Comments about ‘Letter: Despite political affiliation, we should heed to Benjamin Franklin's words during 2012 election’

Are you referring to Bush's Patriot Act? Or perhaps to the Tea Party's or Eagle Forum's efforts?

Well, I'm not actually planning to vote for Lord North or Townshend. Pitt the elder for PM!

We have been conned without doubt.

I agree with one old man above that this statement could indict Republicans in relation to the Patriot Act (and other issues as well). It is equally true that it could indict Democrats' desires for every "safety" net imaginable for every conceivable situation. We should hopefully be able to have civic discussion about the size and scope of social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and other government programs even when we disagree. To equate, however, modest reform that will eventually keep these programs solvent with "throwing granny over the cliff" does little to promote dialogue or resolution of the long-term financial crisis facing our nation. Often liberty means people doing what may not be best for themselves or for the collective good, but it is a precious gift and worth the price.

@one old man

President Obama signed an extension of the Patriot Act without any changes being made. As a candidate, he said he would refuse to sign an extension without some major revisions. He also signed the NDAA to boot, which allows the military or police to indefinitely detain Americans citizens without charges or a trial. It's great to be concerned about civil liberties. What would be even better is if we realize both Republicans and Democrats have passed legislation that damages our civil liberties, instead of believing that only one party is responsible.

When 47% of the country expects the other 53% to feed them, clothe them, and hold their hand at the doctor's office, I would say that at least 47% of Americans are holding on to their security blanket. They either will not or cannot take care of themselves. Rather than rely on their own families, they expect complete strangers to be forced to redistribute wealth so that they can hold on to that security blanket.

To see what happens when the government promises security, just look at Social Security. The government made promises to those who were forced to paid Social Security that they would be given a pension when they were old. Now the government is trying to wriggle out of that and using a "means test" to see who deserves Social Security. They didn't use a "means test" to see who would need SS when taxing us, so why should they use a means test now?

The plain fact is that the government cannot be trusted to keep its word. Ask the Indian Tribes about government promises. The government spent all of the SS money and left us with worthless I.O.U.s.

D King and Scientist -- you're both right. But only up to a point. However, you both point out what is sorely needed today.

Sensible dialogue and sensible ideas instead of intractable adherence to party ideology.

Franklin is often credited with having said "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy". Unfortunately, apparently it wasn't him who said this (he preferred wine) but they're good words to keep in mind this election season, nonetheless.

The facts of life are simply this. In order to survive in this world you have to join with others of like mind and share the responsibilities of the group. The notion that the republicans are shouting, regards not having any help, is a lie. The group is the only way we can protect ourselves from others.

But being a part of the group means we have to trade some of our liberty for security and pay our dues to the group. And we do it without reservation.

So the words of Ben Franklin, as quoted, are the hollow words of the politician. And just like the words of today’s politicians, they can be bent and twisted to say just about anything you want them to say. Like the republican words “I made it myself” they probably don’t really mean what you think.

A person who talks in such a way to belittle the group is most probably a person with an ulterior motive. No, the group is not always right, or efficient, or profitable but it is the best thing going for us. And our progress is proof of that.

So what is the right decision? We might not agree.

This letter is pointless. Safety? Safety from what? Hopefully we will all vote for safety from Mike Richards' conservative utopia, where the 47 percent go hungry and cannot afford health care, where only those lucky enough to hold a job can have a roof over their head, and where the wealth gradually accumulates at the top until the highest quintile owns 100 percent of everything.

How about we all vote for liberty from extremism, for liberty from simplistic political solutions to complex social and economic problems, for liberty from Super Pacs who fill the airwaves with hate and misinformation, and for liberty from the brand of economic authoritarianism we've cultivated to a fine art in America?

Maybe some want to live in Obama's world where HE provides YOUR healthcare, where HE pays for YOUR food, where HE houses you, clothes your, and provides you with a jobs, but I don't think that Obama has the assets required to do what he wants to do. With all of his healthcare talk, his jobs talk, his food talk, what he failed to tell you is that NOBODY will pay for it unless the he forces YOU to redistribute YOUR wealth. He has not volunteered to give away his wealth to solve those problems, but he wants government to force YOU to give away YOUR wealth.

Nothing in the Constitution allows the government to redistribute wealth for personal welfare. NOTHING. Yet that is the very premise upon which all of Obama's actions depend.

The choice is clear. A free people can choose to help others while an oppressed people will be forced to do whatever the government decides is best.

The government has told the Indian Tribes what was best for them. Was it the best thing for the Indian Tribes OR was it the best thing for the government?

re: one old man 11:57 a.m. Sept. 1, 2012

If by sensible you mean moderate & rational then I am with you.

re: Nonconlib 11:50 p.m. Sept. 1, 2012

"Hopefully we will all vote for safety from Mike Richards' conservative utopia,"

Don't you mean dystopia? In MR's version of reality, It would be like Animal Farm. "All animals are equal. Some more than others."

Hopefully we will all vote for safety from Obama's liberal utopia: whose philosophy actually was the basis for Animal Farm