Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

The dane wrote: Thrilla wrote: I find it truely odd that the same folks on the left who cry out in favor of thier freedoms over security... are of the same ilk of those who would limit the individual the freedom to protect themselves through the use of firearms

so if you dont want the government providing security.. and you dont want the individual citizens provding security.... exactly who is supposed to be providing security? or do you believe that no security is neccessary?

I seriously can't believe those words were uttered by someone in the 21st century.

Firearms are illegal for private citizens in denmark yet I'm a lot safer than you (a lot fewer murders etc), care to explain why that is ?

who was the first to take your right to bear arms? your own gov. or an occupying power?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

mr.snruB wrote: Ozzone wrote: Define "essential" liberties.

I would say any that your constitution or bill of rights grants you

Does this also entail one's 5th amendment right in exchange for JOB Security ?
Requiring anyone to submit to Drug Test as a condition or pre-condition to employment,
IMO violates every persons 5th amendment right to unlawful search.

[lovebush]

Falconer wrote: agentkgb wrote: Falconer wrote: Not for an essential liberty.

An unessential liberty...now there's a poll for you.
What would you define as "essential" and "unessential"?

The liberty of taking my aquafina on an airplane.

The liberty of calling someone in the middle east without the chance of the call being intercepted.

The liberty of shouting "bomb" on a bus, plane, movie theatre, etc.

Those I would define as an unessential liberties that I'm willing to trade for security.

Of course, A line is drawn when it adversely affects the real essential liberties that are put forth in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Stuff like speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms. I think our current government has been walking a very thin tightrope between freedom and security after 9/11, and for the most part, they've done a good job.

So you would defend the free speech of some islamo mula in America to encourage his followers to go out and kill Americans in the jihad against the great satan?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Fido wrote: Yes, and I stand behind a sign saying exactly that down by the off ramp, and I get a lot more money than the guy whose sign says will work for food.

:rotf: That's funny, the only employment opportunity I can find in Michigan today is
Standing behind a sign advertising GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.

That's precisely what I've done for the past two days ! all for $6.95 an hour. :gdgf:

[lovebush]

agentkgb wrote: lovebush wrote: Patriarch wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Why did you choose what you chose?

Is this post relevent to anything? Have you given up any essential liberties that has affected your life for security?

The only liberties being denied are the ones to Canadian people. The Canadian government has banned satellite TV and the O'Reilly Factor, among other things. Also has made it a crime to use English up in the Quebec area. :evil:

Is your beef with your own government?

A crime to speak english?? no way!
It's not true. French is the official language but it's not illegal to speak anything else.

thanks for the clarification, I thought that would be rather hard on the tourist industry. but then who wants to go to Quebec, the one place on Earth you can be surrounded by both French and Canadians YUCK!

[lovebush]

callous wrote: lovebush wrote: callous wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

oooff,...that made me a little hot and bothered.

Well done sir. Well done.


This really begs the question, Are you unable or unwilling to understand those you disagree with?

What are you talking about?

:lol: I guess that answers my question! :rotf:

[lovebush]

callous wrote: lovebush wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

Looks like you're the only one who voted to give up your liberties, not liberals

Actually I think the question is somewhat loaded and not clear. What are essential liberties? are you saying < Will you live your life in a bomb shelter so you can be safe? No Or are you asking, Do you care if the gov uses any and all legal means to disrupt terrorist activitys, even if it means deporting someone for the slightest infraction of our laws because he might be a terrorist? YES Asta lavista Abdul!

You people have a debilitating way of assuming that humans with absolute power will use absolute power sparingly.

you have a way of overstating your case to the point that you are not even comunicating effectively. Should I really asume that you believe that I would advocate giving absolute power to anyone? Or that I think someone with absolute power can be trusted with my liberty? this is why I asked if you were unwilling or unable to understand those you dissagree with. when you make these statements, I am left to asume one of these situations must be the case. From my perspective, I dont look at your possition and say things like. "you people would rather see America destroyed completely than give up..... Oh, I dont know, I find it hard to mock your possition because I think that our liberties are importent I think gov. must be kept on a leash and a short one at that. but there are some things that we might not like that we may have to trust them to do.

[lovebush]

The dane wrote: lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: Think the point of this poll is to point out dishonesty on the part of some, more specifically anyone who vote no here yet support the patriot act or the military commissions act.

Ok I support the patriot act, could you tell me how Im dishonest?

Should be obvious but ok, you support the patriot act which puts safety over privacy, last I checked privacy was an essential liberty, which would make you dishonest. Unless ofcourse you don't consider privacy an essential liberty ?

well that depends. If I am joe boring who never does anything that might be a cause of concern to the gov I dont expect or want them to listen to my phone calls. But If I look into purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck. I hope they will not only listen to my phone calls but I hope they drop by my home and have a look through my under ware drawer. Now Im I being dishonest?

[lovebush]

mr.snruB wrote: lovebush wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Patriarch wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

Actually the last time I checked it was the Libs who want MORE government More regulations More socialism More Taxes.

Don't pull that crap on me it's the Libs who want Authoritarianism and want the govt to run their lives and raise their kids.

Looks like you're the only one who voted to give up your liberties, not liberals

Actually I think the question is somewhat loaded and not clear. What are essential liberties? are you saying < Will you live your life in a bomb shelter so you can be safe? No Or are you asking, Do you care if the gov uses any and all legal means to disrupt terrorist activitys, even if it means deporting someone for the slightest infraction of our laws because he might be a terrorist? YES Asta lavista Abdul!

Sorry. The thread subject is derived from a Benjamin Franklin quote. They're his words, not mine

quite alright, but was this all he had to say or is this a clip from the middle of a more complete statement? such as the "give me liberty or give me death"

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html


but there was much more that he had to say that day, such as making a very strong case as to how liberty was at steak, and that the war was already upon them. He wasnt asking for death or liberty, he was asking for others to join the fight.

[lovebush]

micfranklin wrote: Kumar wrote: micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first.
It's only sensible to at least consider temporarily giving up some freedoms if circumstances are such that there is a risk of all freedoms becoming permanently eliminated.

That risk of all freedoms being lost may come from the government. How do you know that it won't become tyrannical and take away all the freedoms in the name of security?

Oh and by the way, "They that give up essential liberty for temporary security deserver neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

That said, I wouldn't even consider it. Live free or die.

well lets see who will I trust my freedom with? Some rich Americans who I can count on to do whatever is in their own interests, or Islamo fasists who want to impose sharia or kill those who are apposed to it? :think: Can I sleep on it?

[lovebush]

Ozzone wrote: The poll is bad. The question is too vague. There are situations where an essential liberty might not supercede temporary security.

A biological attack happens. The government quarantines my neighborhood. They refuse to allow me to leave or allow anyone to come in.

Is that an essential liberty given up for a temporary security? Is the government wrong to do so?

A natural disaster happens (like New Orleans after Katrina for example). Does the government have a right to impose a curfew? Does the government have a right to declare martial law?

My point is that there are situations where an "essential" liberty may be taken away and justly so. If the denial of said "essential" liberty is superceded by the probable danger, then it should not only be done, it would be irresponsible for the government not to do it.

I can understand the whole point of this thread and that's to bash President Bush's policies in regards to the War on Terror. But since it wasn't targetted directly at that topic, but just throw out there as a fishing expedition of generalities, I said yes because there may be a situation where I have no problem having an "essential" liberty taken away for temporary security if the danger is enough to warrant it.

The correct question should have been:

"Would you give up essential liberties TEMPORARILY for temporary security?"

excelent points :clap: I would like to ask thoughs that said no.

If there was a small pox out break in New York city, Would you want a quarantine? Would this not take their liberty away?

[lovebush]

DMS wrote: BobbyO wrote: DMS wrote: Thats why the founding father set up a system of checks and balances that Bush did his best to destroy. If some of the so called patriots got their way the United States would turn into a dictatorship with all rights going to wealthiest classes. Balance of power is necessary in any free society.

Okay. So what power does the president possess? And is the exercise of that power subject to the consent of either the judiciary or legislative?

The power to deem any citizen a terrorist, to be arrested without a trial, tortured and condemned to death. It is not subject to consent by anyone but the president. This power can easilly be abused perhaps not now, perhaps not in the near future, maybe not by our current President or it could be being used now. It does not belong in a free society.

wrong! \/ try again!

[Richard Owl Mirror]

lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: Think the point of this poll is to point out dishonesty on the part of some, more specifically anyone who vote no here yet support the patriot act or the military commissions act.

Ok I support the patriot act, could you tell me how Im dishonest?

Should be obvious but ok, you support the patriot act which puts safety over privacy, last I checked privacy was an essential liberty, which would make you dishonest. Unless ofcourse you don't consider privacy an essential liberty ?

well that depends. If I am joe boring who never does anything that might be a cause of concern to the gov I dont expect or want them to listen to my phone calls. But If I look into purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck. I hope they will not only listen to my phone calls but I hope they drop by my home and have a look through my under ware drawer. Now Im I being dishonest?
Yet, how does the government find out about the guy "purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck" unless they sift through every individuals lives with a fine tooth comb?
If you think the NSA and other agencies only act when they have a suspects name, you're naive.

Every electronic activity that occurs in this nation is processed and sifted at the rate of 25 Terabyte per second by a super computer built specifically for this purpose.

A Terabyte = One trillion () bytes.

This method is precisely how the NSA detected, prosecuted that couple for paying off their JC Penney credit card.
Pay too much and you could raise the alarm
Quote: 28-FEB-06
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was "madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail."

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that "everything changed after 9/11" thing.

But not Walter.

"We're a product of the '60s," he said. "We believe government should be way away from us in that regard."

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

"If it can happen to me, it can happen to others," he said.


Is that the condition you wish to live under, for safety's sake ?

[lovebush]

Ozzone wrote: Excuse me, but isn't this "fear mongering"? Is the excuse that the government might deny an American liberty unjustly because it is given more power in a time of war?

It sure appears to be fear mongering from the left.

oh! youre on a roll! :woo: we need an emoticon that bows to your brilliance. the woo guy will have to suffice. :P

[lovebush]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Ozzone wrote: Define "essential" liberties.

I would say any that your constitution or bill of rights grants you

Does this also entail one's 5th amendment right in exchange for JOB Security ?
Requiring anyone to submit to Drug Test as a condition or pre-condition to employment,
IMO violates every persons 5th amendment right to unlawful search.

perhaps if the government forced you to pee in the cup, all the pee tests Ive taken were voluntary.

[mr.snruB]

You know, lovebush, things would be a lot more efficient if you replied to more then one person per post. You could take 2 or 3 quotes and put them all into one post, instead of making about 30 in a row

[Onevote]

mr.snruB wrote: Man, this is a liberty sausage fest. Where's all the people who support the Patriot Act or the NSA Wire Tapping stuff? They have been voted out!

[agentkgb]

lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: Think the point of this poll is to point out dishonesty on the part of some, more specifically anyone who vote no here yet support the patriot act or the military commissions act.

Ok I support the patriot act, could you tell me how Im dishonest?

Should be obvious but ok, you support the patriot act which puts safety over privacy, last I checked privacy was an essential liberty, which would make you dishonest. Unless ofcourse you don't consider privacy an essential liberty ?

well that depends. If I am joe boring who never does anything that might be a cause of concern to the gov I dont expect or want them to listen to my phone calls. But If I look into purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck. I hope they will not only listen to my phone calls but I hope they drop by my home and have a look through my under ware drawer. Now Im I being dishonest?
First, they wouldn't know which it is until they listen (unless listening isn't so essential). Second, what would stop them from listening to the first person's if a warrant's not required?
Onevote wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Man, this is a liberty sausage fest. Where's all the people who support the Patriot Act or the NSA Wire Tapping stuff? They have been voted out!
:-D

[Kumar]

[quote="lovebush"] micfranklin wrote: Kumar wrote: micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first.
It's only sensible to at least consider temporarily giving up some freedoms if circumstances are such that there is a risk of all freedoms becoming permanently eliminated.

That risk of all freedoms being lost may come from the government. How do you know that it won't become tyrannical and take away all the freedoms in the name of security?

Oh and by the way, "They that give up essential liberty for temporary security deserver neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

That said, I wouldn't even consider it. Live free or die.
In serious circumstances, I would take my chances with my own government rather than a government with an obvious intent to permanently destroy all liberties. There is nothing wrong with healthy caution, but unreasonable suspicion is also unhelpful.

[lovebush]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: lovebush wrote: The dane wrote: Think the point of this poll is to point out dishonesty on the part of some, more specifically anyone who vote no here yet support the patriot act or the military commissions act.

Ok I support the patriot act, could you tell me how Im dishonest?

Should be obvious but ok, you support the patriot act which puts safety over privacy, last I checked privacy was an essential liberty, which would make you dishonest. Unless ofcourse you don't consider privacy an essential liberty ?

well that depends. If I am joe boring who never does anything that might be a cause of concern to the gov I dont expect or want them to listen to my phone calls. But If I look into purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck. I hope they will not only listen to my phone calls but I hope they drop by my home and have a look through my under ware drawer. Now Im I being dishonest?
Yet, how does the government find out about the guy "purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate and I rent a Ryder truck" unless they sift through every individuals lives with a fine tooth comb?
If you think the NSA and other agencies only act when they have a suspects name, you're naive.

Every electronic activity that occurs in this nation is processed and sifted at the rate of 25 Terabyte per second by a super computer built specifically for this purpose.

A Terabyte = One trillion () bytes.

This method is precisely how the NSA detected, prosecuted that couple for paying off their JC Penney credit card.
Pay too much and you could raise the alarm
Quote: 28-FEB-06
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was "madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail."

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that "everything changed after 9/11" thing.

But not Walter.

"We're a product of the '60s," he said. "We believe government should be way away from us in that regard."

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

"If it can happen to me, it can happen to others," he said.


Is that the condition you wish to live under, for safety's sake ?


could it be that there is some connection to how people might move $ for nefarious purposes. Its not like they cavity searched the guys wife or the guy for that matter. Im glad they have the technology to track these things without disrupting our lives