FREE TAPATALK APP

rjwould · 15th February 2008, 07:56 AM

This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics?

BOO!

Darth Rotor · 15th February 2008, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by rjwould

This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics?

BOO!

The President needs to watch Stallone's 80's era movie Nighthawks, with Rutger Hauer.

There is no security.

He might also familiarize himself with Ben Franklin's remarks on security and freedom. (Maybe we need to put a

picture on a few pages to he'll read it.)

DR

Snide · 15th February 2008, 10:48 AM

I wish the Democrats could say something like, "Yes...perhaps we ARE more in danger now. That's the price you pay for freedom and liberty and all that. We are in more danger with 70 MPH speed limits, too...where's the outcry to reduce them to 55 again?"

Not the perfect analogy, but it was the first to come to mind....

Ziggurat · 15th February 2008, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

He might also familiarize himself with Ben Franklin's remarks on security and freedom.

That quote is widely referenced but generally not considered in any real detail. It may or may not have originated with Franklin, but in any case, here's the original:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Note the bolding is mine. Does this quote, if we accept it, mean that we should never trade any liberty for any safety? No, it does not. So even if we accept it completely without debate, its applicability is often quite a bit more limited than commonly supposed.

In other words, you can't really just refer to a Franklin quote and think that the debate is settled. That doesn't cut it.

Snide · 15th February 2008, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That quote is widely referenced but generally not considered in any real detail. It may or may not have originated with Franklin, but in any case, here's the original:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Note the bolding is mine. Does this quote, if we accept it, mean that we should never trade any liberty for any safety? No, it does not. So even if we accept it completely without debate, its applicability is often quite a bit more limited than commonly supposed.

Good point, which is along the lines of what I posted. We need to discuss the degree of danger, the consequences, etc. v. the degree of liberties, importance thereof, etc. But it's so much easier to make it black and white and in soundbite form, and the latter method tends to work with the masses.

Quote:

In other words, you can't really just refer to a Franklin quote and think that the debate is settled. That doesn't cut it.

Not that you're implying it, but I highly doubt DR was doing that.

dudalb · 15th February 2008, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That quote is widely referenced but generally not considered in any real detail. It may or may not have originated with Franklin, but in any case, here's the original:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Note the bolding is mine. Does this quote, if we accept it, mean that we should never trade any liberty for any safety? No, it does not. So even if we accept it completely without debate, its applicability is often quite a bit more limited than commonly supposed.

In other words, you can't really just refer to a Franklin quote and think that the debate is settled. That doesn't cut it.

It' s always a trade off.
And both parties fear monger. I think the Dems have done a little fearmongering on Global Warming.

rjwould · 15th February 2008, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

It' s always a trade off.
And both parties fear monger. I think the Dems have done a little fearmongering on Global Warming.

True...But does fear mongering on the environment cause our society to give license to kill others both directly and as collateral damage?

DavidJames · 15th February 2008, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by rjwould

This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics?

BOO!

Welcome to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign focus. Try to scare the **** of you and then say that women or that youngster won't protect you.

New Ager · 15th February 2008, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by rjwould

This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics?

BOO!

You mean there's no threat from terrorists?!?!?

Oh, those liberal blinders.

New Ager · 15th February 2008, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Snide

I wish the Democrats could say something like, "Yes...perhaps we ARE more in danger now. That's the price you pay for freedom and liberty and all that. We are in more danger with 70 MPH speed limits, too...where's the outcry to reduce them to 55 again?"

Not the perfect analogy, but it was the first to come to mind....

I think he was trying to protect us against terrorists not the chances of everyday life.

So, do nothing?

Upchurch · 15th February 2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by New Ager

You mean there's no threat from terrorists?!?!?

You mean the only thing keeping the terrorists from attacking us is passing a law that allows the president to ignore other laws?!?!?

Oh, those wingnut blinders.

New Ager · 15th February 2008, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

It' s always a trade off.
And both parties fear monger. I think the Dems have done a little fearmongering on Global Warming.

LOL!! A little!??!

You'd think by their and other liberal's comments that the world will be ending any year now.

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Welcome to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign focus. Try to scare the **** of you and then say that women or that youngster won't protect you.

Not so. George Bush isn't running this year.

rjwould · 15th February 2008, 04:00 PM

I guess those terrorist alerts will be changing colors soon.

I say we put GWB and Bin Laden in a room together with knives and let them settle it...I wonder if Bush would show...

godofpie · 15th February 2008, 04:03 PM

I don't like the word terrorist anymore. It has almost lost all meaning to me. This whole "good against evil" idea is just a bunch of crap. Does evil actually exist? I don't think so. I believe in healthy and sick, not good and evil. Evil implies that there is some force at work beyond your control, the "evil-doers". Isn't terrorism in the eye of the beholder? Look what happens when we "spread democracy" in Palestine. Be careful what you wish for, huh? And who says we live in a democracy? One man, one vote? Not as long as there is an electoral college and a 2 party system. Our fore fathers did not have faith in the common man.

Snide · 15th February 2008, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by New Ager

I think he was trying to protect us against terrorists not the chances of everyday life.

So?

Quote:

So, do nothing?

No. That would fall under the "black and white" world I was referring to in my response to Ziggurat.

That would be like me asking you, "So, spy on everyone 24/7?"

Snide · 15th February 2008, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by New Ager

LOL!! A little!??!

You'd think by their and other liberal's comments that the world will be ending any year now.

Not if you were an intelligent person paying attention, you wouldn't.

Ziggurat · 15th February 2008, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by godofpie

Does evil actually exist? I don't think so. I believe in healthy and sick, not good and evil. Evil implies that there is some force at work beyond your control, the "evil-doers".

The last debate I had with someone over the issue of whether or not the term "evil" made sense said it didn't because he didn't believe in free will. I do believe in free will. I think we can choose to do right, and we can choose to do wrong, and if we choose to do wrong, that is evil. Nothing more metaphysical than that is required to define the existence of evil. It requires nothing beyond our control, and it is in fact precisely because when it is in our control that something can be called evil. So do you not believe in free will, or do you not believe in the concept morality?

Quote:

Isn't terrorism in the eye of the beholder?

Not really. Terrorism is violence targeted against civilians to inspire fear in order to achieve political goals. What, really, is so subjective about that?

Quote:

Look what happens when we "spread democracy" in Palestine.

Who is this "we"? And elections alone don't make a democracy.

Quote:

And who says we live in a democracy?

People who use it as shorthand to include republican (not as in the party) forms of government. Which a lot of people do, and which our government is.

Quote:

One man, one vote? Not as long as there is an electoral college and a 2 party system.

Strictly speaking, the US is a no-party system. You will not find any mention of parties anywhere within the constitution. What we have is winner-take-all elections with no coupling between legislative and executive elections. That happens to generally favor the emergence of two parties, but that isn't the same as a two-party system.

Quote:

Our fore fathers did not have faith in the common man.

Our system has worked remarkably well for a very long time. So what's your point?

15th February 2008, 07:56 AM	#1
rjwould Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 494	There he goes again----"BOO" This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics? BOO!
rjwould Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 494

15th February 2008, 08:11 AM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	Originally Posted by rjwould This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics? BOO! The President needs to watch Stallone's 80's era movie Nighthawks, with Rutger Hauer. There is no security. He might also familiarize himself with Ben Franklin's remarks on security and freedom. (Maybe we need to put a picture on a few pages to he'll read it.) DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

15th February 2008, 11:40 AM	#4
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor He might also familiarize himself with Ben Franklin's remarks on security and freedom. That quote is widely referenced but generally not considered in any real detail. It may or may not have originated with Franklin, but in any case, here's the original: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Note the bolding is mine. Does this quote, if we accept it, mean that we should never trade any liberty for any safety? No, it does not. So even if we accept it completely without debate, its applicability is often quite a bit more limited than commonly supposed. In other words, you can't really just refer to a Franklin quote and think that the debate is settled. That doesn't cut it.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

15th February 2008, 12:06 PM	#7
rjwould Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 494	Originally Posted by dudalb It' s always a trade off. And both parties fear monger. I think the Dems have done a little fearmongering on Global Warming. True...But does fear mongering on the environment cause our society to give license to kill others both directly and as collateral damage?
rjwould Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 494

15th February 2008, 12:32 PM	#8
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,118	Originally Posted by rjwould This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics? BOO! Welcome to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign focus. Try to scare the **** of you and then say that women or that youngster won't protect you.
	Last edited by DavidJames; 15th February 2008 at 12:33 PM.

15th February 2008, 10:48 AM	#3
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	I wish the Democrats could say something like, "Yes...perhaps we ARE more in danger now. That's the price you pay for freedom and liberty and all that. We are in more danger with 70 MPH speed limits, too...where's the outcry to reduce them to 55 again?" Not the perfect analogy, but it was the first to come to mind....

15th February 2008, 11:55 AM	#5
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That quote is widely referenced but generally not considered in any real detail. It may or may not have originated with Franklin, but in any case, here's the original: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Note the bolding is mine. Does this quote, if we accept it, mean that we should never trade any liberty for any safety? No, it does not. So even if we accept it completely without debate, its applicability is often quite a bit more limited than commonly supposed. Good point, which is along the lines of what I posted. We need to discuss the degree of danger, the consequences, etc. v. the degree of liberties, importance thereof, etc. But it's so much easier to make it black and white and in soundbite form, and the latter method tends to work with the masses. Quote: In other words, you can't really just refer to a Franklin quote and think that the debate is settled. That doesn't cut it. Not that you're implying it, but I highly doubt DR was doing that.

15th February 2008, 11:58 AM	#6
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 23,023	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That quote is widely referenced but generally not considered in any real detail. It may or may not have originated with Franklin, but in any case, here's the original: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Note the bolding is mine. Does this quote, if we accept it, mean that we should never trade any liberty for any safety? No, it does not. So even if we accept it completely without debate, its applicability is often quite a bit more limited than commonly supposed. In other words, you can't really just refer to a Franklin quote and think that the debate is settled. That doesn't cut it. It' s always a trade off. And both parties fear monger. I think the Dems have done a little fearmongering on Global Warming.

15th February 2008, 03:41 PM	#9
New Ager Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by rjwould This president is like a kid that everytime he wants something he say's the same thing.....When will momma stop buying into juniors scare tactics? BOO! You mean there's no threat from terrorists?!?!? Oh, those liberal blinders.

15th February 2008, 03:44 PM	#10
New Ager Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by Snide I wish the Democrats could say something like, "Yes...perhaps we ARE more in danger now. That's the price you pay for freedom and liberty and all that. We are in more danger with 70 MPH speed limits, too...where's the outcry to reduce them to 55 again?" Not the perfect analogy, but it was the first to come to mind.... I think he was trying to protect us against terrorists not the chances of everyday life. So, do nothing?

15th February 2008, 03:47 PM	#11
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	Originally Posted by New Ager You mean there's no threat from terrorists?!?!? You mean the only thing keeping the terrorists from attacking us is passing a law that allows the president to ignore other laws?!?!? Oh, those wingnut blinders.

15th February 2008, 03:49 PM	#12
New Ager Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by dudalb It' s always a trade off. And both parties fear monger. I think the Dems have done a little fearmongering on Global Warming. LOL!! A little!??! You'd think by their and other liberal's comments that the world will be ending any year now. Originally Posted by DavidJames Welcome to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign focus. Try to scare the **** of you and then say that women or that youngster won't protect you. Not so. George Bush isn't running this year.

15th February 2008, 04:00 PM	#13
rjwould Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 494	I guess those terrorist alerts will be changing colors soon. I say we put GWB and Bin Laden in a room together with knives and let them settle it...I wonder if Bush would show...
rjwould Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 494

15th February 2008, 04:03 PM	#14
godofpie Chief Cook & Bottle Washer Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: south of the mason dixon Posts: 958	I don't like the word terrorist anymore. It has almost lost all meaning to me. This whole "good against evil" idea is just a bunch of crap. Does evil actually exist? I don't think so. I believe in healthy and sick, not good and evil. Evil implies that there is some force at work beyond your control, the "evil-doers". Isn't terrorism in the eye of the beholder? Look what happens when we "spread democracy" in Palestine. Be careful what you wish for, huh? And who says we live in a democracy? One man, one vote? Not as long as there is an electoral college and a 2 party system. Our fore fathers did not have faith in the common man.

15th February 2008, 04:19 PM	#15
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Originally Posted by New Ager I think he was trying to protect us against terrorists not the chances of everyday life. So? Quote: So, do nothing? No. That would fall under the "black and white" world I was referring to in my response to Ziggurat. That would be like me asking you, "So, spy on everyone 24/7?"
	Last edited by Snide; 15th February 2008 at 04:21 PM. Reason: edited to remove bad analogy

15th February 2008, 04:24 PM	#16
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Originally Posted by New Ager LOL!! A little!??! You'd think by their and other liberal's comments that the world will be ending any year now. Not if you were an intelligent person paying attention, you wouldn't.

15th February 2008, 04:49 PM	#17
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by godofpie Does evil actually exist? I don't think so. I believe in healthy and sick, not good and evil. Evil implies that there is some force at work beyond your control, the "evil-doers". The last debate I had with someone over the issue of whether or not the term "evil" made sense said it didn't because he didn't believe in free will. I do believe in free will. I think we can choose to do right, and we can choose to do wrong, and if we choose to do wrong, that is evil. Nothing more metaphysical than that is required to define the existence of evil. It requires nothing beyond our control, and it is in fact precisely because when it is in our control that something can be called evil. So do you not believe in free will, or do you not believe in the concept morality? Quote: Isn't terrorism in the eye of the beholder? Not really. Terrorism is violence targeted against civilians to inspire fear in order to achieve political goals. What, really, is so subjective about that? Quote: Look what happens when we "spread democracy" in Palestine. Who is this "we"? And elections alone don't make a democracy. Quote: And who says we live in a democracy? People who use it as shorthand to include republican (not as in the party) forms of government. Which a lot of people do, and which our government is. Quote: One man, one vote? Not as long as there is an electoral college and a 2 party system. Strictly speaking, the US is a no-party system. You will not find any mention of parties anywhere within the constitution. What we have is winner-take-all elections with no coupling between legislative and executive elections. That happens to generally favor the emergence of two parties, but that isn't the same as a two-party system. Quote: Our fore fathers did not have faith in the common man. Our system has worked remarkably well for a very long time. So what's your point?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law