Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
I dont think we can assume that. A basic tenent of media is that if it's unusual, it gets lots of media time, because it will interest people. I taught at a HS for 5 years. I never saw most of what we hear about in the media. For the most part, the inmates were running the assylum.
BTW I think homeschooling is the way to go.
susie
If this was a matter of the President's collecting information to use against his political enemies, then that would be a concern. But that doesn't appear to be what's happening here.
As I see it, the federal government's listening in on a terrorist plot in someone's phone conversation ranks about the same level of intrusiveness as their searching through that person's luggage for a bomb.
They certainly aren't doing everything they should be doing, (and do alot of things they shouldn't) but when they do something they should be doing (defending us against evildoers) they get raked over the coals. Maybe they just can't decide which thing will get them less bad press.
susie
"I might buy this if I didn't see them completely ignoring things that they have been specifically tasked with doing. They should be controlling the borders but they don't. But what they do seem to be doing is enlarging their authority to restrict our rights and collect information on us."
I agree completely...I would only add to that list.
Complete overhaul of the immigration process, better oversight on shipping containers coming into the country, and checking the cargo in passenger flights..But I must say, I agree completely with where you are coming from. You are a wise man.
If by checking the cargo in passenger flights you mean passenger's bags (maybe you mean something else) why is that not terribly intrusive? I really hate the idea of those guys looking at my undies!
susie
What Badray said. If you are involved in a flare-up on these boards, just add our names to the "To" box in your posts and we'll come and give you some help.
You missed my point. Freedom without a country to practice it in, is useless. ie:freedom taste good on a cracker.
Freedoms can be regained, destruction and annihilation cannot.
Backwards. We can always rebuild our buildings. Terrorists can never kill so many of us that we cannot replace our population. But once enough freedom is lost, it can be nearly impossible to get it back. A tyrant can not loosen his grip without losing his life.
There will be no tyrant in the United States. I have more faith in our citizens to believe that for a second. How do you suggest that we rebuild buildings should the worse scenario happen? Our economy will be destroyed. No money.
This country is the richest country in the world largely because, for years, we were the most free. Freedom creates wealth and wealth creates security.
How long would we stay rich? Let's say for the sake of argument that New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and any large city was wiped out. Do you honestly think that people would be scrambling to rebuild cities or scrambling to feed people? With our open borders anything is possible.
If al queda is calling 555-2355, I want to know who they are talking too, that could prevent that scenario from ever coming to fruition.
That's why we are strong and they are weak. Freedom creates free enterprise which creates wealth that we need to create a strong military. They have to use box-cutters.
In our world rights can be regained and reinstated.
Don't that for granted. If we lose enough of our rights, we may never regain them because we won't have the freedom to do it.
Americans will never lose the 2nd amendment.
Some already have. In New York City and some other big cities.
As far as she becoming president...she isn't going to become president.
How about Al Gore? He came within a few votes of becoming president.
You freakin' rock!
Or in laymans terms, if you start something you can't finish...call for backup.
Sometimes shippers will ship via passenger flights to cut costs, plus it's a money maker for the airlines. So essentially what happens is cargo gets onto passenger planes that has no "passenger" to go with it. (Basically it means that bulk cargo is shipped in passenger flights.) Yea, I don't like the idea of my undies looked at either, but this is actual bulk cargo that has not been screened, and the person that is sending it isn't screened either..
OK then I agree with you. Actually, I wouldn't like my undies looked at (oh gosh, I can hear the laughter now!) if it meant the plane would be safer, then I would go for it. But, in the name of full disclosure, I don't fly anyway, so it's rather moot.
susie
Terrorists hate us for our freedom for a very practical and rational reason. They want to take freedom from their people. They want to control and subjugate people and they want them to believe that it is necessary.
But when those people see that America is a strong and wealthy nation, even though we are free, it puts the lie to their claims.
Therefore they have to either destroy us, or to eliminate our freedom.
That was in 2001, the box-cutters. In 20006, they're talking about nukes.
Don't that for granted. If we lose enough of our rights, we may never regain them because we won't have the freedom to do it.
I do, because I have more faith in our citizens.
Some already have. In New York City and some other big cities.
You're talking about a leftist liberal city. They don't like guns. You can bet any other city you're talking about is a leftist one in a blue state.
How about Al Gore? He came within a few votes of becoming president.
And one of those few votes was mine. But close only counts in horseshoes.
Excellent post!
This is a common argument to justify rollbacks in the Bill of Rights. "The founders didn't know about automatic weapons", so let's retire the 2nd amendment.
But since we can't bring them back to life, this is an academic discussion. The fact that give truth to their arguments is that we haven't called a constitutional convention to update it to modern times.
The author of this article has a loss of perspective that borders on delusional.
It appears that the ACLU considers the enemy (terrorlamists) of their enemy (free capitalist america) their friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.