First they came...

First they came... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

servinggirlwntd -> First they came... (10/9/2011 6:55:12 PM)
THe recent decision, by the Obama administration, that they were free to execute Americans without bothering with formal, outdated niceties like trials, made me wonder if a rubicon has been crossed. Supreme court justice Brandeis once wrote: Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. TO paraphrase: first they decided they could kill those they named as terrorists without bothering with due process of law because they were a "danger to the American state" and we did not protest because we aren't terrorists. Then they decided to kill child molesters without trial because they are worse than murderers, but we did not protest because they were disgusting and who wanted to bother with trials. Then they decided they could kill drug dealers without a trial because they were killers and we did not protest because we did not deal drugs. Then they decided that they would kill the sexual deviants who liked to beat one another or be beaten, because they were undermining the moral fabric of our great country. We need to take our freedoms back, before it is too late. We need a president who believes that our rights are truly inalienable. Benjamin Franklin said it well: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

servinggirlwntd -> RE: FIrst they came... (10/9/2011 6:58:13 PM)
...

Iamsemisweet -> RE: FIrst they came... (10/9/2011 7:52:41 PM)
What the hell are you talking about? Because if you are talking about hunting down Al Qaeda members like the dogs they are, I believe that is the single best thing Obama has done in his whole presidency. And by the way, your paraphrase is very insulting to victims of the holocaust.

tazzygirl -> RE: First they came... (10/9/2011 8:10:08 PM)
Interesting facts behind that quote. 1) It was a dissenting opinion. 2) it was about wire tapping phone lines 3) it was during the time of prohibition http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZD.html

farglebargle -> RE: First they came... (10/9/2011 9:28:09 PM)
quote: We need a president who believes that our rights are truly inalienable. And who is that going to be?

tazzygirl -> RE: First they came... (10/9/2011 9:46:36 PM)
quote: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. Your quote is a tad bit off.... "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

popeye1250 -> RE: FIrst they came... (10/9/2011 11:46:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet What the hell are you talking about? Because if you are talking about hunting down Al Qaeda members like the dogs they are, I believe that is the single best thing Obama has done in his whole presidency. And by the way, your paraphrase is very insulting to victims of the holocaust. Obama didn't do anything. Good job Navy Seals.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: FIrst they came... (10/10/2011 12:05:44 AM)
Sure Popeye. You keep believing that. Even the Wall Street Journal, not well known as a liberal rag, made it clear that the decision making, resources, and drive came straight from the top. Not giving credit where credit is due just makes you look like an idiot. Good job Obama, and thanks to the Seals too.

DeviantlyD -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 12:10:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: We need a president who believes that our rights are truly inalienable. And who is that going to be? quote: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserv LOL Exactly.

tazzygirl -> RE: FIrst they came... (10/10/2011 12:11:28 AM)
Considering its owned by Murdock.............

jlf1961 -> RE: FIrst they came... (10/10/2011 5:22:49 AM)
This is kind of funny since the Bush Administration decided that torture was a way of gathering information, which the op makes no mention of. You cannot pick and choose which presidents are guilty of stepping outside the law. Now, for a few facts. Anwar al-Awlaki was never indicted for treason. He was wanted for his activities against the United States and in support of Al Qaeda. His activities were well documented. However, in this case, he was basically executed without even the indictment of a crime. That in and of itself sets a precedent that I am not sure I would have wanted set, or acted on. Adam Yahiye Gadahn was on October 11, 2006 indicted based on the testimony of the FBI case agent E.J. Hilbert II, in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a federal grand jury for the capital crime of treason for aiding an enemy of the United States (i.e. Al-Qaeda). Gadahn is the first American charged with treason since Tomoya Kawakita in 1952.

Owner59 -> RE: FIrst they came... (10/10/2011 5:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet What the hell are you talking about? Because if you are talking about hunting down Al Qaeda members like the dogs they are, I believe that is the single best thing Obama has done in his whole presidency. And by the way, your paraphrase is very insulting to victims of the holocaust. Obama didn't do anything. Good job Navy Seals. bush gave up on bin-laden.Closed the bin-laden unit of the CIA........FAIL!!! President Obama odered Panetta to go after bin-laden......success. It`s about leadership Pops,something you`ve forgotten....or never learned about.

LafayetteLady -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 5:52:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servinggirlwntd TO paraphrase: first they decided they could kill those they named as terrorists without bothering with due process of law because they were a "danger to the American state" and we did not protest because we aren't terrorists. Then they decided to kill child molesters without trial because they are worse than murderers, but we did not protest because they were disgusting and who wanted to bother with trials. Then they decided they could kill drug dealers without a trial because they were killers and we did not protest because we did not deal drugs. Then they decided that they would kill the sexual deviants who liked to beat one another or be beaten, because they were undermining the moral fabric of our great country. The problem with paraphrasing is that it always contains bias. When done by an individual with an obvious lack of understanding of the law, you end up with someone spouting ignorant bullshit like this that they couldn't possibly back up with actual court related documents that prove your "paraphrasing."

StrangerThan -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 5:53:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. Your quote is a tad bit off.... "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 The version you're referring to was used as the motto on the title page of that work. The actual quote occurred a few years earlier, around 1775, with the original quote believed to be They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Nitpicking maybe, but if we're going to be picking nits, let's pick them where they lie.

tazzygirl -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 6:31:17 AM)
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790) This is often misquoted as "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety...". The version here is the correct one from the original source. (Corrected here 10/05/2006) [note by Michael Moncur, October 05, 2006] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This phrasing was also the motto in Historical Review of Pennsylvania, attributed to Franklin It's important to note that this sentiment, with many variations, was much used in the Revolutionary period by Franklin and others. http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?tocvol=6 The actual Paper Franklin wrote.

StrangerThan -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 6:49:36 AM)
From your link 2. Franklin’s Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775 ... Satisfaction. Art 14. The Judges should receive nothing from the King. As to the other two Acts, The Massachusetts must suffer all the Hazards and Mischiefs of War, rather than admit the Alteration of their Charters and Laws by Parliament. They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. B Franklin ...

tazzygirl -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 6:58:12 AM)
In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?tocvol=6 Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor Printed in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21. [November 11, 1755]

StrangerThan -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 7:07:24 AM)
Again, from your source: Franklin’s Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) AD and copy: Library of Congress No 15 [February 17, 1775] Page 1. line 7 [line 4 of Article 1]. in consequence of that Engagement, all the Boston and Massachusetts Acts to be suspended, and on Compliance with that Engagement to be totally repeal’d. By this Amendment Article 4th. will become unnecessary. Art. 4 and 5 The numerous Petitions heretofore sent home by the Colony Assemblies, and either refused to be received, or received and neglected, or answered harshly and the Petitioners rebuk’d for making them, have I conceive totally discourag’d that Method of Application, and if even their Friends were now to propose to them the recurring again to Petitioning, such Friends would be thought to trifle with them. Besides, all they desire is now before Government in the Petition of the Congress, and the whole or Parts may be granted or refused at Pleasure. The Sense of the Colonies cannot be better obtained by Petitions from different Colonies, than it is by that general Petition. Art. 7 Read, such as they may think necessary. Art. 11. As it stands, of little Importance. The first Proposition was that they should be repealed as unjust. But they may remain, for they will probably not be executed. Even with the Amendment propos’d above to Article 1. I cannot think it stands as it should do. If the Object be merely the preventing present Bloodshed, and the other Mischiefs to fall on that Country in War, it may possibly answer that End. But if a thorough hearty Reconciliation is wish’d for, all Cause of Heart-burning should be remov’d, and strict Justice be done on both Sides. Thus the Tea should not only be paid for on the Side of Boston, but the Damage done to Boston by the Port Act should be repair’d, because it was done contrary to the Custom of all Nations Savage as well as civiliz’d, of first demanding Satisfaction. Art 14. The Judges should receive nothing from the King. As to the other two Acts, The Massachusetts must suffer all the Hazards and Mischiefs of War, rather than admit the Alteration of their Charters and Laws by Parliament. They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. B Franklin

tazzygirl -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 7:09:10 AM)
Problem is, Stranger, You claimed the version I posted was wrong. Obviously it isnt. My post was to show you the paper trail I went through to find the one I posted.

tazzygirl -> RE: First they came... (10/10/2011 7:37:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. Your quote is a tad bit off.... "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 The version you're referring to was used as the motto on the title page of that work. The actual quote occurred a few years earlier, around 1775, with the original quote believed to be They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Nitpicking maybe, but if we're going to be picking nits, let's pick them where they lie. Maybe when you nitpick next time, you should be a bit more thorough.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625