Cop-hating judge removed

Big money said:
FTFY.

Or stupid enough to think he actually said that?

Wikipedia has a discussion on this which is helpful:

franklin: liberty/ security

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is, I believe, the correct quote but it is often quoted as, "Who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither."

This expression seems to have mutated over time. Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (1989) cites it as: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242, Leonard W. Labaree, ed. (1963)

It shows up four years later in a slightly different form, according to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919):

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759); included in the work and displayed as the motto of the work, according to Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413, Richard Frothingham (1873)

Back to Respectfully Quoted, we find yet another version inscribed in a famous monument:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Stairwell plaque in the Statue of Liberty

And note what the anonymous Wikipedia editor does -- he inverts the quote in scorn of those invoking this quote all the time.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/05/those-who-use-this-benjamin-franklin-quote-deserve-not-to-be-taken-seriously.html
Click to expand...

Nice take down of your pal, although I doubt he'll realize it. :) ;)
 
Taft2016 said:
Wow. A quote from Ben Franklin.

Only liberal nutbags and pot puffing libertarians would be dumb enough to take safety tips from a guy who flew a kite tied to a brass key in his hand during a lightning storm.
Click to expand...

Did I attribute it to Ben Franklin? *innocent look*
 
christiefan915 said:
Did I attribute it to Ben Franklin? *innocent look*
Click to expand...

18_541771.gif
 
christiefan915 said:
Maybe the judge looked at these statistics and realized something's corrupt in the NYPD.

"Stop-and-frisk has been around for decades, but recorded stops increased dramatically under Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four minority men, who said they were targeted because of their races, and it became a class action case."

"To make a stop, police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred, a standard lower than the probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 10 percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons are found about 2 percent of the time."
Click to expand...

Apparently the most important statistic was ignored; crime has dropped 62%.

But if you're a brain dead lefttard, you would want to prevent cops from being able to protect law abiding citizens from predator thugs.
 
christiefan915 said:
If the stop and frisk is directed overwhelmingly to minorities, and if the "reasonable suspicion" results in arrests for only about 10 percent of the stops, then it appears the cops need their antennae tuned up. Because it sure looks suspicious to me that 90% of those profiled were clean.
Click to expand...

This program doesn't target minorities; it just so happens that most criminals reside in and crimes seem to occur in minority communities. Why do you think that is Mr. Brain dead Libtard?
 
Im Confused, Big Money, do you want big government to be powerful and able to violate your civil rights, or not?

This judge's ruling was a limit on governmental power, right?
 
Jarod said:
Im Confused, Big Money, do you want big government to be powerful and able to violate your civil rights, or not?

This judge's ruling was a limit on governmental power, right?
Click to expand...

Conservatives are not anarchists. We understand a legitimate role for government. Domestic and international security is the most fundamental and legitimate role of government.
 
Taft2016 said:
Conservatives are not anarchists. We understand a legitimate role for government. Domestic and international security is the most fundamental and legitimate role of government.
Click to expand...
no, it's not. the constitution CLEARLY states that the government is to safeguard our RIGHTS, not our security.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, it's not. the constitution CLEARLY states that the government is to safeguard our RIGHTS, not our security.
Click to expand...

Really? Could you give us that particular passage?

Why all the stuff about the President being the commander-in-chief of the military?

Are you saying the existence of local law enforcement is unconstitutional?

Are you smoking Oprah's sweat socks?
 
Taft2016 said:
Really? Could you give us that particular passage?

Why all the stuff about the President being the commander-in-chief of the military?
Click to expand...
I realize that you don't really care about the documents that founded our nation and government, but maybe you should actually try READING them sometime. start with the preamble.

Taft2016 said:
Are you saying the existence of local law enforcement is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I realize that you don't really care about the documents that founded our nation and government, but maybe you should actually try READING them sometime. start with the preamble
Click to expand...

Oh, I care quite a bit about it. It's you that only like to latch onto liberal interpretations that keep your stash of chronic weed secure.

Your inability to produce the passage that "CLEARLY" says what you stated is duly noted.
 
Taft2016 said:
Oh, I care quite a bit about it. It's you that only like to latch onto liberal interpretations that keep your stash of chronic weed secure.

Your inability to produce the passage that "CLEARLY" says what you stated is duly noted.
Click to expand...
your inability to read plain words is also noted, as is your delusional incomprehension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top