Posted on 09/24/2001 4:24:58 PM PDT by Rebeckie
I would remind you that in order to exercise what little freedom you have, you need to actually be alive. I think it's pretty clear Mr. Bin Laden doesn't have your interest in that regard as one of his priorities, in fact, just the opposite.
There simply is no other choice other than to support the elected government to the hilt. The decision for peace or war has been effectively taken out of our hands. They made the decision. Not us. The train has left the station. Our hands have been forced, and now we must blow the hell out of them. Let's call it, to steal some phraselogy from another war (the WOD) ongoing in this country, harm reduction.....
We need to reduce the potential harm to us that Mr. Bin Laden can cause, and also help out the Afghan people and remove this bacteria from the Afghan body. We have the antibiotics for this, and we must strap down the patient, and ensure that proper medication and care is administered...
...Neil Boortz, libertarian talk show host.(do I have too much free time?)
But at this point in time President Bush is what you have......(not gonna have another election until 04). Now either you support the effort or you don't.
When they turn on you, don't cry about it. You were warned.
Jefferson and his followers tended to believe in a simple equation: more government, less freedom; less government, more freedom. Government is by its nature a conspiracy against liberty so the more hamstrung it is, the more we will be free.
Washington and those around him believed that government needed to be limited and responsible, but not weak. They believed that without the peace and order government imposed each one became the slave of the stronger. Jeffersonians thought that if you take away government you get "freemen." Washington thought that if you take away government you get warlords terrorizing slaves.
So for the second group of founders, government is both the friend and the enemy of government. Of course governments, being run by human beings, will overreach if given the opportunity. But it isn't true that weakening government always strengthens freedom. Sometimes weakening government endangers freedom. Sometimes government has to be strengthened to protect freedom.
After 9-11, some of us are looking twice at the simple equation, "Less government = more freedom." When the government meant Bill Clinton, that was easy to agree with. When the government means the people responsible for defending the nation, it doesn't seem as plausible to some of us.
I don't have a lot of patience, and as a result I have sometimes posted too vehemently, with people who harrumph about giving up freedom for safety. Excuse me, go and look at WTC ground zero. You call that freedom? What kind of freedom will any American have if we are subjected to such monstrous exercises of arbitrary power? I don't think John Ashcroft or Tom Ridge are likely to make me anymore unfree than the people who were hijacked on those flights, or those people who were trying to go about their business in the WTC and the Pentagon.
I have no desire to give the government a blank check, but yes, I do think that we are called upon to make compromises. Not compromises for the sake of safety without liberty, but compromises in the short term to secure liberty in the long term.
No, I don't imagine all the measures that need to be taken in the short term will be easily or automatically withdrawn after our victory. I hope to have the freedom to fight those battles someday and not be living at the mercy of terror in a nation dissolving into chaos. But that is not where the battle for liberty is being fought today. Today the battle is with terrorism, so that when terrorism has been defeated, we may have the freedom to go on disputing and debating about freedom.
I feel there's no other option. We must win the war, and I'm willing to chuck aside my concerns to a large degree in order to do so. It's in the country's best interest. I need to be alive to exercise what rights I have.
I fail to see why you don't understand that, and the ramifications of this attack. Hell, a crop duster could fly any day over your home, and spray all of you in southern Virginia with anthrax.
I understand and deeply respect your concerns. I see no other choice.
You're just not willing to make any personal sacrifices in support of that effort? In your own defense?
Okay, who leaked the secret agenda to you? We have some damage control needed here!
Nah, just good taste in talk radio.
Whatever we are prepared to fork over now and whatever powers we are prepared to give the government now, we are giving not just to the current administration, but every future administration of this country. And I think that many people would not be so willing to toss out their rights out the window if it were Gore/Lieberman leading the USA.
This is a time to be cautious in our anger. Look at the numerous idiotic measures being taken at the airports as result of the attack. Everyone has to use a "spork" at the airport concessesion stand because of these attacks, even though no one tried to hijack a plane with the plastic knife they use to spread jelly on their Egg McMuffin while waiting to board a plane. No one is allowed to park at LAX, they have to park outside the airport and take a cab to get to departures. Of course, how many bin Laden associates were cab drivers in Boston? Good thing we let the cabs drive right up to the doors but not the airline passengers. These gestures may make people feel "safe" but they are empty and ultimately useless.
I see no reason that citizens have to start throwing out their rights because of these events. Once you give them up, you don't get them back.
Yes -- a big difference!
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.