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 177
    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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report