[voodoo]

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."_
-Bill Clinton

Does anyone else find this icky?

[lil'babykitten]

Yikes. When did he say that?

[voodoo]

August 12, 1993

according to the net.

[daimoni]

.

[voodoo]

http://www.yaworski.com/nra/dem-freedom.htm

this is of course a right wing nut site but hey.

[thunderous_funker]

Along the same lines as "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I don't know why people love that quote. It creeps me the hell out.

[daimoni]

.

[voodoo]

Apparently he said this regarding gun control.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by voodoo:
http://www.yaworski.com/nra/dem-freedom.htm

this is of course a right wing nut site but hey.

I don't believe he said that.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Apparently he said this regarding gun control.

The quote makes a lot more sense in that context, but I still think its loaded with some ugly philosophical baggage.

[davesimondotcom]

Even IF he said it regarding gun control - it's even worse.

ANYTIME liberties are taken away, it's a bad thing.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Even IF he said it regarding gun control - it's even worse.

ANYTIME liberties are taken away, it's a bad thing.

Welcome oh first rightwing person to grace our thread. What took you so long?

[daimoni]

.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
ANYTIME liberties are taken away, it's a bad thing.

Are you just following along the usual MacNN Dialectic of suggesting the polar opposite extreme of an unpopular extreme??



Any surrender of Liberty must be unfailingly challenged and scrutinized before it can be justified, but its certainly not always a "bad" thing. Consider labor or pollution laws.

Clinton's quote certainly has some ugly "gov't knows best" baggage to it (like Kennedy's), but a sweeping rejection of any social restraint on Liberty has some equally ugly baggage as well, IMO.

[Developer]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Even IF he said it regarding gun control - it's even worse.

ANYTIME liberties are taken away, it's a bad thing.

The liberties must be balanced between all people. Some want the liberty to carry weapons, others want the liberty to live without fear of armed raids. However you decide someone always gets liberties taken away. You need to find the best compromise.

The quote is uncomfortable by the way, even in context of gun control.

[davesimondotcom]

OK, so my quote should have said something more like anytime (Constitutionally protected) liberties are taken away, it is bad...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Welcome oh first rightwing person to grace our thread. What took you so long?

I still don't consider myself "right wing" - even if I am to the right of most of you...

[BRussell]

I doubt he, a constitutional law professor, said that either. It's just too good to be true for these right-wingers.

What's funny is that conservatives are the strict constructionists - they don't want people to have any rights unless they're actually written out specifically in the constitution (well, unless it's Bush v. Gore, then it's OK). Conservatives are always complaining that liberals are "inventing" new rights in the constitution - abortion, privacy, miranda, etc. They believe that states should be allowed to limit more rights, that if you can find 51%, bye-bye rights.

But what I find strange is that conservatives are supposed to believe that our rights as people are god-given and inherent. Liberals are the ones who are supposed to believe in pure democracy rather than a constitutional republic. But the constitutional debates and the court wars suggest the opposite. Weird.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Clinton's quote certainly has some ugly "gov't knows best" baggage to it (like Kennedy's) . . .

I don't think that was Kennedy's intent. I don't think Kennedy meant to say "Obey your leaders," I think he meant to say "Don't just take from Uncle Sam - do something to make the nation/world a better place."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't think that was Kennedy's intent. I don't think Kennedy meant to say "Obey your leaders," I think he meant to say "Don't just take from Uncle Sam - do something to make the nation/world a better place."

Thousand points of light, kinda thing?

Perhaps my issue is my own reaction to how I often hear the Kennedy quote used by the "don't question your betters" crowd rather than the context of his original speech.

[wang_himself]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Along the same lines as "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I don't know why people love that quote. It creeps me the hell out.

Same here,I like my revision:

"Ask what your country can do for you and if they are picking up the tab"

[saab95]

Originally posted by voodoo:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."_
-Bill Clinton

Does anyone else find this icky?

Bill Clinton exposes himself for the abhorrent collectivist he is.

[saab95]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Along the same lines as "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I don't know why people love that quote. It creeps me the hell out.

Understandably so.

It is, at first glance, a battle cry for sacrifice and volunteerism to your mother country. To me, it means to ignore your constitutional individual rights and go for sacrifice to country.

JFK should have known better. He proved himself to be a champion of individual rights ultimately, but then he clinged to this traditionalist line of thinking. Puzzling indeed.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by saab95:
Bill Clinton exposes himself for the abhorrent collectivist he is.

BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA!!

There are plenty of reasons to hate Clinton, but being a collectivist isn't one of them. I can't imagine any Democratic politician who has been a better friend to private corporate interests than Slick Willy.

[saab95]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA!!

There are plenty of reasons to hate Clinton, but being a collectivist isn't one of them. I can't imagine any Democratic politician who has been a better friend to private corporate interests than Slick Willy.

Well, OK, partly right.

When he raised taxes on the wealthy (those families making over $100K back in '93) back in '93, at least he managed to increase the amount of new equipment that businesses could write off.

Hey, Reagan was a collectivist, too. Don't feel bad.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by saab95:
Well, OK, partly right.

When he raised taxes on the wealthy (those families making over $100K back in '93) back in '93, at least he managed to increase the amount of new equipment that businesses could write off.

Hey, Reagan was a collectivist, too. Don't feel bad.

col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.


Are we using the word to mean the same thing??

[zigzag]

Originally posted by saab95:
Understandably so.

It is, at first glance, a battle cry for sacrifice and volunteerism to your mother country. To me, it means to ignore your constitutional individual rights and go for sacrifice to country.

JFK should have known better. He proved himself to be a champion of individual rights ultimately, but then he clinged to this traditionalist line of thinking. Puzzling indeed.

What exactly is the basis for this statement? The quote was part of his inaugural address in 1961 - are you saying that his approach to individual rights changed in the course of 2 1/2 years? How so?

The statement was delivered at the height of the Cold War in a speech primarily concerned with America's role as a symbol of liberty in a world threatened by Communism and Fascism, a cause for which millions had given their lives. The cause of liberty sometimes demands sacrifice. It's really that simple. It was, after all, only intended as an inspiring inaugural speech.

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

[rambo47]

I can't believe there are 26 posts in this thread before mine, yet on one offered an alternative Slick Willy quote. I remember this one:

"I did not have sex with that woman."

[wang_himself]

Well it depends upon what your definition of "it" is?

[ebuddy]

What's funny is that conservatives are the strict constructionists - they don't want people to have any rights unless they're actually written out specifically in the constitution (well, unless it's Bush v. Gore, then it's OK)

Isn't there something called "MoveOn.Org"? I was wondering how long it would take for this statement to pop up. We're not still reeling about how our electoral college works are we? If Gore had won his own states, we wouldn't have to endure the whining.

Many believe our "constructionist" forefathers were inspired divinely. Many believe that our Constitution was drafted very carefully and is no good if not adhered to. Some like to live by absolutely no guidelines whatsoever, those are scary folk.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Developer:
The liberties must be balanced between all people. Some want the liberty to carry weapons, others want the liberty to live without fear of armed raids. However you decide someone always gets liberties taken away. You need to find the best compromise.

The quote is uncomfortable by the way, even in context of gun control.

Is "living without fear of armed raids" a legitimate right, or even liberty, however? It's not even a realistic hope.

Feelings are so subjective that it's very dangerous to try and consider them rights, because they (and what causes them) are at least a little different for everyone, making it impossible to grant a "right" to a feeling for everyone; you will never satisfy all people.

Let's use your example. Some people want the liberty to carry weapons. Some want the "liberty" to live without fear of armed raids. For some people, these two concepts go hand in hand; carrying a weapon equals not being afraid of an armed raid, because (as they see it) by carrying a weapon they make it possible to protect themselves should such a raid occur. For others, the knowledge that people people carry weapons equals the fear of an armed raid, because an armed raid is only possible if someone carries a weapon. You cannot satisfy both concepts at once, ergo one concept must be discarded. For me, this is an easy choice: the fact that weapons are illegal does not prevent crime (because it doesn't take into account improvised or otherwise-legal weapons, or illegally-obtained weapons), ergo the "right to live without fear of armed raids" cannot be satisfied and therefore goes out the window.

JFK had some rather scary quotes, but personally I find his "four freedoms" quote to be the scariest. Nothing against freedom of speech or religion, mind you; I believe he had these right on. Freedom from want is sketchy in my mind; a fine goal, but I doubt the realism. It's the "freedom from fear" which frightens me, because only an insane person is truly free from fear.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by voodoo:
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." - Bill Clinton

Does anyone else find this icky?

Returning to the Clinton quote... well, I think that this is exactly what is happening with today's US government - thus showing that, fundamentally, there isn't all that much difference between the actual (rather hidden during the elections, of course) goals of the "two sides of the fence"...

It's the fence that sucks!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by saab95:
Bill Clinton exposes himself for the abhorrent collectivist he is.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Is "living without fear of armed raids" a legitimate right, or even liberty, however? It's not even a realistic hope.

Understand that I write from a German perspective. If I encounter the regular insulting jerk in the street, I can be reasonably sure that he doesn't carry a weapon and just walk away.

Intorduce the liberty for everyone to carry a weapon (and I assume the group "insulting juvenile jerks" would be the first to take advantage of that), and I can't be any more. So my liberty to walk in the street without fear - especially at night - is limited.

But I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about guns. I was just using the given example to show that liberties are a trade off between groups and people. Take another example: The liberty for one to smoke wherever he likes reduces the liberty of others to not be pestered by smoke. It's almost always balancing different liberties. So reducing a liberty is not in principle always bad, as someone said.

However reducing people's liberties just so that they can be governed better sounds very wrong to me.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think he meant to say "Don't just take from Uncle Sam - do something to make the nation/world a better place."

Exactly. In other words he meant stop being a whining American and have some self worth. After all isn't this suppose to be a government of the people? It takes everyone to make it work. But thats not how Americans have been brought up.

This shouldn't go over well in America...cause' well americans are americans and that is synonimous with whiners. The government has driven the concept of individualism and self pitty into people's skulls; " American gov does for YOU, we're going to protect YOU, its all about you you you you you you you."
And of course the messaged is recieved by the general population as "America does for Me they're going to protect Me, what else can the government do for me? I'm poor and the government should do something about it, my kid is in a gang on the streets and its the governments fault, they should fix him and offer him free stuff until he does whats right, they should allow him to say "hey you dont know where I grew up" as a valid excuse to everything, its all about ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MEEEEEEEE. The whole world should do for Meeeeeeeeee! So people think they have a right to rights. What people need to do is think about how worthless they are and what they can do to make society better. They are the government.

Millennium

JFK had some rather scary quotes, but personally I find his "four freedoms" quote to be the scariest. Nothing against freedom of speech or religion, mind you; I believe he had these right on. Freedom from want is sketchy in my mind; a fine goal, but I doubt the realism. It's the "freedom from fear" which frightens me, because only an insane person is truly free from fear.

This reminds me of the four noble truths of Buddhism, freedom from want is very real and makes for a much happy'er person. If you are unhappy or want something you can't get, modify your wanting. And one who is free from fear is truly and enlightened person. Why be affraid of anything? Nothing matters.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Developer:
Take another example: The liberty for one to smoke wherever he likes reduces the liberty of others to not be pestered by smoke. It's almost always balancing different liberties. So reducing a liberty is not in principle always bad, as someone said.

I feel like I'm back in my econ class.... very good example Developer.

Think about it this way. You're neighbor brings in 8 tons of human feces and sets them on fire on his land. His right to do this may be trounced by your right to not have to smell 8 tons of flaming human feces.

The solutions to this burning problem are manyfold. However, with our laws in place, you will most likely win. People have a right (under our laws) to not smell burning feces.

You could also bargain (you pay him to stop, he pays you to continue, etc). It's all about external costs, baby.

Regarding guns, I believe in the right to bear arms, as long as those arms were available at the time the Constitution was written. Hey, if we're going to be strict constructionists, be strict construcitonists. If you're worried about burglars, keep a musket on hand.

[Ver de Terre]

Originally posted by Millennium:
JFK had some rather scary quotes, but personally I find his "four freedoms" quote to be the scariest. Nothing against freedom of speech or religion, mind you; I believe he had these right on. Freedom from want is sketchy in my mind; a fine goal, but I doubt the realism. It's the "freedom from fear" which frightens me, because only an insane person is truly free from fear.

The four freedoms were FDR's. With respect to freedom from fear, take a look at what he actually said:

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

Hopeless, perhaps, but not, I think, insane.