Skip to comments.Dick Cheney: Rand Paul is wrong on government surveillance
Posted on 07/19/2013 11:10:19 PM PDT by WilliamIII
click here to read article
“I myself am a vet of WWII and lost my only brother in the battle of Okinawa”
God Bless You Sir - and thank you for your service
Really, really, really.
Enjoy whatever time and freedom you have left.
If Cheney (who I once admired) was so concerned with keeping us safe why did he not secure our freakin’ border?
At this point in the fight? I'm with Paul. Obama has destroyed our status as a super-power. We're long past the big military to put out the fires of the world. Sad but true. Obama has created the situation in this nation where Ron Paul would actually make sense in 2016. That's also sad but true.
How exactly do you outlaw a religion? I take it you’re not what we would call a strict constitutionalist.
Don’t take it too personally. Free Republic is loaded with armchair ideologues who will instantly paint you as “unclean” if you don’t agree lock step with every position they hold. They are petty and insecure. Ignore them.
I never could understand why some conservatives continue to defend and admire Bush and Cheney. We got TARP and the Patriot Act under their watch (the former isn't so suprising, since Cheney came right out and said that "deficits don't matter").
All I can think of is that it's a knee-jerk reaction: liberals hate Bush and Cheney (not sure why, Bush governed like a Scoop Jackson Democrat), therefore Bush and Cheney must be good. More or less the same reason why many on the right defended Nixon, who was basically a fiscal liberal and an across the board advocate of big government.
There is not one full blown lib that has anything to crow about doing/saying during my lifetime regarding US security. I have not forgotten the years of Clintonism and how security conscience they were not during their reign of terror.
Conservatives are all about individual responsibility, whereas some republicans form gangs.
You know. I would have agreed with you at one point. The past 10 years have moved me from “go with Cheney” to “go with Paul” at this point. Anything that government creates will be used for the wrong purposes, period.
No, I want them to try martial law sooner rather than later, because they’re going to do it eventually anyway.
The alternative is to let them continue to acquire power - which they’re very good at, and are going full-steam-ahead with as we type - with no one in power trying or effective enough to stop them, such that when they try it later, on their time table, employing their scenario, we will already have been adequately readied for the slaughter, incarceration or slavery.
You’re telling me you don’t see this freight train coming at you by now??
Another viewpoint: Suppose there’s a nuke set off in the US. Who can we trust - the government or the media - to tell us the truth about who the perps were? The Feds have already systematically facilitated enormous governmental infiltration and influence by the Communists, the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Cartels. No matter who they say exploded the nuke, no matter which one of these groups they blame and say they have evidence confirming, we would be foolish to believe it. We will know, by now, that they are all in bed with each other. Except for some propaganda for the sheeple, we would have no assurance that our enemies are indeed now our enemies, and will be vanquished in retaliation. A nuke would confirm to me, res ipsa loquitur, that the Feds were behind it - no matter who pulled the trigger - and that the attack was merely a crisis to impose martial law. And your mind wouldn’t go there, and you’d be wrong.
“with . . . the last furnished room emptied down to the last piece of mental furniture, a yellow paper rose twisted on a wire hanger in the closet, and even that imaginary, nothing but a hopeful little bit of hallucination -—
“Ah Carl, while you are not safe I am not safe, and now you’re really in the animal soup of time -— “
One of the things I have discovered reading all the comments regarding my response on supporting Cheney ... if I don’t agree with those that support Rand Paul, I’m a liberal. LOL! Got the same response when I refused to support Romney in the last election.
Lessons learned over the years: If I disagree with a black person, I’m a racists, if I disagree with someone on FR, I’m a liberal. Some days no matter what you think, say or do, you can’t win. However, I will continue to speak my mind and, by the way, I’m neither a racists nor a liberal.
And believe me, I have been here long enough not to put too much stock in what those who disagree with me think. Half the fun is reading what folks have to say when I make a comment that goes against the consensus of a thread.
These laws that threaten our Constitutional rights; that are based upon 9-11 and terrorism and the need for the forever war on terror and citizen surveillance; such as the Patriot Act and all of its subsequent amendments; should automatically sunset/expire and become null and void within 2 years, unless they are re-upped for 2 more years by 60% of Congress.
They need to die unless overwhelmingly approved politically be a Congress that needs to face reelection.
What should worry us the most is a major false flag attack that the MSM will purposely hype and propagandize (they have lots of practice), and our leaders (D/R) will use to claim (just as did Hitler with the Reichstag fire) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag that Patriot Act 4 and martial law must be imposed, and we must relinquish our freedoms, rights and firearms, but just to keep us safe and to keep order.
There are 7,000,000,000 people on this planet and our government has reason to spy on 6,700,000,000 of them. Why then is Obama spying on the 300,000,000 of us and not them?
Between freedom from Govt surveillance and Dick Cheney, I choose freedom.