November 18, 2007
"Any Statist, 2008"
I don't think I've ever been made fun of quite
this elegantly.
(The next post down is where the Cat and I have been having our debate about Terrorism vs. the Economy as the main challenge of this day and age.)
For the record, I do agree with Ben Franklin about how it isn't a hot idea to give up liberty for safety. And, in fact, that is why McCain ranks so low on my list—and why, despite my admiration for his gender-bending, Giuliani has so many question marks next to his name (and it isn't just gun rights that Rudy is weak on: there were all kinds of infringements on civil liberties when he was mayor of NYC, and seeing that expanded to the Federal level—when the Feds aren't bastions of restraint, even now—certainly gives one pause.
So, yes. I'm over my crush on Giuliani.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:35 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And what personal liberties do you expect to gain if Hillary is elected ? It would be unspeakable if she was to win.
The election is still 11 and 1/2 months away and I still haven't decided on a candidate, but the alternative an alternative doesn't exist.
Posted by: Mark at November 18, 2007 04:19 PM (d/RyS)
2
Oh I wasn't making fun of you specifically. I'm just getting awfully anxious about the fact that he seems to be getting so much traction in a party that historically stands against so much of what he is for.
Posted by: Desert Cat at November 18, 2007 09:13 PM (DIr0W)
3
Oh. So it isn't all about me? Are you
sure?
That's okay. I guess . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 18, 2007 10:41 PM (aywD+)
4
Of course, the quote is usually bastardized as "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither" or some such, when the actual quote, (which Franklin denied writing, btw) was "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY." There is always a tension between the twin roles of the government as the protector of individual liberties and the government as protector against foreign/domestic aggression. There have always been trade-offs between rights and security. I am personally not particularly impressed at the people who are screaming that the sky is falling because the NSA satellites are monitoring all our phone calls and taking naughty pictures of us in the shower (although if any NSA types happen to have any candids of that cute red-head down the road, drop me a line). I do not really see our basic constitutional rights being rolled back by the Bush administration as a prelude to a theocracy. Of course, I was taken to Gitmo to be questioned, but I pegged their caucasian-o-meter, so they had to let me go, so maybe I am the wrong person to be asking about that.
David
Posted by: David Harr at November 19, 2007 05:32 PM (qaYe1)
5
Bush didn't do much to roll back civil liberties; most of that has been accomplished by the gun-grabbers and the drugophobes. And it's been going on for a long time.
Asset forfeiture for drug dealers being one of the worst examples: it's an engraved invitation for abuse of power by/corruption of public officials at the municipal, county and state level.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 19, 2007 10:34 PM (B5tPZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
24kb generated in CPU 0.6264, elapsed 0.7259 seconds.
208 queries taking 0.6946 seconds, 431 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
