Author Topic: Poll: Half Willing To Suspend Freedoms (Read 1291 times)

Shuckins · « **Reply #60 on:** July 12, 2002, 02:06:44 PM »

The Founding Fathers realized that the development of a dictatorial government was a gradual process. Therefore when they wrote the Constitution that inserted safeguards to slow it's development. "Checks and Balances" and "Separation of Powers" and the "Bill of Rights" (Yes, even the embarassing Second Amendment!) were created for that reason.

While they were justly proud of the government they had created, they did not trust it!

We should give up our freedoms only grudgingly! Once surrendered, we seldom get them back. The current crisis has been developing for years. The main job of the government is to provide security for the population. This responsibility was taken all too lightly in the last ten years. A government cannot provide adequate security during a time of growing danger by cutting the budget for the military and intelligence forces. Because of the cavalier attitude of the previous administration this is exactly what was done. Now, we are facing the consequences. The government's answer is to ask us to give up our freedoms.

Only a few, you understand, because the crisis is upon us and the danger is so great. As I said, we should give them up only grudgingly and then when the crisis is over demand them back!

Regards, Shuckins

Udie · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2002, 02:14:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
Udie, my personalities will gang up on your personalities.

PFFFEH!

we don't think so!

batdog · « **Reply #62 on:** July 12, 2002, 02:23:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

Speak up for the communists before it is too late?

The beauty of America is ITS freedom to follow your own beliefs. If your a commie, Nazie, KKK, Black Panther, or Tele-Tubby follower it doesnt mean I have to like you or support you but I have to respect your right to voice your beliefs.... even if it makes me sick.

The question to be asked it what sort of "freedoms" are we suppose to give up as Eagler stated/asked. Some restrictions are good ideas... some arent. IF they would say that free speech should be curtailed then I'd say..uhuh... heavy gun control... uh uh..nope notta gonna be followed by me. If they tell me I gotta give up my Johnny Rambo w/a Spork when I travel on a plane then... okay if you insist.

This entire security thing isnt rocket science even though some of our brilliant politicians seem to think it is... then again I dont think much of most of them anyway.

xBAT

Hortlund · « **Reply #63 on:** July 12, 2002, 02:28:50 PM »

Yeah I agree. But the thing that puzzles me is that many people seem to be of the opinion that they would rather see 70 million dead from a B attack using smallpox virus than have law enforcement agencies do ethnical profiling...to take one example.

Those people scare me.

Udie · « **Reply #64 on:** July 12, 2002, 02:32:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah I agree. But the thing that puzzles me is that many people seem to be of the opinion that they would rather see 70 million dead from a B attack using smallpox virus than have law enforcement agencies do ethnical profiling...to take one example.

Those people scare me.

well if they don't come from America the constitution doesn't apply and if they don't like being profile they should stay back in arabia......

Hortlund · « **Reply #65 on:** July 12, 2002, 02:43:17 PM »

yeah, but it doesnt quite work like that now does it. And profiling was just one example. Another example would be how long it took for the FBI to get a search warrant on that Mouhami-dude's laptop.

The list can be very long Udie.

My opinion is that in a war against terrorism, where the terrorists want nothing but the total annihilation of the USA, and all americans, it is foolish to force the law enforcement agencies to fight that war with both hands tied behind their backs.

Udie · « **Reply #66 on:** July 12, 2002, 03:22:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
yeah, but it doesnt quite work like that now does it. And profiling was just one example. Another example would be how long it took for the FBI to get a search warrant on that Mouhami-dude's laptop.

The list can be very long Udie.

My opinion is that in a war against terrorism, where the terrorists want nothing but the total annihilation of the USA, and all americans, it is foolish to force the law enforcement agencies to fight that war with both hands tied behind their backs.

I agree. BUT

These freedoms were paid for in blood. How many 19 year olds gave their lives on 6-6-44? How many 17 year olds. They NEVER got to enjoy anything that they paid for. So I'm going to give them up without kicking and scratching and clawing and spitting and hissing and fighting, if it saves one liberty it will be worth it.

Now, going on what eagler asked at the begining of the thread about which rights have we been asked to give up. So far really I haven't noticed any of my liberties disapearing. That being said, I think that there could/will be a big fight here soon on what exactly is a right/liberty and what is a "priviledge" I don't think most Americans know the diference. The stuff they do in airports I have no real problem with. That's a public place and nobody has the right to fly or the expectation of privacy in a public place. But see the lawyers will get involved and then they will say well gee if the flying is not a right, then driving is not a right either and so we don't need a warrant to search your car. That's the way our people think over here, always cross referencing things that resemble some sort of presidence. How many in our government are lawyers? SHUDDER! too many!

I agree that we must be vigalent to fight terror, I don't want anymore terrorist acts here. BUT

my/our rights are more important to me. Now, I look back at what the WW2 generation did as far as scarifice. Simply amazing, but back then there was a lot of trust in the government (just after the depression) so I think people were more willing to suspend their liberties. I am not against curtailing certain liberties. I just want some sort of mechanism in place that will make it easier/possible to get them back when this mess is over or even before. Then there are some rights that I will NOT suspend, curtail, give up or anything other than fight for, my right to privacy being one of them.

If the government would do it's job and fight this war the way it should be we wouldn't have to give up our rights. The only ones that would be giving up rights would be non-citizen arabs. Starting with every Saudi national in this country, they should be out first. But wait, that's racial profiling and God forbid we take away the rights of a terrorist when we have so many rights that they can take first.

anyway that's a rambling version of what scare's me on this issue.

Sandman · « **Reply #67 on:** July 12, 2002, 03:25:07 PM »

My opinion is that the war on terrorism is a fool's errand.

Terrorism is a tool, not an agenda.

MrBill · « **Reply #68 on:** July 12, 2002, 03:29:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

We're a republic.

In any case, the judicial branch spends a lot of time making certain that the majority doesn't trample over the rights of the minority. It's not nearly as simple as, "majority rule."

Were that the case in this country, words like "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance would not be an issue.

Aye, a representative republic at that.
Small groups vote to send someone they can not all agree on to represent their group. This groups representative is hated by almost all the other groups that are sending representatives also. Now all these representatives attempt to pass laws that all the groups agree with, (although the whole exercise makes no logical sense at all,

)

Democracy
Four Wolves and one lamb voting on what is for lunch.
(although the whole exercise makes no logical sense at all,

)

2Slow · « **Reply #69 on:** August 07, 2002, 11:13:38 AM »

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither. Ben Franklin (this is a quote from memory, may not be exact)

midnight Target · « **Reply #70 on:** August 07, 2002, 11:37:03 AM »

The true measure of a democracy is how well it protects the minority, not how well it serves the majority.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #71 on:** August 07, 2002, 12:59:01 PM »

I thought Hitler died at towards the end of WWII? I didn't know he spawned as Ashcroft? Hmm. Some Americans are clueless and REQUIRE the govt. to lead them by the hand.

Masher

plumbob · « **Reply #72 on:** August 07, 2002, 01:50:01 PM »

Im far more scared of Ashcroft than i ever will be of Bin Laden. The "American Freedom Crops." are alot closer to what the nazis did. Recruting people to spy on other people, "detentions" without probable cause. Ashcroft should be bombed to hell for how many rights he took away from innocent people, before we even worry about Afganistan.

And dont even get me started on Iraq, what an almight load of dog crap.

Leslie · « **Reply #73 on:** August 07, 2002, 03:01:49 PM »

What rights did Ashcroft take away from innocent people?

Les

Soulyss · « **Reply #74 on:** August 07, 2002, 03:22:58 PM »

Found a good quote that I thought I'd toss into the mix here.

These are the words of James Madison, who (if any single person could be) is considered the father of our Constitution, and the strongest proponent of the Bill of Rights.

Quote

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."