A Brit says "Americans will die for liberty."

Freedom is worth dying for, it's also worth killing for.

 

carpro,

Thanks very much for posting this. It is wonderful to see those on the other side of the pond who "get us". It also makes me proud that our heritage of freedom was inspired by our Founders' British forefathers.

 

Just to bring you back into reality, we (Brits) also had three things to say about Americans in England during the war years: "They are over-sexed, over-paid and over here..."

Cheers,

Jim

 

Thank you Carpo!:thumbs:

 

It is embarassing to hear such high praise from a citizen of another nation, doubly so, because so many Americans lately have seemed willing to part with essential Constitutional freedoms, just to gain a little safety.

Nevertheless, the evidence seems to show that people are waking up to the real threat, and are taking it seriously.

One nitpick; the oldest existing republic in the world is San Marino, and the oldest in the world would be Rome prior to the Principate. Interestingly, people back then also surrendered their liberties for a strong leader who promised to protect them.

The Roman Republic died pretty much the way the American one might die.

 

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

Carpro

Thanks! :thumbs:

Wayne

 

Maybe you could say that one day to the more than 2400 Americans who lost their lives on Sept 11 2001.

How many Americans must give their life by accident to support your do nothing ideology.

"Just to gain a little saftey". I am astonished that you or anyone have the nerve to suggest such a thing. If the President wants to moniter incoming calls from terrorists then he has my permission. That way my wife and children are "A little safer" thanks to him. And fortunately for my wife and children you are not in charge of this.

 

Everyone dies. It's how you live that counts.

Refusing to surrender constitutional liberties is certainly not "do nothing".

Oh come now, who has objected to "incoming calls from terrorists" being monitored! Why not answer the real objection instead of creating these strawmen? If our real objection is wrong or misguided, you should be able to show how and why. If not, perhaps you should rethink your position.

 

What are you talking about?

 

They are dead, and it is a slander on them to say that they would have supported a loss of liberties to make us safer.

Rather, I have a "do something right" ideology. There were strong and effective controls in place before Bush took office. We were tracking suspected foreign nationals in the US. We had a program to track Al Qaeda's finanacial dealings. We had terrorism at the top of the list of priorities. Bush changed all that. Then, when the inevitable happened, he said the problem was that we had too many freedoms, and he needed us to give some of them up.

It was Thomas Jefferson, actually. Notorious terrorist supporter, he. :laugh:

However, to monitor the calls of American citizens, he needs a court order. And he doesn't need your permission, he needs the permission of a judge. That's the law.

Rather, you were placed in a little more danger, thanks to Bush. Granted, he restored some of the safeguards he removed earlier. But still he did it. BTW, not one illegal wiretap has produced any convictions of terrorists.

How much danger is there? Let's say 3,000 Americans have died from terrorism in the past 12 years (almost all of them, mind you, after Bush removed Constitutionally-legal controls on terrorists, most of which are now back in place) in that same period of time, over a million Americans have died from accidental causes, and about 150,000 from homicides. (9/11 raised the homicide rate by about 15% that year) Over the 12 year period, you had about 0.001% chance of being killed by a terrorist in America. And some fools think that is enough danger to give up essential liberties. As Jefferson remarked, a people who agree to that deal will soon have neither safety nor liberty.

Fortunately for America, more and more Americans are realizing what Jefferson said.

 

You throw words like slander around, and make baseless claims of clinton and our President with no support or evidence.

The President didnt remove any controls.

 

What do you mean, what am I talking about? I quoted your remark and answered it, in succession.

Was there a particular word, phrase or idea you would like explained?

 

Oh come now, who has objected to "incoming calls from terrorists" being monitored! Why not answer the real objection instead of creating these strawmen? If our real objection is wrong or misguided, you should be able to show how and why. If not, perhaps you should rethink your position

 

I object to monitoring any phone calls. How does one identify a terrorist from an ordinary citizen? Take liberty from one, take it from all. I have read of too many innocent people hauled over the coals on a suspicion of being a "terrorist". Will I be next because I have a beard and a different accent?

Cheers,

Jim

 

You very casually dismiss the deaths of those in the WTC. Sad really. But I guess that is the best defense you could come up with. Only goes to show how far the left will go to maintain there baseless accusations and agenda.

Yea, continue your senseless agenda. The left is being cheered on by the terrorists. good job!:thumbs:

 

No one can say they have truly lived until they have defended freedom. Until they are ready to lay down their lives - they are cowards IMHO.

"[W]ho has objected to "incoming calls from terrorists" being monitored" - that was what the judge did . . . that started all of this arguing and your continued and repeated musings about protecting the rights of terrorists under the Constitution of the USA.

Why you think American soldiers should die in the field of combat to protect a terrorist phone call beats me. :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

Jim

As a Canadian, you really do have a different set of rules. If they does not monitor the calls of terrorists, then so be it.

Wayne