Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
i don't live in england. you don't live in america. no disrespect intended, pete since i don't know you but your opinion about my country's government essentially amounts to a fart in the wind. |
The most basic purpose of government is to provide protection to it's people. People give small amounts of loyalty and money and the government returns protection, both from internal and external threats. While there are certainly more intricacies, the most important thing is that the government protects it's people, therefore serving it's purpose. If terrorists want to come at me hand to hand, one on one, i'll take them on, but that's not going to happen. If i'm going to be killed by a terrorist it will be with an explosive or other sort of weapon I can't deal with. The American government can deal with such threats though, and if that means reducing or eliminating some rights, even constitutional rights, then it is not only justified to do so, but obligated to do so. There is no question that the patriot act and other such legislation starts to step on certain rights, and it may go too far. However, I'd prefer to have my government go too far than not far enough when my life and the lives of others are at stake. The patriot act and such legislation is just "martial law lite", it's an evil, but a necessary evil for our own protection. We still have rights here, and we're still considerably more free than any other nation, we just have to start making some small sacrifices like every one else to protect ourselves and our nation.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even the aforementioned Declaration Of Independance says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... " On the other hand of course, it could be argued that the consititution is out of date and unequipped to deal with terrorism, and updating it is prefectly in line with what the creators of it thought should happen. Living document and all that. I think it's amazing that you're so accepting of this though, and things like The Patriot Act, I mean, how much of that do you think actually helps against terrorism? Or forgetting the Patriot Act for a second, does random bag searches on the New York subway system actually help? If your government went too far I'm comforted that you'd change, but a little too far isn't enough for that to happen, or at least that's what I'm guessing, there would be a line they could cross that would make you want to change the government (and if you hadn't lost the vote by this point!). I'd strongly disagree that The Patriot Act is a "necessary evil", and for that matter that the US is considerably more free than any other nation. There's parts of Scandinavia which seem to have greater freedom. |
Quote:
beside - is there anyone who DOESN'T like a strong economy? i've yet to meet anyone who tells me they wish the economy would take a nose dive so they'd be cast into poverty. Quote:
Quote:
it's not disrespect, peter. it's perspective. |
Quote:
And Liberal media?, erm ... no. Just no. Seriously. No. Quote:
Quote:
|
The inaliable rights which are supposed to be given to every American citizen are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Life is pretty much all or nothing, if you can reduce liberties slightly to protect life it's certainly a worthy trade-off. Franklin stated that essential liberties should not be given up to protect life. He was talking about oppression and grossly unfair taxation, not exposing personal items in airports, there is a major difference. In times of war, some of our liberties are temporarily reduced to protect American lives. The so called "war on terror" is the closest thing we've had to a homeland war since we slaughtered the Native Americans and took over the west. It only makes sense that some (ususally minor) liberties be put on hold until the threat to those on our homeland is decreased. As for the patriot act being a necessary evil, I still maintain that it, or something like it, is necessary to keep us from protecting terrorists with our own beaurocracy. As for America being more free, i meant to say most other nations, that was my mistake. I know Sweden has social liberties that most Americans would bat their eyes in disbelief at. If I have my facts strait, the netherlands and south korea, as well as a handful of other counties have more laid-back laws as well. That statement was an oversight on my part, and I apologize. And if I may ask a noobish question, how do I post quotes? |
You have no reason at all to be sorry, and to quote someone you just follow these instructions https://www.gothic.net/boards/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote
And dude, World War 2 with the Japanese was way more like a homeland war than the "War On Terror". |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
that being said - i also made my feelings clear about foreigners and their opinions of how the country is run versus american citizens voicing their opinions, be they positive or negative. one carries little-to-no weight, in my opinion and one carries the weight of every word. see if you can figure out which is which. not to worry, though - if a democrat makes her or his way into the white house in '08, your opinion may carry just as much weight as that of an american. not to me necessarily, but to the supposed enlightened left - and please don't view that as a personal attack. i'm speaking solely about foreigners' opinions when it comes to america and the frustration they express because my country doesn't conform to what they believe america should be. Quote:
you're right about not giving the country advice - these are just words on a message board - however, your words about america moving forward or backward mean nothing when they are spoken from the uk. that's my point. as for the "route" i'm "trying" to take - there's no route. there's only what i believe. that's what you'll read here when i get an urge to drop words. oh, and good link you posted above. that'll be a help for some. where'd you find it? |
goodness - please excuse my typos.
for shame, edible. for shame. is there a way for the 'edit' function to stay open longer than 5 mins.? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe you should discuss the issues instead of being so left-obsessed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do implore you to drop the outside the US and the browbeating stuff though, I can't really have a discussion with you otherwise, merely do the same in return, and I think that would be a shame. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
This is just my opinion, but:
Americans know better about American politics. ((Sternn, if you are out there, this is not a shot at you)) ;D |
Peter: You joined in 2004 with only 21 posts?!
START POST WHORING DAMNIT!! >_< Eye: You know, you look good in tights!! Love the avatar. |
thanx, darlin'. be careful or i might web your hot-ass up and... do things to you, spider-style.
|
spider style? I would ask if I dare even ask, but I know I do.
So, what, pray tell, is spider style? |
it involves immobilization, penetration and sucking.
lots of sucking. |
Quote:
Quote:
The FBI really had no idea that these groups were here in the US. That changed after the first World Trade attack, but obviously enough wasn't being done. They changed that again after 9/11, so we'll see if that does the trick this time around. If it doesn't, the hell with the Patriot Act, but thus far there have been more terror cells broken up in major cities in the last 4 years than there were in a decade or two prior. By god, if my library record confidentiality agreement has to be comprimised for that, so be it. |
|
Quote:
I know it's easier to just quote a bit of what someone says out of context, but ... Kerry said the reverse that he wouldn't ever hand the decision to the UN. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have noticed that conservatives aren't actually that fond of Bush but go along with the Neocons because they still think Bush warts and all is better than the alternative. I'll be interested to see if someone more conservative and small government is put forward for the next election now that Bush can't run anymore. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now I bet some of the increased security works and can't be proven except over a period of time and you can't take that risk, but random searches simply do not work, they don't even work as a deterrant since the chances are so low and you can get by it by simply using a different bomb container, or bombing the place they moved the security guys in from. How far do you go?, do you go until any form of mass transit is unusable to people who like the forth amendment? Are you about to say, "Enjoy the constitution, get out of America"?, where is the line? Quote:
|
Quote:
But I do disagree that they don't work as a deterrant, at least for formally trained al-Qaeda operatives or those associated with the group and groups like it. Hightened attention and stepped up security measures compromise their ability to carry out their operations against specific targets. Like Cold-War spies, these operatives purposely avoid the stereotypes that governments and the public are most suspicious/aware of. With that in mind, how likely do you think it's going to be that a man of Middle Eastern ethnicity is going to be stopped and searched if he carries a large backpack into the subway nowadays? It'd be very risky and sloppy to attempt another attack on the subway. Obviously the copy-cat bombers in London were a fine example of that. Advanced terror groups with the ability to carry out major attacks do not operate that way. When targets become compromised by security measures and public awareness, they're generally aborted/ditched - at least by those with the ability to carry out well coordinated and devistating attacks. Quote:
Despite that, I'll still disagree with you, just because not all terrorists are foreign and not all terrorists are exactly brilliant minds or well trained in covert intelligence operations against a government/nation. Should the government need to use this ability, I'm assuming it would be in connection with more of domestic terrorism involving individuals with no formal training from groups like al-Qaeda who get their info/ideas from such wonderful bedtime stories as "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Turner Diaries." |
Hey, you'd be entitled to that opinion, but c'mon, you know that isn't true, most people regardless of nationality don't care about talking politics. Only Americans who are interested in American politics know more about American politics. Since your media is available globally, them dirty foreigners who are interested in American politics are going to know more it about the average American who, of course, isn't interested in the subject. Since you did not take a look at that twice before quoting me, heres the gist. We live through the politics. Seeing as you live in the UK, I wouldn't argue with you over your goverment simply because I felt like hitting up Google. Is it you Sternn? Come on, really...I haven't seen this much about politics since he was last logged in. Can I get an IP check from the congregation?! ;D Don't get your knickers in a bunch. |
Quote:
So if I said the UK was an authoritarian dictatorship, you wouldn't argue I was wrong? And why do I feel like you're trying to insult me with an in-joke? I assure you, I'm definately Peter and my knickers are in their untwisted state as we speak. |
Quote:
|
Oh, come on Peter, didn't random searches competely win the war on drugs? (Ironic content here, people).
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:08 AM. |