A Brit says "Americans will die for liberty."

Whoohoo! Please be careful of your back. Sweet dreams.

 

Maybe if more people in this world were willing to die for liberty instead of dying for hate - we would have a peaceful world.

Just a thought.

:jesus: is the answer.

 

Your hyperbole gets more rediculous.

 

How did any attempt to "protect" your perceived rights contribute to any attempt to stop 9/11? And how can it contribute to stopping another attack? It cant. Therefore it is do nothing. In fact it leaves us more vulnerable.

 

Barbarian observes:
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.

Which of the protections that Bush dismantled prior to 9/11 do you think reduced our liberties? And yet, they were sufficient. C'mon, be honest with yourself, we don't need to scrap the Constitution to be safe. And if we did, as our British friend says, real Americans wouldn't do it. We are Americans, and we prefer liberty to safety.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

That's what real Americans think.

You're upset and embarassed, and so you're misrepresenting what I said, to save face. In fact, as I pointed out before, there were good and effective controls that did not violate the Constitution before 9/11, but Bush dismantled them.

Well, you know what an irresponsible radical Patrick Henry was. And look what happened as a result; a free nation with liberty for all. It must infuriate you. (WFTH-I)

He doesn't need your permission. He needs a warrant. That's the law. It's the Law of the Land, in fact. You may be very important, but you can't cancel the Constitution. And as he has now admitted, he also listened in on countless innocent American citizens. And that indeed is against the law.

As many of the Founders, including Patrick Henry noted, we have more to fear from oppressive government than anything else. There will always be cowards, but please God, they will never be a majority in America.

 

You make the claim that is unsubstantiated that Clinton had good and effective controls in place. it doesnt add up to much.

Since you seem to (as others do) assign emotions to me that are 1.) not true, and 2.) are clearly not reasonable, it must be your emotions that get raised to such high levels.

But in the end this has nothing to do with my last post. This is just misdirection and avoidance. Good job!:thumbs:

 

You still haven't answered the question of what your real objection is - what is it? You protest that we get it wrong, but you refuse to reveal what it is - I'm beginning to think you haven't any, that it is all smoke & mirrors and no substance whatever.

By referring to our Constitutional rights as "perceived", are you implying that they are not real and that the Constitution means nothing? If our Constitution and our laws are subverted, even to the office of the Presidency, then the terrorists have won more surely than if they were to down a dozen more office buildings.

 

The circles you seem to want to go around gets rediculous. I stated my objection with clarity. You called it a strawman. Then you now accuse me of not stating my real objection. I cant tell if you are confused or intentionally trying to misdirect. Good luck with it though!:thumbs:

 

Rev

Was it Daisy that claimed that a large number of the dead in the WTC were actually muslims . . . ?

Didn't she say that her husband and just a few other muslims some how just happened to be late to work at the WTC that day?

And did she ever say where her faith was?

Ironic, that Americans die for liberty . . . and then those Americans are used as muslim poster children

[is that part of the world wide take over by islam? - I guess September 11th will become a holiday after the take over]

 

Who is the us? You keep alluding to 'us'. I used to think it might be a political agenda on the left hand side. But, it sounds more and more like a group of people . . .

You seem to be asking the rest of 'us' to become like 'you'.

The options you seem to present are become like us or let the terrorists kill us off . . . But, just make sure the constitution continues to give your people protection.

Who are your people? What is the religious group that you are trying to protect?

How long would the Constitution last, then? Until all Christians had been converted? What do you want us to convert to? Nazism or Islam? No that is not an ad hominem - you have defended both with examples from each other. Your defense of these two extreme religious & political groups makes absolutely no sense to me. Both groups have extolled the virtues of mass killing of what is perceived to be any 'enemy'. And yet, you have continued to lay that guilt on Christ . . . as if He wsa a hate monger. That claim is beyond anything that I can reasonably understand.

Even a mullah or a mufta should be kinder to Jesus . . .

 

Actually, the 'law of the land' is a bunch of fat books that are supposed to all submit to the authority of the Constitution.

Monitoring enemy activity would be within the constraints of the Constitutional authority of the Congressionally raised Army . . . was air forces in that

Going into a home on suspicion of a criminal activity to be tried in a court - that requires a warrant.

Those are two different boundaries . . .