Liberty Is Overrated--Safety Should Be Our First Concern*

Ever Vigilant ^ | 06-19-2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[dcwusmc]

Neither a "living" Constitution nor your infamous 3000 amendments are needed. The INTENT of the Constitution was and continues to be to BIND THE GOVERNMENT and limit what it is allowed to do. This intent never changes and never SHOULD change. But for idiots (apparently like you) who cannot control your own lives and want Big Brother to do it for you (and TO everyone else, in the bargain), we would not even need to have this conversation. You are a DemonRat with your "living" Constitution and you should be ashamed of yourself. Yet, obviously you have neither shame nor a mind, judging from the pure-dee crap that you post here.

[MichaelP]

Liberty is overrated

LIBERTY is what this country is founded upon. I for one, do not want to give up any of it. We can secure our country with a minimum of governmental intrusion on our rights if the security apparatus is focused on the likely terrorists...

Mike

[G.Mason]

"I sure hope so. That's Darwinian evolution in action. OTOH, it's not as easy , Bla bla bla..........."

Obviously you lost the context of my post.

You see, it's important to follow from the beginning.

Call back if I can be of more help to you.

[Tuor]

You're right. I must be satire-impaired today or something. Reality has become so much a satire of itself that I can no longer tell where one begins and the other ends. I'm going to go sit in a corner now.

Tuor

[Jefferson Adams]

Reality has become so much a satire of itself that I can no longer tell where one begins and the other ends.

Ain't it the truth.

[G.Mason]

"You're right. I must be satire-impaired today or something."

No, it was I who fell for Shelton "the Troller's" lame post.

My example was a feeble attempt at showing that when one perpetrates a fraud that same someone must bear the consiquences that come from it.

[Attillathehon]

I would have more sympathy towards this argument is the government were doing everything they can to protect us without eroding our liberty first, but they aren't. They won't arm pilots. They won't put the military on the border. They won't crackdown on illegal immigration, and speed up deportations. They waste time strip searching grandmas from Iowa, while refusing to pay extra attention to Muslims for fear of being accused of "racial profiling". They won't tell the Saudis that we will not issue any more visas to Saudis as long as they pay suicide bombers, glorify them in their media, and promote Islamic extremism in American mosques. None of this would even require action by Congress, the Bush adminsration could do it on their own. Until they do I can't support further erosion of our freedom.

You are right on the money, Hugin

[Kerberos]

"Sounds very straight forward to me. Are you saying that Old Ben did not mean it that way? "

Well let's look at it this way. Given the choice would you rather live in a country that was at war, or would you rather live in a country that was at peace?

Haven’t heard back from you Tex. Cat got your tongue, or are you still thinking about the question?

[redrock]

I'll take FREEDOM over safety anyday!!!!!

Excellent article.....

redrock--Constitutional Terrorist

[A CA Guy]

If we were still living in the 1700s, I would totally agree with you.
Now we have.
#1 Social Security
#2 Medicare
#3 Libraries
#4 Public education. Including a state contribution for a state college.
#5 Product/Food safety and regulation
#6 The new inventions called a paved roads, massive sewer systems, water lines, electric lines, gas lines, street lights, traffic lights, telephone lines and dams.
The above are known examples of modernization. As things get more available and we live less like hermits and people live to be older, the burden on government, people, and the law change.

You see the disaster of Arabs living with the mentality of the 700s. So I would think you would make the connection that the world changed and we can't live in the 1700s either.

I don't know where you get the idea that I get a single nickel from anything connected to the government? I do not. I collect nothing and I'm not employed in any way by them.

I pay for all my own needs. I am not bought out, just logical that as the world progresses, things change, including the need for some additional laws for a current day.
I have no interest in growing government or laws in general. I am always for reviews of laws and reduction in and the simplification of existing laws.

Let me know how this all turns out when you go to court with the Libertarian party over the issues.

[RightOnline]

It's called "satire".

[G.Mason]

"It's called "satire"."

NO, It's called failure to read all replies and understanding the context in which they apply.

Product of outcome education?

[Triple]

We have a taker, I think.

Do you agree with the article, as your post implies?

(But... You wouldn't state the scenario in the terms the author used.)

[dcwusmc]

You make my case that you are a DemonRat idiot. Numbers 1-4 of your ridiculous list are NOT proper or legitimate functions of FedGov as per the Constitution nor have any amendments been offered to make them so. Number 5 MIGHT, by a stretch, be legit but not all that is legit is proper. Number 6 has nothing to do with FedGov what so ever. Paved roads have been with us for a long time without any need for FedGov except insofar as their Constitutionally-mandated duty to provide for Post Roads. Even that is being stretched to the limits.

Your bogus contention that these are proper "burdens" of FedGov without any amending of the Constitution to allow for it (which, of course, they KNOW would not pass) puts you right up with the Rats and CINOs and RINOs as a "living Constitution" Tax and Spend Capital "L" LIBERAL, unworthy of even LIVING if it were solely up to me. You are truly a Gray-out Devious Democrat and you should immediately get out your goobernatorial kneepads and RUN, don't walk, to Sac and give the head goober his proper homage. I bet you even believe in the now-dead notion of the "White Man's Burden" to bring "enlightenment" to the benighted minorities of the world. That would not surprise me in the least! (at least the notion is dead in RATIONAL people's eyes. LIBERALS still cling to that tenet of a failed faith as a drowning man clings to a piece of wreckage. Witness the "Affirmative Action" bilge - which I am sure you approve of - which says to anyone who actually THINKS that Liberals like you believe that "minorities" cannot advance in this country without YOUR help...a condescending notion if ever there was one.)

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Liberty is overrated. Safety is what counts during times of crisis. After all, how can liberty be enjoyed if one cannot feel safe.

RATS REAR! NEVER give an inch!

[NittanyLion]

You can get the point across or not agree without being nasty.

You're right, and for the "nastiness" I apologize. Now, let's get down to some facts. You claim I can avoid many of the taxes I listed above. Let's take two: Social Security and sales tax. How can I avoid the 13% on SS, and (in PA) 6% sales tax?

[Teacher317]

We Constitution-philes are already defined as terrorists by the FBI. ("SuperPatriots")

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Didn't go through the posts. Aplogize if you've already seen

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

Been here and seen this one. Did not enter the fray because I felt that actions speak louder than pounding keys on the computer and thought maybe an oppertunity would arise.

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

http://www.evervigilant.net/ar ch6502.html is by the same author and deserves its own thread.