Which Quote Do You Agree With?

I always thought Franklin's was too idealist, but it does help us think about what security can do to our freedom. I think Obama's being honest here, although the NSA seriously needs to knock it off. They've crossed lines.

 

I think the problem with the dead guy's quote is that we're not giving up "a little" liberty for "a little security." We're giving up "a little" liberty for "a lot" of security. Seems like an exchange that favors us in my opinion

 

Security is something that an individual can take into their own hands.
I don't see why I should give up something as precious as freedom for that.

Still, there is a point where giving up things like "the right to have sex with child prostitutes" is definitely worth it

 

Can't really compare them I think one is from the 1700s the other is from the 2000s
the world has changed a lot since the 1700s

 

Obama's, even though the NSA is a little out of control.

I'm not too big of a fan of absolutism or "zero sum" thinking like Franklin's quote.

 

My thoughts.

 

I don't know. I couldn't decide.

I like "What goes around comes around" as a quote. At least I hope it does, as in karma working.

 

I really resent the erosion of civil liberties under the guise of counter terrorism post 9/11. I'd say there is a compromise between security and liberty but I'd tend to be cautious giving up civil liberties which we take for granted too often for a dubious return in increased security.

 

I side with what Benjamin Franklin said.

He said something a bit different in 2007...skip to 1:36
Impeach Obama - YouTube

 

Obama.

Unless you're a terrorist or murderer or something the NSA for instance doesn't give a shit that were a bunch of gay lesbian bi pan cis trans queers...

I don't care we are being monitored. I have nothing to hide in terms of legality.

 

Shocking, a politician changed his views.

Nothing really earth shattering.

 

It's impossible for me to choose. I like having an even amount of both liberty and security.

 

I don't even know what to say to that. *shakes head*

 

Could I say something? This "war on terror" can NOT be won.
It would almost be like having a war on evil or a war on anger... there will always be bad people in this world willing to cause terror.

 

I pretty much have this same thought.

If you really believe that a Senator who really didn't have much to lose by making those statements would have the same views once he actually became president (which then made him responsible for protecting millions of lives) then I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how politics work. Politicians constantly change their views on issues like this because it is nearly impossible to keep blind promises in politics. Thinking otherwise is naive.

George W. Bush said in a debate before the 2000 presidential election that he would only be aggressive in foreign policy if it were in America's "strategic interest." I think everyone knows how that promise turned out.

---------- Post added 29th Apr 2014 at 10:09 PM ----------

And this illustrates my point in my last post perfectly...

 

What point? Where?

 

Your attempt at sarcasm is almost as poor as your reasoning.

Anyway, the point is that Bush talked like a "traditional" conservative before he was elected, but then once he became president he was a radical neoconservative in foreign policy. You probably don't know the difference in thinking between the two ideologies, but the difference is quite significant.

Politicians don't keep promises, particularly blind promises. Therefore, it's rather dumb to expect them to do so.