Topic de jour. Phone calls

[Soap]

I'll just say this, I'm a true die hard republican, and I'm very very frustrated and dissapointed with this administration. Bush served this country better his first four years, than he is his last four. His last four years so far, is like a wrecking ball completely out of control.

[YetAnotherOne]

Damn good quote Deneb. Very fitting too!

Too bad the quote is likely from a long-forgotten member of the Pennsylvania Assembly rather than Benjamin Franklin. The quote appears in a propaganda book first published in London in 1759 entitled An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. In a letter that appears in The Complete Works of Franklin, Benjamin Franklin corrects his friend David Hume who believes Franklin to be the author of Historical Review. In truth Franklin wrote only a few phrases in the work and the bulk of the work was produced by others. The quotation in question is from a letter from the PA Assembly the governor of PA. The authorship of the letter is unknown but the authorship of Historical Review is not in doubt and Benjamin Franklin was not the author.

In addition to the misattribution the quote has been butchered through the years. As it appears on the title page of the 1759 version of Historical Review the quote reads, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Note the qualifier "essential" preceding the world liberty and the qualifier "temporary" preceding the word safety. As originally written the quote very clearly contemplates the exchange of less than essential liberties for more than temporary safety, another problem for those who hurl this particular phrase at every action by our government of which they do not approve.

It's also worth considering that the author of the quote could not have been speaking directly to the citizens of the United States in reference to the actions of their government since the quote predates the American Revolution. Even were Franklin the author (which he almost certainly was not) he would presumably have addressed such issues during the Constitutional Convention when our government was formed.

Similarly it's worth remembering that Historical Review was merely a propaganda work published in London while Franklin was petitioning the king to obtain funds from the heirs of William Penn.

The actual quote and its real history definitely take a lot of the shine off of the sentiment most attempt to express via its invocation in modern times.

[thetroy]

Alright YetAnotherOne. You've proven everyone else's ideas are wrong and that they don't understand history or how to learn from history.

What's your solution to all of the problems this country faces?

I hear a lot of talking but no one proposing feasible solutions. I'll be the first one to admit that I don't have a fucking clue what should be done.

[Deneb]

Regardless of who wrote/said/typed it, it means something to me, and apparently other people. Rather than give me an essay on why it's not a BF quote, you should have gave me an essay on why I shouldn't feel that way. In my opinion, if you want to give up freedom for security, then you don't deserve either. It doesn't matter who wrote it to me.

Next, reading the quote as you wrote it, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
and comparing it to the version I posted, doesn't really change anything. In fact it only makes the quote clearer. Whatever measures we take now, are only going to make us temporarily safer. Once some person figures a way to damage something through those measures, we find ourselves back at square one, and thus having this discussion again. In turn, we're giving up more freedoms.

So regardless of who said it, and what it is in its full entirety the quote stays valid. It may not be BF's quote, and it may be an unclaimed quote, but it doesn't lose any of its "shine" to me.

You mentioned it coming from a propaganda book, and you've been talking about what the left does a lot in these posts. You've not said much about what the right has done, or insulted them, so I'm assuming you're on the right. That said, what about the propaganda "book" (well it's not a book, but you could write one from it) that George W. Bush has been spewing out since he's been into office? To take this a little further, what about the one his dad said to us? Didn't he call for a NWO like 9 or 10 years to the day, prior to 9-11?

I know I basically cannot proceed without slamming the right even more, and I don't want to do that. The moment I do, even if I back up my points someone will take offense. Then with a hive mentality it will turn into a fight, and get the thread deleted. To avoid this, I'm not going to say much more than this.

I don't have to like the president to like my country. I can disagree with politicians on their opinions. Voters vote all of the time about things I consider stupid (gay marriage and abortion are not issues I feel should even be considered in an election. There are many things much more important that should be considered) but they are still allowed their opinions. I can disagree with people on their opinions. I have the freedom to have the opinion that my freedom is more important than a perceived security.

[fett]

My "we can't win" statement is not defeatism and I really like Western Civilization. The meausures the government is taking to "protect" us is the issue. An effective way to deal with the threat is to infiltrate the groups at the source. A good example: Turns out a very high up official in the IRA was, in fact, a plant for the British and had been for years. (By the way, he was murdered.) It would be more difficult to infiltrate the groups that are our current threat, but I would rather give the guy that did it a billion dollars than see us spinning our wheels. That would be money well spent.

[RacerX]

[QuantumRider]

Deleted due to having zero desire to engage in endless debate/flame war...