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  
•       •       •

12143 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 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