CNN Poll, Bush and Civil Rights

[rushmc 23]

If one reads past the carefull crafted text of the article it would seem that most Americans do NOT believe Bush has gone too far concerning civil rights.

Ya all gonna hate CNN now??

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. --
Benjamin Franklin

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

If one reads past the carefull crafted text of the article it would seem that most Americans do NOT believe Bush has gone too far concerning civil rights.

Ya all gonna hate CNN now??

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/

They should have added one more question. "Do you think Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks?". That would be a good indicator for you. And I do hate CNN. They're one of the reason's that most people are poorly informed on most issues. The media sucks at its job. They're in it for the money and if a little good reporting slips in, well that's ok too.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. --
Benjamin Franklin

Where did he write that?

[Amazon 7]

http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.1.html

The actual quote is

NUMBER: 3929
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
QUOTATION: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 1
ATTRIBUTION: Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
BIOGRAPHY: Columbia Encyclopedia.

Note 1.
This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin’s “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413. [back]

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.1.html

The actual quote is

NUMBER: 3929
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
QUOTATION: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 1
ATTRIBUTION: Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
BIOGRAPHY: Columbia Encyclopedia.

Note 1.
This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin’s “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413. [back]

Here's a little food for thought. http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

[billvon 3,120]

Do you disagree with the quote, whoever originally penned it?

[beowulf 1]

so how do you deal with security threats if you are unwilling to live with any loss of liberty? How do you define liberty? At what point do you see security measures biting into your liberty? What body count is liberty worth versus security?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Do you disagree with the quote, whoever originally penned it?

No, but I do think it is extremely overused/misused when applied to presentday life in America.

[billvon 3,120]

>so how do you deal with security threats if you are unwilling to
>live with any loss of liberty?

Easy. Make our security better. Some examples:

Requiring X-ray and sniffer checks of every bag that goes on every airplane does not restrict your rights. It's expensive of course.

Removing the right of habeas corpus because you are scared DOES severely restrict your rights. But it's a lot cheaper.

So the question can devolve a bit - what's more important to you, freedom or money? If the answer is money, well, like the man said - you deserve what you end up with.

>What body count is liberty worth versus security?

Hundreds of thousands of americans have willingly died to preserve our liberty, so the number is well over, say, half a million.

[billvon 3,120]

>No, but I do think it is extremely overused/misused when applied to
>presentday life in America.

Good, then! It's being used a lot ("overused") because exactly what the founders feared would happen IS happening. We are abandoning the freedoms we've fought for because we're cowards, and are so scared of terrorists that we allow our government to do whatever they wish in the name of security.

Imagine what the founding fathers would have said if a president of the time suggested not ratifying the Bill of Rights because of the massive Indian threat (which was surely far more scary to the people of the US than today's terrorists.) He would have been rightly laughed out of office. Today we take such people seriously, because of our fear.

[livendive 8]

Quote

so how do you deal with security threats if you are unwilling to live with any loss of liberty? How do you define liberty? At what point do you see security measures biting into your liberty? What body count is liberty worth versus security?

Your questions seem to assume that liberty and security must be exchanged one for the other. Why can one only be enjoyed at the expense of the other?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Amazon 7]

Very good article.....but it looks as if he was the publisher and TWEAKED the phrase.....to make his point clear.

From your link..

I also purchased the 10 volume Collected Works of Franklin edited by Jared Sparks, published in 1840. In volume VII there is a letter that Franklin wrote to his friend David Hume 27 September, 1760, in which he says, in response to Hume's praise of the Historical Review, that it was "not written by me, nor any part of it," except for one small section and some of the text attributed to the Assembly when he was serving there. Sparks adds a page long footnote detailing who supported the contention that Franklin was the author, and concludes that it was published under Franklin's direction and with his approval. In his autobiography, Franklin says that he was the publisher. It is now believed that Richard Jackson was the author, with Franklin doing some tweaking.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Today we take such people seriously, because of our fear.

Yep. The percentage of pansy-asses in this country seems to be at an all-time high.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[beowulf 1]

The quote implys that. I just continued it.

But how do you have greater security with out losing some liberty? Just look at those people that are famous or highly important heads of state. Look at the amount of personal liberty they give up for security.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

so how do you deal with security threats if you are unwilling to live with any loss of liberty? How do you define liberty? At what point do you see security measures biting into your liberty? What body count is liberty worth versus security?

The question is.. are you willing to wait until they are gone before you do anything about it.

I would be far more willing to see more of the administrations families putting themselves in harms way.. you know being REAL leaders... when it comes to counting bodies.

What body count is acceptible to the neo-cons( who will NEVER serve) so that they can ensure their enrichment with the lives of other americans.

[NCclimber 0]

For the last few years I've heard constant claims of "our civil rights are being taken away". It's accompanied with much wailing and moaning. Comparisons to 1930s Germany get tossed about, too.

What seems lacking from this drama is anything more than a handful of US citizens being adversely impacted by all our civil rights being taken.

The protests vs. the actual impact seem to be a fine example of a mountain being made from a molehill.

Meanwhile, 18 per cent of our GDP is being collected by the Federal Government every year.

[livendive 8]

Quote

But how do you have greater security with out losing some liberty? Just look at those people that are famous or highly important heads of state. Look at the amount of personal liberty they give up for security.

And after all that, I'd say the average head of state has a higher chance of being assassinated then, say, me. Thus it seems to me that the easy way to avoid assassination (e.g.) is not to hire lots of security, but rather to not become a head of state.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

>What seems lacking from this drama is anything more than a
> handful of US citizens being adversely impacted by all our civil rights
> being taken.

Who said all our civil rights are being taken? The current brouhaha is over one particular one (the right to not be jailed for no visible reason.) It's an important one, but certainly not the only one.

>What seems lacking from this drama is anything more than a
>handful of US citizens being adversely impacted by all our civil rights
>being taken.

Right. And if we rescinded the second amendment tomorrow, it wouldn't affect ANYONE at first. (It would not require guns to be confiscated, it would just remove the federally-legislated right and allow states/counties to decide on their own whether people should be allowed to own guns.) Would you be OK with that?

>Meanwhile, 18 per cent of our GDP is being collected by the Federal
>Government every year.

Right. And are you OK with that? Because at the time income taxes were first used, they impacted only a handful of US citizens in a minor way (3% tax on rich americans.) Anyone who objected to THAT was making a mountain out of a molehill.

Still think income taxes are a tiny little molehill?

The recent judgement allows the administration to suspend habeas corpus any time it wants, for any reason. You REALLY think that they won't do with this ruling what they did with income tax? If so you are far more trusting than I.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

What seems lacking from this drama is anything more than a handful of US citizens being adversely impacted by all our civil rights being taken.

The protests vs. the actual impact seem to be a fine example of a mountain being made from a molehill.

So abuses of only a FEW Americans is ok with you...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriotabuse.htm

The government is using gag orders and secret evidence to keep the public in the dark about its use of the Patriot Act to investigate Americans, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml?norewrite200610301521&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com

In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.



"Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Prosecutors aren't apologizing.

Attorney General John Ashcroft completed a 16-city tour this week defending the act as key to preventing a second catastrophic terrorist attack. Federal prosecutors have brought more than 250 criminal charges under the law, with more than 130 convictions or guilty pleas.


SO basically if you give them the power to use it... they will...even for things it was not intended to be used for.

[beowulf 1]

Some would say that is also a loss of liberty. By not having the option to be famous or a head of state to avoid any possible security problems.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Some would say that is also a loss of liberty. By not having the option to be famous or a head of state to avoid any possible security problems.

And in keeping with the quote, those people deserve to be neither heads of state nor secure.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

You are very good at avoiding the point of the discussion if you have nothing constuctive I am noticing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Darius11 12]

Where the people who answered HIGH or unaware that GWB has destroyed Habeas Corpus.
Maybe most of the Bush voters don’t know what that means.

It means the president has absolute power. He can detain anyone including US citizens as long as he wishes without allowing representation.

How can any American not have an issue with that?

I said this just in another thread it is worth repeating.

GWB has hurt America in a way that all terrorist wish the could have. He is changing what America is and stands for.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. --
Benjamin Franklin

Wow, I think this may be first time you have responded to any of my posts with no insults (not personal to me) name calling or pigieon holing!!

To you point.

I to believe that but we have a fundemental disagreement about what that really is.

On another note,I see more danger to our society from political correct attacks trying to silience an oposing using polical correctness as a weapon.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln