A Brit says "Americans will die for liberty."

He didn't remove any that I know of. Just a different judge gave Constitutional protections to terrorists . . .

 

What makes their deaths, collectively, more tragic than any other?

That isn't a "defense" - it's just a remark on your sentimental twaddle that you use to support curtailing civil liberties.

Yea?

Constitutional liberties are a "senseless agenda"? And you call yourself an American! Fie! for shame!

No not-Rush disclaimer on that one? That is a meaningless bit of yappery.

 

Well, who has? I asked you before and received no meaningful answer.

If that's a strawman, I'm not the one who built it.

How am I suppose to know what your "real objection" is when you post, "If the President wants to moniter incoming calls from terrorists then he has my permission" (see #10 of this thread)?

That's what you posted and what I responded to. You followed that with, "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." You sounded sincere in your concern about your wife and children....were you not?

So, tell me: What is your real objection?

 

Daisy

Life cut short is not tragic?

Tell me this was mistaken hyperbole?

Did you really say this and mean it: "What makes their deaths, collectively, more tragic than any other?" If you did your words display a blatant arrogance and disregard for human life.

The ritualistic slaughter of innocent civilians slaughtered by the evil actions of terrorists in the name of sacrifice to a demonic god of hatred is not more tragic than God taking someone home at the end of their life?

Surely you were just using hyperbole?

 

The long and short of it is that with freedom comes an inherent danger of people using that freedom to do bad things. The idea that the way to protect our freedom is to give up our liberty is rediculous. If we crave to have 'safety' so much that we are willing to give up our freedom, well I think it has been said best by Benjamin Franklin:

If we are willing to allow our constitution to be trod upon in the name of personal safety, then we deserve to live in the police state that is being imposed on us. If the admittedly tragic deaths of 3000 people causes us to shake and cry out for someone to save us from the terrors of a free society, then we are truly dishonoring the countless thousands who willingly gave their lives to protect the very freedoms that we are giving up.

 

2 million

2 million

2 million

 

2 million Americans voted to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic with their lives.

Trodding upon their graves and saying that they would be against a policy to protect their decendents is not fair to them or to their sacrifice.

IMHO. Until the terrorists and their allies are defeated, we need to use our technology to intercept them and not sacrifice more of our people to their evil worship of satan and his demonic empire.

 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]And I thought they were defending the constitution.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

I know a recruiter that can fix your misunderstanding of what we defend . . . it is the Constitution and our way of life against all enemies foreign

AND DOMESTIC.

IMHO If it was about defending a piece of paper, heretics, communists, and terrorists then you would have liberals lining up for the job.

 

Our way of life? I didn't see that in the oath. But is it our way of life to make mothers drink their own breast milk to prove it isn't an explosive? Is it our way of life to imprison people for years without charging them?

I guess Bush was right, its just a *#$@&#! piece of paper. Don't worry, our way of life will go on even when the constitution is just a footnote in an anti-terrorism handbook. We will still have the freedom to murder babies in the womb, we will still have the freedom to drink ourselves into a stupor. We will still have the freedom to fornicate and view pornography. We just won't have the freedom to say something about it.

 

Yes, you are correct - the Constitution of the USA has been used as a reference in terrorist training.

No, I do not believe that the President used the profanity that you used when describing the Constitution.

And no, the Framers did not intend for the enemy (domestic or foreign) to use the Constitution against the USA. That is why they gave the 3 division of our Government. And the Executive branch has gone to the Legislative branch and asked for permission to surveil enemies of the USA. And this was not for use in the court system. I realize that the propaganda is that it was, but any new lawyer would have asked for that to be thrown out of court.

What is wrong with the USA reacting to a known impending threat and current danger in accord with the Constitution?

PS - I have the recruiter on hold . . .

2 million have died so that you could enjoy your life. 2 million have given the ultimate sacrifice.

 

How so? Does it matter whether they were beheaded, crucified or boiled in oil?

And what about Godly women of integrity?

I still say that the lives they lived are more important than the particular death they died.

 

So I don't jump to a conclusion....

Are you saying 9/11 victim's deaths are no more tragic than any others ?

 

Actually, I asked what made their deaths, collectively, more tragic than any other. If you think they are, please explain why because I don't see it.

The "collectively" is important to me as there are some will be more tragic than others (sole provider to a young family, for instance). I just don't see why dying in a terrorist attack is more tragic than dying in a car accident because some young idiot threw a frozen turkey into your windshield.

 

Somebody cut down in their 20's, by a terrorist act, with absolutely no chance of preparation would be much morre tragic than someone passing, in their 80s, with their grandchildren around them. That's how I see it.

You aren't the first I've heard say this, and I really hate to be snarky, but it comes off as horrible, hateful, dismissal of innocence.

 

And I agree with you.

Ok, but you still haven't explained why their deaths were more tragic.

For someone cut down in their 20s with absolutely no chance of preparation, why is it more tragic to die in that terrorist act than to die by a hit and run driver? What makes the first one more innocent than the second one?

 

Looks like we agree, no need to answer.:thumbs:

BTW, my houseguests are moving out tonite, with my help. I rented them a trailer, and am doing the heavy lifting myself, but tonite I get my life back. Looking forward to some well-needed sleep.

 

Hey! I have a question! Why is this important to begin with? Why do these people need to be compared top any other deaths. It is tragic in any event. Is this your attempt to belittle the lost lives of the WTC so as not to consider it as important thereby making the point that there is no need for any response to it? Im just asking.

Very sad.:BangHead:

 

I can't tell, is this a rhetorical question?

You gratuitously brought these people into this thread where they didn't belong.

Yes, it is and I haven't said otherwise. It was you who claimed that I casually dismissed their deaths, but it isn't so. I simply don't see them as more tragic.

Not at all. You are the one exploiting their deaths, using them as a bludgeon to beat other posters over the head to try to lend substance to an argument that hasn't any.

No one except you is "making the point that there is no need for any reponse to it". It is you who is conflating patriots' fierce determination to uphold the constitution and all it stands for with "doing nothing" and it is you who is pretending that "doing nothing" is what we are advocating. Worst of all, it is you who is pretending that keeping our civil liberties is belittling the 9-11 deaths.

Hmmm.