taxes to do it if you must, including taxing the rich and corporations).


This is more or less what I'm looking for, and I know I've seen this sentiment expressed many times before.  It makes me wonder why such a party doesn't exist.  There really seems to be a desire for it.
 
2013-04-23 12:16:52 PM

Fish in a Barrel: Silverstaff: We need a party, or a caucus, or some kind of organization for Americans who believe in Freedom, Logic, and Reason.  A group who support all civil liberties, even unpopular ones (this means letting minorities vote without Voter ID law trickery, and it means supporting gun rights).  A group who supports equality for all (marriage equality included)  A group who supports helping your fellow man (social welfare programs).  A group who supports sensible foreign policy not guided by religious mandates (no more blank checks to Israel).  A group who supports responsible fiscal policy (bring the deficit under control, raise taxes to do it if you must, including taxing the rich and corporations).

This is more or less what I'm looking for, and I know I've seen this sentiment expressed many times before.  It makes me wonder why such a party doesn't exist.  There really seems to be a desire for it.


Money, and People that want someone else to do the work in starting such an endeavor instead of them.

I offered to help start a party, for what good it'll do. Now, we just need advertising money, incorporation money, and the ability to get on ballots to make ourselves known.

The reason that such a party also fails is that when such a party arises, the big powers that be almost unanimously write it off and use their money and might to marginalize it at all costs, so that their power remains unchecked.

It's easy to declare a challenger to your right to rule an outlaw and have him killed if enough people can be convinced he's not legit.
 
2013-04-23 12:27:50 PM

Bravo Two: rattchett: BgJonson79: Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.

Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?

Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. And free.

(The above note is not to be in anyway interpreted as agreement with the positions of Mayor Bloomberg - who appears to be saying that freedom requires that citizens give up their freedoms)

I liken those who argue we must accept limitations on freedom for "Security" to a child given a security blanket by a parent and told it keeps out all the bad things. Only in our case, the child finds the blanket does not keep out all bad things, and demands a thicker, heavier, blanket, continuing the cycle until the blanket slowly suffocates the child into immobility beneath its burden.


So once again you use a poorly worded catch-all phrase, this time following it up with a bad comparison to insult anyone who disagrees with your statement?

BojanglesPaladin, should I be yet again reinterpreting his statement and not judge it by the wording he uses?

Because some limitations on freedom ARE necessary for security.
 
2013-04-23 12:30:54 PM
Bad as it was the bombing needs to be put in perspective. According to Wikipedia "In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States."
 
2013-04-23 12:33:56 PM
Time for a new constitutional amendment:

Any law passed by Congress on the people of the United States must be most vigorously enforced on the members of Congress and their families, and those in their employ. [Sure, ban gun-toting bodyguards and insider trading, but you have to follow the same rules.]

1. Any exceptions shall be approved by a vote of the people. [This is to cover things affecting national security.]
2. Such exceptions must be renewed by the people every two years at the same time as election of members of the House. If voted down or not removed, such exceptions shall expire immediately.
3. Such exceptions must be detailed on the ballot, and only exceptions mentioned on the ballot shall have the force of law.
4. If a member is found to abuse such exceptions for any reason, or to claim an exception without the force of law, he or she shall be removed from office, and ineligible to run in the next election.

/There are probably a couple of loopholes I forgot. Oh well, it's a start.
 
2013-04-23 12:47:47 PM
The only thing I like about NYs mayor is that he is in NY.
 
2013-04-23 12:51:32 PM
like unlawful search and seizure. WARNING video not for the faint of heart or liberals in denial.
however: WE got ya covered:
 
2013-04-23 12:51:47 PM

Smackledorfer: Bravo Two: rattchett: BgJonson79: Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.

Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?

Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. And free.

(The above note is not to be in anyway interpreted as agreement with the positions of Mayor Bloomberg - who appears to be saying that freedom requires that citizens give up their freedoms)

I liken those who argue we must accept limitations on freedom for "Security" to a child given a security blanket by a parent and told it keeps out all the bad things. Only in our case, the child finds the blanket does not keep out all bad things, and demands a thicker, heavier, blanket, continuing the cycle until the blanket slowly suffocates the child into immobility beneath its burden.

So once again you use a poorly worded catch-all phrase, this time following it up with a bad comparison to insult anyone who disagrees with your statement?

BojanglesPaladin, should I be yet again reinterpreting his statement and not judge it by the wording he uses?

Because some limitations on freedom ARE necessary for security.


Ugh. How plain must I be? We put in place laws that make punishments required for certain behaviors. We enact measures of control to reasonably catch those who would attempt to harm us and stop them.

The point I keep trying to get through to you, which you either accidentally or willfully ignore, is that the types of reasonable restrictions and exceptions we conceived of do not equate to preemptively limiting the extent to which people enjoy freedoms.  In general, we basically say do what you please so long as it does not harm others, and does not involve certain things that we agree are evil.

Those restrictions, and the reasonable limitations we have in place in order to ensure order in society are NOT analogous to granting the government permission to monitor our phone calls, e-mail, mail, etc. It does NOT allow them to arbitrarily restrict how we vote, etc.

We have accepted certain dubious restrictions despite their not having anything to do with what they're billed as now. Speed limits were imposed during WWII in order to enforce fuel conservation. The "safety" argument is a byproduct but not the intent.   The original tax stamp act on full auto firearms? Enacted in order to prevent minorities from being able to afford those types of weapons. Original tax stamp on Marijuana? Designed more as a moral fight in order to keep its sister product, Hemp, from competing with newspaper rag and cotton.

Since then, laws have gone from being social rules that codify specific behaviors as wrong and empowering the government to prevent such behavior in society at large into being means of control and to be used as a bludgeon for whatever moral or political force wishes to wield them.

How hard is it for you to discern between these two concepts, and the very real difference between reasonably agreeing that behaviors that harm others should have consequences recognized and codified by society as punishable by the state, and accepting that laws can be put in place that preemptively seek to, in extreme cases, make enforcement of behavior an excuse to control the behavior of the populace?

Take NY's Stop-and-Frisk laws. These are a basic violation of the 4th Amendment. Warrantless wiretapping and government inspection of your e-mail (the IRS does this routinely) likewise.

NEITHER of these are necessary laws or powers in order to provide for the security of the nation, especially when balanced against the very basic protections specifically designed to prevent this sort of behavior.

In our country, men are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and are given every protection to keep their private affairs private, and their activities their own business unless they affect the public.  We've grown way beyond that basic premise we took for granted to a point where we have to fight for people to recognize that it's not worth the few crimes prevented if in doing so you lose the basic right to live without the approval or inspection of others.
 
2013-04-23 12:58:43 PM

stuffy: The only thing I like about NYs mayor is that he is in NY.


What scares me about Bloomberg is that he's the mayor of NY, and in 2015 when suggestions of the White House bid start to come up, Bloomberg may very well run.  I know he's said that he has no intention of doing so, right now, but people do change their mind, and there is nothing stopping Bloomberg from saying "I know I said that I wasn't going to seek anything beyond mayor of New York, but I've decided to run for President anyways."  And the scary part about a Bloomberg run is all the Democrats who are saying "Sucks to have him as a mayor, glad I don't live in NY" will suddenly forget all of that and sing Bloomberg's praises and justify all of this nonsense as they toe the party line.
 
2013-04-23 01:06:51 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Can you imagine what Patrick Henry, with cane in hand would physically do to this puffed up popinjay?


Patric Henry would most likely exclaim: DAMN....Can I go for a ride in that whirling bird thing you have..
 
2013-04-23 01:09:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Middle ground.


Ok, to which point should we (collectively, not personally) be meeting, and why?
 
2013-04-23 01:09:44 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.


because he is armed heavily by way of body guards.
 
2013-04-23 01:13:00 PM

TerminalEchoes: jfivealive: You're just going to have to give up some of your freedoms to be free.

You know, this is pretty much what John Locke said.


I missed that. Did he say that to Sawyer or Hugo?
 
2013-04-23 01:26:29 PM
Stay classy, libs.
 
2013-04-23 01:27:58 PM

Smackledorfer: Because some limitations on freedom ARE necessary for security.


Again, I think you are arguing against a point no one is making.
 
2013-04-23 01:44:21 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Because some limitations on freedom ARE necessary for security.

Again, I think you are arguing against a point no one is making.


Eh, no, i think he's confusing agreed-upon behavioral restrictions by way of agreeing certain behaviors are off limits with rights restrictions based upon allowing governmental entities the authority to knowingly violate the spirit of said rights in the name of sniffing for criminals and terrorists.

Right now, we already know the government (IRS, NSA, etc.) have to some level or another the ability and ongoing process of scanning phone calls (NSA) and e-mail (IRS, NSA). The FBI has had their hands caught in the cookie jar more than once with use of technology that violates the rights of people not even under investigation for the sake of criminal investigation/"security".

Don't believe me? Remember the case where the muslim kid found a GPS tracker on his car that the FBI and DHS put there without a warrant?  Or how about the case where the FBI/DHS used a device that spoofs a cell tower to intercept cell traffic from an individual, and ended up exposing every individual in the local vicinity's data because they ALL connected to that device and were open/being recorded?  How about the cases of feds and state/local police agencies serving no-knock warrants on the WRONG HOUSES and killing the occupants?

At what point does "safety" make this acceptable?
 
2013-04-23 02:09:34 PM

James!: syberpud: James!: You know that soda ban never got enacted right?

The courts stopped it, not because Bloomberg came to his senses.

I'm aware.


barely.
 
2013-04-23 02:18:33 PM

FLMountainMan: I think the right rants about Detroit because it's such a failure and can be (very simplistically) blamed on black people or unions or Democrats. Chicago is ranted about because the Great Muslim Satan Obama is from there.


d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net

The Chicago hate is far more Daley and far less Obama.
 
2013-04-23 02:26:10 PM

Bravo Two: How would you have protected yourself against the WTC plane attacks or the Boston Marathon bombing?


I may be responding to the wrong poster, but when a person seeks safety by armed forces (army,navy,police etc) then they are opened to tyranny. Standing armies are for War. Police are for maintaining COMMUNITY order. When we started calling the cops "Law Enforcement" we started rewarding thugs. Let adults act like adults and most problems will police themselves.
No absolute protection can be gained by handing over personal responsibility to a larger group of armed people. Think of Pear Harbor, Invasion of Poland, and the Dictatorships of Pol Pot and Mao. Unarmed ,scared,and ignorant people make easy prey/slaves.
One the other hand if people who want to be armed ,and have not demonstrated irresponsibility in the past (felons,illegals,mental ill and politicians) are armed the violence in society will naturally go down as the "victim" is now on a level field with a perpetrator. It is foolish to rob a bank when there may be a load of guns pointing back at you,yet it will happen. I was going to include examples,,but for every one of them some jack leg will say ..but but but...and there is no answer to people who will not reason.
 
2013-04-23 02:34:06 PM

rocketpants: OH MY GOD, THE DANGER!!

I can hardly walk down the street without shiatting my pants. Seriously. It's so scary here.


It's ironic that a guy named Rocketpants, is shiatting his pants walking down the street.
 
2013-04-23 02:36:12 PM
Re-interpret the Constitution? So he's pimping for the terrorists now?
 
2013-04-23 02:39:42 PM

Bravo Two: Don't believe me?


I believe you, though I don't think it matters. So long as Americans expect our government to prevent any and all calamity, we will continue to grant them tacit and implicit (sometimes explicit as we saw in the Patriot Act) permission to do whatever they say the "need" in order to protect us from adversity.

The fundamental problem is that when we, as a people, abrogate ultimate responsibility for our safety to another entitity, we also cede some measure of authority over our individual lives as well.

We, AS A PEOPLE, have transitioned from a sense that each American is primarily responsible for their own destiny, and the government's role primarily is to protect the country, to a sense that each American is dependant in one way or another on the government for protection from hardship, employment, safety, housing, health, happiness, and tranquility. We lay responsibility for everything from the stock market to gas prices to mortgage payments to petty crime to unemployment to food prices to social morality to education to fairness and justice at the feet fo the government and say "Take care of this for us". And when there is a problem, we demand that government do MORE to protect the American people from adversity.

So long as we insist that the government is responsible for everyone's individual lives, government will continue to exercise its authority over everyopne's individual lives.

Government is enrouching on our individual liberties becasue we keep asking it to.
 
2013-04-23 02:40:42 PM
Yes! Let's reenact the Alien Sedition act so we can cruise in to WW3 with some dignity!
 
2013-04-23 02:42:29 PM
FTFA, "Clearly the  Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment ..."

He is completely misstating Heller, which reaffirmed the 2nd as an individual right and not a collective right as put forth by Bloomberg and others.
 
2013-04-23 03:30:08 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

Malodetz!  Do it for the children!  Just THINK of this precious thing, torn to bits by the bombs of the Eurasians!
 
2013-04-23 03:33:40 PM
I'm thinking that 99% of terrorists aren't aware and certainly do not care about our freedoms. They simply want to kill us and injure us for a variety of reasons. The only people chafed by our freedoms work in our government or benefit from governmental actions.
 
2013-04-23 03:35:42 PM
Shhhhhhh!  There, there...back to sleep... Those bad men are gone now and won't hurt you anymore.  Back to sleep...Forget that 2.1 billion Muslims around the world would cheer if you were to die in the most violent and cruel fashion imaginable.  Forget and lay your head back on the pillow... it's the economy that is the real problem; but, never fear, the government is here to feed you and take care of you...back to sleep now...back to sleep... Let the government worry about scary, unpleasant things like guns, bombs, terrorists, 20 ounce sodas...calm down and go back to sleep...it's all going to be okay... To remain safe we require your unflinching obedience...we know what is best for you...bad dreams and boogey men won't bother you when we're around...back to sleep... We care so much about you... we know our brown-skinned brothers to the south are afraid too so we have invited them to join us so they won't be alone...plenty of room for all...plenty of room for everyone...back to sleep now...back to sleep...Shhhhhhhhhhh!
 
2013-04-23 03:40:17 PM

rocketpants: OH MY GOD, THE DANGER!!

I can hardly walk down the street without shiatting my pants. Seriously. It's so scary here.


Been drinking Colt .45?
 
2013-04-23 03:49:41 PM

Bravo Two: How plain must I be?


I accept that you made errors in language with your initial ben franklin misquote and your later post, to repeat the same poor phrasing a third time is the opposite of plain.  At this point you are deliberately stating things poorly.

Bravo Two: i think he's confusing agreed-upon behavioral restrictions by way of agreeing certain behaviors are off limits with rights restrictions based upon allowing governmental entities the authority to knowingly violate the spirit of said rights in the name of sniffing for criminals and terrorists.


No, the confusion is yours.

What I am saying is that the 'agreed-upon behavioral restrictions' ARE an infringement on liberty.  I don't see how anyone could think they aren't.  And with them being one, I am insisting that we stop playing the silly game of typing generic and meaningless platitudes, as well as stupidly written insults like 

Bravo Two:I liken those who argue we must accept limitations on freedom for "Security" to a child given a security blanket by a parent and told it keeps out all the bad things.
 What you seem to want is to have it both ways: you want to be able to repeatedly, not once, not twice, but thrice, say that we don't have to give up liberties to be secure, and yet we obviously do.
 Bravo Two: The point I keep trying to get through to you, which you either accidentally or willfully ignore, is that the types of reasonable restrictions and exceptions we conceived of do not equate to preemptively limiting the extent to which people enjoy freedoms.  In general, we basically say do what you please so long as it does not harm others, and does not involve certain things that we agree are evil.

Which would be fine if you stopped repeatedly making stupidly inaccurate statements that run contrary to that. I guess we may have to agree to disagree, but to me it is both inaccurate and misleading to type things like "liberty" and "freedom" and then simply redefine the words as you need to after your statements are shown to be inaccurate.  Example: you spoke of freedom earlier and I pointed out that the very existence of a criminal justice system infringes upon the freedom of every single person who was ever not guilty. Every investigative detainment, incorrect guilty verdict, and innocent on trial is an infringement on people's freedoms - and you bet your ass I consider such inconveniences to be 'limits on the extent to which people enjoy freedoms'.  This is a cost I am willing to pay to have a criminal justice system, and seems to be one you are willing to pay as well.I simply want to call it what it is: a trade-off of freedom for safety, and a very significant one at that. I'm no child asking for a security blanket, I am simply someone who is unwilling to pretend there is some magic sweet spot where we get most of the security and lose nothing in the way of freedom.  Taking this full circle: Franklin knew that, and this was the reason he wrote what he wrote, instead of the garbage you started the thread with. 

BojanglesPaladin: Again, I think you are arguing against a point no one is making.

If people would stop using language that states it, I would stop accusing them of making those points.  Take the security blanket comment he makes: if I read it as written, then anyone who supports a criminal law system is a baby needing a blanket.  If I change it to mean whatever I the reader would agree with, then the statement is completely without meaning and all of his posts could be replaced with "I agree with you, the reader".  That strikes me as a very stupid way of reading what people write.
 
2013-04-23 03:52:17 PM
Bloomberg hates freedom and America.

Silverstaff: BojanglesPaladin: "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

Yeah Bloomberg. People like YOU.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a couple of random Chechens who decided to have a DIY jihad.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than some random Taliban fighter off in Afghanistan fighting because his family needs to be fed and it was the only job he could find.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a ten thousand DPRK soldiers who would run out of food, fuel and ammo within a day if they tried to attack.


Going to have to agree with you there.

Blloomberg hates America an the principals it was founded on.

I would also add the Banksters who created more damage to this country than even Bin Laden.
 
2013-04-23 03:54:28 PM

id10ts: I say again: FARK Bloomberg!


repeat
 
2013-04-23 04:12:24 PM
This sad little man really has a problem with freedom.
 
2013-04-23 04:39:45 PM

Smackledorfer: Take the security blanket comment he makes: if I read it as written, then anyone who supports a criminal law system is a baby needing a blanket.


He did not mention the criminal justice system and he is NOT calling for a removal of the criminal law system, like you seem to be arguing against. So you aren't taking issue with what was written, you are taking issue with what you thihnk is meant, and clearly you aren;t doing a great job of that as many people have clarified and corrected that no one is advocating against any government authority or a lawless society.

Smackledorfer: If people would stop using language that states it, I would stop accusing them of making those points.


Again, neither Benjamin Franklin's quote nor those of most other posters here are calling for an absolutist dichotomy between anarchy and oppression. I think most everyone here understands that there is a balance between liberty and safety, you seem to be the only one insisting that other people don't understand the distinction. So insisting that they are wrong to suggest what they aren't saying is... well I don't know.. pointless?

But you know what? Feel free. Forget I said anything at all. You can say I'm just dead wrong, and maybe I am. You can ignore me completely with my blessing. No hard feelings, I just don't care enough about your interaction with other posters to keep getting drug into it.

So I won't say anything about what you post to someone else on this thread, and you can stop posting to me and bob's yer uncle and we all ride off into the sunset on rainbow farting unicorns.

And that is always fun.
 
2013-04-23 04:46:21 PM
I think the question is not, "Is Bloomberg mentally ill", but "What variety(ies) of mental illness does Bloomberg have?"
 
2013-04-23 05:04:31 PM

Smackledorfer: Bravo Two: How plain must I be?

I accept that you made errors in language with your initial ben franklin misquote and your later post, to repeat the same poor phrasing a third time is the opposite of plain.  At this point you are deliberately stating things poorly.

Bravo Two: i think he's confusing agreed-upon behavioral restrictions by way of agreeing certain behaviors are off limits with rights restrictions based upon allowing governmental entities the authority to knowingly violate the spirit of said rights in the name of sniffing for criminals and terrorists.

No, the confusion is yours.

What I am saying is that the 'agreed-upon behavioral restrictions' ARE an infringement on liberty.  I don't see how anyone could think they aren't.  And with them being one, I am insisting that we stop playing the silly game of typing generic and meaningless platitudes, as well as stupidly written insults like  Bravo Two:I liken those who argue we must accept limitations on freedom for "Security" to a child given a security blanket by a parent and told it keeps out all the bad things.
 What you seem to want is to have it both ways: you want to be able to repeatedly, not once, not twice, but thrice, say that we don't have to give up liberties to be secure, and yet we obviously do.
 Bravo Two: The point I keep trying to get through to you, which you either accidentally or willfully ignore, is that the types of reasonable restrictions and exceptions we conceived of do not equate to preemptively limiting the extent to which people enjoy freedoms.  In general, we basically say do what you please so long as it does not harm others, and does not involve certain things that we agree are evil.
Which would be fine if you stopped repeatedly making stupidly inaccurate statements that run contrary to that. I guess we may have to agree to disagree, but to me it is both inaccurate and misleading to type things like "liberty" and "freedom" and then simply redefine the words as you need to af ...


So what do you want me to say? I honestly do think that inside of the ground rules, anyone who willingly subjects themselves to invasive behavior by your "protectors" to feel safe is akin to a child demanding a security blanket to protect you from the big bad scary monsters.

Don't get me wrong, monsters exist, and there exists a barrier between them and you. But when that security blanket is pierced, rather than recognize that the blanket is imperfect and living with it, we keep begging uncle sugar to do more to stop the bad guys, to the point that we then turn on each other because things scare us.

Now, can you point out exactly what I've said that's stupidly inaccurate? I quoted a Ben Franklin quote as it came up on google. Shame on me for not getting the exact quote, and instead a paraphrased one.  But you keep insisting on this like somehow the criminal justice system breaks into your home, reads your mail, and forces the citizen to jump through hoops in order to live and exercise their rights. They don't, They exist and only bother us or get involved when you step out of the bounds of the law.

If you feel that what I've said means I am talking in absolutes, I'm not. All I want to convey is that the government gets to patrol the outside world, and what I do on my own time in my own life in my own home is mine and mine alone to govern, and I have specifically enumerated rights (and responsibilities) that I am granted when I'm in public.  I fully recognize and admit that there are some laws that must exist that are balanced against my liberty -- robbery, rape and murder laws, for example. However, i see a basic and distinct difference between agreeing on punishments for certain behaviors (we don't go out of our way to prevent these behaviors from happening, otherwise we'd have to confine everyone and keep everyone away from everyone else) on the honor system that you don't do it, and you won't get punished.

Up until the patriot act, we had no laws that abridged the rights of citizens to the degree that we actively allowed the government to exercise powers against private citizens without a warrant or due cause.

I don't know how else I can explain myself and not be making "stupidly inaccurate statements" because I keep saying the goddamn same things and you keep reading it differently. I GET THAT WE HAVE SOME INFRINGEMENT NECESSARY AS A SOCIETY SINCE WE CANNOT GO OUT AND LITERALLY DO EVERYTHING WE WANT. HOWEVER, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, PEOPLE RESPECTED THE FACT THAT UNLESS WE WERE HURTING SOMEONE ELSE, A PERSON COULD PRETTY MUCH DO WHATEVER THE fark THEY WANTED TO WITHOUT SOME SNOOPING BUSYBODY GETTING HER PANTIES IN A WAD AND DEMANDING ACTION. NOW, YOU LEAVE ME ALONE TO DO WHAT I DO AND I'LL LEAVE YOU ALONE TO DO THE SAME, AND LONG AS WE DON'T HURT EACH OTHER, THEN I WON'T GIVE A FLYING shiat WHAT YOU DO, WHO YOU fark, OR WHAT YOU SAY TO ANYONE IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR E-MAIL, PHONE, OR MAIL.
 
2013-04-23 06:09:38 PM
What is it with people who want to give up MY rights?

/pussies
 
2013-04-23 07:48:20 PM

Burr: jaybeezey: will still vote him in the next elections

Question for NYC farkers.  Has he done any good while elected?  Like, improved schools, cleaned up the city?


He increased the debt by about $55 billion if that counts for anything.
 
2013-04-23 09:00:57 PM

HotWingConspiracy: propasaurus: So, how is what Bloomberg said any different from what Lindsay graham said?

Exactly, and we're talking Senator vs. Mayor.

Also, when did we start pretending that conservatives give a shiat about constitutional protections? I'm thinking Jan 2009.


Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

I kind of get your point though, the neocons sort of blew that all out of the water. But fark neocons...
 
2013-04-23 09:32:10 PM

life of the sausage party: FTA, he said, ""Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

He should have disappeared in a puff of logic.

/It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife...




Reminds me of this guy.
i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-23 09:35:20 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Unless one lives in an anarchistic society with no justice system whatsoever, there will always be an infringement on freedoms in favor of security.

Clearly you have bever encountered complex concepts like "rational middle ground". Neither Ben Franklin nor (presumably) the poster was presupposing absolutes. Your comments are themselves pointless unless either the quote or its usage implies a choice between absolute insecurity or absolute lack of freedom, which it does not.


I don't notice being any safer in the last 15 years. Where is all this safety I'm supposed to be getting? I'm not seeing it.
 
2013-04-23 10:45:11 PM

fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).


Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.
 
2013-04-23 10:50:18 PM
floppingaces.net
 
BBH
2013-04-23 11:03:52 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.


Because he has armed guards.
 
2013-04-24 12:22:33 AM
*KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*
 
2013-04-24 11:51:13 AM

Bravo Two: DarkSoulNoHope: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

Done in one.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

That is the correct quote.


Still awesome from Franklin. I wish we had politicians of his courage these days.
 
2013-04-24 12:53:25 PM

StoPPeRmobile: I don't notice being any safer in the last 15 years. Where is all this safety I'm supposed to be getting? I'm not seeing it


I have No idea. Nor do I have any idea why you are asking me - I don't have it :)
 
2013-04-24 01:21:40 PM

Silverstaff: fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.


And there you go, showing your ignorant liberal bias.

Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, with function limited to protecting individual liberty, defending the country from outside threats, and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise; limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Democrats believe that what's yours is mine, and that excessive taxation is patriotic. Republicans believe that taxation is a necessary evil, and that excessive taxation is a form of tyranny.
 
2013-04-24 01:37:16 PM

fartacus: Silverstaff: fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.

And there you go, showing your ignorant liberal bias.

Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, (1) with function limited to protecting individual liberty (2), defending the country from outside threats (3), and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise (4); limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Democrats believe that what's yours is mine, and that excessive taxation is patriotic. Republicans believe that taxation is a necessary evil, and that excessive taxation is a form of tyranny.


I dont necessarily disagree with you about the left, but...

1. Record deficit under last few republican administrations.

2. War on drugs, homosexuals and women.

3. War in Iraq.

4. Charter schools, wanting private police and fire services, wanting to do things like disband the FDA...
 
2013-04-24 01:44:04 PM

fartacus: Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, with function limited to protecting individual liberty, defending the country from outside threats, and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise; limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.


Republicans want government so small it can fit into your uterus, and your bedroom.

They want to regulate who you can marry and what kind of gynecological procedures you can get, all kinds of things.

They only talk about "small government" when it means deregulating the economy so corporations can get more power.  They want a government with dictatorial control of the lives of everyday people, for "morality" and "family values".

Don't pretend the Republican Party wants individual liberty.  They've gone far out of their way over the last decade or so to strip liberty apart, either in the name of "family values" or in the name of "fighting terrorism".  They don't want liberty, they want The Christian States of America, Incorporated.

Yeah, sure, Republicans only want things that are explicitly in the Constitution.  That's why a Republican administration gave us the Department of Homeland Security.

They want public services stripped down, gutted and turned into for-profit machines that exist to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.  It's how we ended up with the disgrace of for-profit prisons in this country (and the "cash for kids" scandal in Pennsylvania, with a corrupt Judge taking kickbacks from a prison company to send as many kids as possible to prison, because of the profit motive to incarcerate as many as possible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)

No, Republicans don't care about deficits or "small government" when they are in power, they never have, EVER.  That's when they spend like no tomorrow and create new bureaucracies to increase state power.  Then when they are the minority party they start to harp on about how they are defenders of individual liberty and freedom.
 
2013-04-24 02:32:02 PM

Cyno01: fartacus: Silverstaff: fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.

And there you go, showing your ignorant liberal bias.

Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, (1) with function limited to protecting individual liberty (2), defending the country from outside threats (3), and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise (4); limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Democrats believe that what's yours is mine, and that excessive taxation is patriotic. Republicans believe that taxation is a necessary evil, and that excessive taxation is a form of tyranny.

I dont necessarily disagree with you about the left, but...

1. Record deficit under last few republican administrations.

2. War on drugs, homosexuals and women.

3. War in Iraq.

4. Charter schools, wanting private police and fire services, wanting to do things like disband the FDA...


As I pointed out earlier, I'm no fan of neocons, and the Republicans have drifted pretty far from their roots, but:
1. The executive branch doesn't control the purse strings
2. There is no war on homosexuals and women, any more than there is a war on the family or on Christianity.
3. It was a stupid war, but national defense is a legitimate function of government
4. I see nothing wrong with that. The FDA certainly needs reforming. Schools and fire services are/should be a state/local concern anyway, not a national one.
 
2013-04-24 03:11:29 PM

Silverstaff: fartacus: Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, with function limited to protecting individual liberty, defending the country from outside threats, and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise; limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Republicans want government so small it can fit into your uterus, and your bedroom.


No, they just don't want abortion to be a protected right. I'm pro-choice, but anti Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers do have a legitimate argument, even if I don't agree with them. And abortions certainly shouldn't be subsidized using taxes.

They want to regulate who you can marry and what kind of gynecological procedures you can get, all kinds of things.

No, they just don't want marriage redefined. Many Republicans are fine with gay marriage, including all the federal benefits of marriage. But marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is between two people of the same sex.

They only talk about "small government" when it means deregulating the economy so corporations can get more power.  They want a government with dictatorial control of the lives of everyday people, for "morality" and "family values".

Wow, it's amazing how you can read minds. I can too... Democrats want a tyranny of the majority, where minorities just have to go along with the mob, with no individual liberty.

Don't pretend the Republican Party wants individual liberty.  They've gone far out of their way over the last decade or so to strip liberty apart, either in the name of "family values" or in the name of "fighting terrorism".  They don't want liberty, they want The Christian States of America, Incorporated.

Bullshiat. The Democrats are doing an equally fine job of trying to strip individual liberty in the name of safety and income equality. The Democrats want the Democratic Socialist States of America, where all is owned by the state, and individual rights no longer exist.

Yeah, sure, Republicans only want things that are explicitly in the Constitution.  That's why a Republican administration gave us the Department of Homeland Security.

They want public services stripped down, gutted and turned into for-profit machines that exist to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.  It's how we ended up with the disgrace of for-profit prisons in this country (and the "cash for kids" scandal in Pennsylvania, with a corrupt Judge taking kickbacks from a prison company to send as many kids as possible to prison, because of the profit motive to incarcerate as many as possible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)

No, Republicans don't care about deficits or "small government" when they are in power, they never have, EVER.  That's when they spend like no tomorrow and create new bureaucraci ...


And now you're totally off the rails...
 
2013-04-24 03:22:12 PM

ginkor: "What variety(ies) of mental illness does Bloomberg have?"


He's delussional.  He thinks he is my mommy.
 
2013-04-24 03:41:22 PM

fartacus: No, they just don't want abortion to be a protected right.


Which is intruding into others' private lives, which you claimed only Democrats wanted to do... Don't forget they also tried to outlaw gay sex, until the Supreme Court set them straight (no pun intended)...

No, they just don't want marriage redefined.

Yeah, just like these guys didn't!

i651.photobucket.com

Bullshiat. The Democrats are doing an equally fine job of trying to strip individual liberty in the name of safety and income equality. The Democrats want the Democratic Socialist States of America, where all is owned by the state, and individual rights no longer exist.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican?

/I do so wish there were a sane, viable third party choice in America...
//As it is, we all tend to agree both parties do suck, but think one sucks marginally less than the other depending on our leanings on certain things...
 
2013-04-24 04:40:47 PM

RobSeace: fartacus: No, they just don't want abortion to be a protected right.

Which is intruding into others' private lives, which you claimed only Democrats wanted to do... Don't forget they also tried to outlaw gay sex, until the Supreme Court set them straight (no pun intended)...


No, it's not intruding into other's private lives. It's simply acknowledging that abortion is an ugly subject with lots of grey area, that some people have very good reasons for being against it, while others have very good reasons for being pro-choice. It's really something that should be up to states and localities. I.e. abortion should neither be federally abolished nor protected, and it certainly shouldn't be taxpayer subsidized.

No, they just don't want marriage redefined.

Yeah, just like these guys didn't!

[i651.photobucket.com image 850x563]


Actually, those are two entirely different situations. As long as the federal government treats individuals the same regardless of sexual orientation, race, etc., then the federal government's job is done.

Bullshiat. The Democrats are doing an equally fine job of trying to strip individual liberty in the name of safety and income equality. The Democrats want the Democratic Socialist States of America, where all is owned by the state, and individual rights no longer exist.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican?


Yes, both parties suck. I just prefer conservative ideals to liberal ones.

/I do so wish there were a sane, viable third party choice in America...
//As it is, we all tend to agree both parties do suck, but think one sucks marginally less than the other depending on our leanings on certain things...


We're in agreement; you prefer the giant douche, while I prefer the turd sandwich.
 
2013-04-24 05:18:30 PM

fartacus: No, it's not intruding into other's private lives.


Being personally opposed to abortion is not necessarily intruding in others' private lives, no... But, wanting there to be a law against abortion certainly is! One may think it's a valid intrusion for some reason, but it's certainly intrusion nonetheless...

It's really something that should be up to states and localities.

I would like to agree, in theory... In theory, I'm a fan of the conservative "states rights" rhetoric a lot of the time... But, in practice a lot of the time, that results in oppression of some group or other, which seems utterly unfair... Sure, they could move to different states, I suppose... But, lots of people don't really have that as a practical option...

For something like marijuana laws, I'd agree with the states rights POV... Anyone "oppressed" by such laws aren't really all that truly oppressed... But, for something like abortion, we know for a fact that if it's outlawed somewhere, there will be women dying needlessly due to shoddy illegal procedures, so it just seems horribly wrong to allow that to happen...

As long as the federal government treats individuals the same regardless of sexual orientation, race, etc., then the federal government's job is done.

Yeah, and the problem is they're not currently doing that... That's what the current DOMA SCOTUS case is about! (I'm pretty confident the outcome of that will be that they will be forced to treat them the same, though...)

We're in agreement; you prefer the giant douche, while I prefer the turd sandwich.

Heh. I suppose so...
 
Displayed 176 of 176 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report