Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Poll: Government viewed as a threat to freedom

  1. -1
    BAMAPHIN 22's Avatar
    FinHeaven Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    19,668
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Huntsville, AL
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Icon 26 Politics Poll: Government viewed as a threat to freedom

    At the outset of President Obama's second term, he sits atop a government that a majority of Americans - 53 percent - view as a threat to personal rights and freedoms, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

    In March 2010, only 47 percent of respondents felt that the government threatened their freedom. The increase since then has been driven largely by Republicans - in 2010, only 62 percent of conservative Republicans described the government as a threat, but today, 76 percent of conservative Republicans feel threatened by the state.

    One interesting crosstab: amid a growing push for stricter gun laws, households with guns feel more threatened than households without: 62 percent of gun-owning households view government as a threat to freedom, while only 45 percent of those without guns agree.
    What are Obama's gun control proposals?

    Obama: Gun control supporters must listen more. And just 26 percent of respondents said they trust the government to do the right thing always or most of the time; 73 percent said the government can be trusted to do the right thing only sometimes or never.
    Still, despite the desultory numbers, only 19 percent of respondents described themselves as "angry" at the federal government. A much more common sentiment - frustration - was voiced by 58 percent. And 20 percent described themselves as basically content with the government.

    The Pew poll also delivers a familiar verdict on Congress. (Spoiler alert: people don't like it.)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_16...at-to-freedom/
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,290
    vCash:
    30598
    Thanks / No Thanks
    53% is actually lower than I would have guessed it would be.

    The problem with this kind of thing is it's always asked in a vacuum. It's never a choice. If the question was: "is the Government a bigger threat to your freedom than anarchy would be?" then I think you'd see people reacting to the perception that Government is a threat to liberty somewhat differently. Because though it can be, it also guarantees freedom from the mob mentality.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Anarchy is the opposite if organized government. Just like most of the country, people want there to be a middle ground where they are safe and maintain their liberties......doubt i would have called this article news


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,085
    vCash:
    6917
    Thanks / No Thanks
    As they should.



    Each side gets in every time and always comes up with a reason why we need less liberties and more government. The Bill Of Rights is like kryptonite to these guys. Which is why they always want to curtail or dismantle it. At least the American people are starting to see it.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,290
    vCash:
    30598
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Anarchy is the opposite if organized government. Just like most of the country, people want there to be a middle ground where they are safe and maintain their liberties......doubt i would have called this article news
    Problem with that is that you often have to choose between them. Sometimes it's a false choice and threats are overblown. I get that. But sometimes they aren't. There's a sliding scale with the extremes of government and anarchy on both ends and the argument is over where you put that balance point.

    There's a sense out there you can have your cake and eat it to on these things which I find sort of immature. They hide it behind a denial of the consequences of where they want to place the balance point when the truth is they just don't care.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Problem with that is that you often have to choose between them. Sometimes it's a false choice and threats are overblown. I get that. But sometimes they aren't. There's a sliding scale with the extremes of government and anarchy on both ends and the argument is over where you put that balance point.

    There's a sense out there you can have your cake and eat it to on these things which I find sort of immature. They hide it behind a denial of the consequences of where they want to place the balance point when the truth is they just don't care.
    No, it's not that hard......
    Government.....pick up the trash, keep the roads up and keep the lights on and pay the bills we give them money for.
    Liberties.....Governement doesnt infringe on our individual rights and gets out of the way in our pursuit of happiness.

    Pretty simple actually
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,290
    vCash:
    30598
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    No, it's not that hard......
    Government.....pick up the trash, keep the roads up and keep the lights on and pay the bills we give them money for.
    Liberties.....Governement doesnt infringe on our individual rights and gets out of the way in our pursuit of happiness.

    Pretty simple actually
    Okay. So if a local community wants to institute a fine for taking the Lord's name in vain, then who steps in and stops that?

    Liberty can be threatened by any group of people. "Government" is just one of those groups. Somebody has to be designated to wield a group of unimpeachable rights and have the power to enforce them. There are negative consequences to whoever you give that power, but better to give the power to someone than leave it to the mob, as it were.

    And if the entity with the power has the Constitution as it's guide, then at least generally it's going to be steered right, imo.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Okay. So if a local community wants to institute a fine for taking the Lord's name in vain, then who steps in and stops that?

    Liberty can be threatened by any group of people. "Government" is just one of those groups. Somebody has to be designated to wield a group of unimpeachable rights and have the power to enforce them. There are negative consequences to whoever you give that power, but better to give the power to someone than leave it to the mob, as it were.

    And if the entity with the power has the Constitution as it's guide, then at least generally it's going to be steered right, imo.
    Except that "mob" you refer to are your neighbors....you're worried about the fringe....and rightly so.

    But the Framers expressly intended the Federal Government to be only as big as it needed to be, and defined what it could do, explaining that what it couldnt do remained for the free states to decide.

    Besides, your argument about a fine for blaspheming is rooted in the assumption that a judicial branch would uphold such a law. Checks n balances are great when they work......although the Supremes ruling on ACA would lead me to doubt that on the federal level as much as your scenario
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,290
    vCash:
    30598
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Except that "mob" you refer to are your neighbors....you're worried about the fringe....and rightly so.

    But the Framers expressly intended the Federal Government to be only as big as it needed to be, and defined what it could do, explaining that what it couldnt do remained for the free states to decide.
    Which is less than helpful, because those things are in conflict, obviously. I've always thought they recognized that the country and the world would change, and the Constitution would have to be malleable to reflect that. The phrase "necessary and proper" is more than anything what the power of the government is based on, yet they don't include an explanation for what that means. The Constitution as a whole does not include notes on how it is to be interpreted.

    Besides, your argument about a fine for blaspheming is rooted in the assumption that a judicial branch would uphold such a law. Checks n balances are great when they work......although the Supremes ruling on ACA would lead me to doubt that on the federal level as much as your scenario
    The Supreme Court can say anything it wants about a law, but it's still up to the Executive Branch to give their decisions the force of law. Your list didn't include that power.

    The ACA ruling was a different animal. Roberts changed his mind on behalf of judicial restraint, not his interpretation of the law, imo.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    SpurzN703's Avatar
    I like your style Dude

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    26,759
    vCash:
    7998
    Loc:
    703 Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91Tannehill 172013 Dolphins Logo
    Some people think God decides sporing events. I don't think that's saying much about the polling process.



    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Dion Jordan a red zone threat?+ poll
    By finomenal in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-07-2013, 08:28 AM
  2. Bloomberg:Government has right to "infringe on your freedom"
    By phinfan3411 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-28-2013, 11:35 AM
  3. CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 12:09 PM
  4. Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming
    By ckb2001 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 01:40 AM
  5. POLL: Do you believe that the Government was behind 9/11?
    By Section126 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-18-2006, 12:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •