[Fourboxes]

In some of the other threads I've seen a few people defend the policies of former Pres Bush by saying something to the effects of "well we havn't been attacked again, so it must have worked". I wanted to look at a few numbers, and ask peoples opinions on it.

Around 3000 people died during the Sept 11 attacks.

If the increased surveillance power of the Federal government and the limited accountability on issues like secret prisons, torture, offshore prisons etc were entirely responsible for preventing future attacks (and I"m not saying they were), should We The People allow for that trade to happen?

How much freedom should we be willing to sacrifice to save 3000 lives?

I'll put my response in a seperate post, so that my question and my answer can be debated separately.

 

[Fourboxes]

I don't think we should make the trade.

Every year 40,000 people die in car accidents. More die to random violence. Life has risk, and I accept that. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and any day it could be me. I would rather live my life in the freeest America I can, than have big brother watching over my shoulder, listening to my phone calls, reading my email etc to keep me safe from a 1 in 100,000 risk that I might be killed by a terrorist during my workday.

 

[compmanio365]

I have to agree......by allowing our freedoms to be infringed upon in the name of "safety", we have really done exactly what they wanted. Funny though, how Obama refuses to turn around those little things, like oh, the Patriot Act. Guess he's against freedom and liberty as well. Same screwjobs, different names.

 

[godlessdustin]

I have to agree......by allowing our freedoms to be infringed upon in the name of "safety", we have really done exactly what they wanted. Funny though, how Obama refuses to turn around those little things, like oh, the Patriot Act. Guess he's against freedom and liberty as well. Same screwjobs, different names.

Yep, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[Fourboxes]

Already we are offtopic.

 

[Mstr33t]

It's this simple:

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
Benjamin Franklin

 

[compmanio365]

Already we are offtopic.

Not really, but you'd like to think so. It is very much on topic that the idea of people needing to be "protected" rather than free continues today, even though we have another person in office. It wasn't all GWB, and it isn't all Obama either, but they are both for removing freedom rather than leaving it be. Can't have the people be free and think for themselves now, makes them impossible to control, dontchaknow.

 

[Fourboxes]

Already we are offtopic.

Not really, but you'd like to think so. It is very much on topic that the idea of people needing to be "protected" rather than free continues today, even though we have another person in office. It wasn't all GWB, and it isn't all Obama either, but they are both for removing freedom rather than leaving it be. Can't have the people be free and think for themselves now, makes them impossible to control, dontchaknow.

The topic is "discus this idea" not "discuss how well past and current presidents have handled it". Bringing Clinton, Bush or Obama into it just turns it into a bitch session.

 

[compmanio365]

You are the one who brought Bush into it in the first post. Again, another example of it's OK to bash on Bush cause he's an "evil neo-con republipig", but saying anything negative and having Obama in the same paragraph is bashing the "messiah". Don't say it's not about that, cause in your first f***ing sentence, you talk about people defending Bush and how that is apparently wrong.

:bs:

 

[Fourboxes]

You are the one who brought Bush into it in the first post. Again, another example of it's OK to bash on Bush cause he's an "evil neo-con republipig", but saying anything negative and having Obama in the same paragraph is bashing the "messiah". Don't say it's not about that, cause in your first f***ing sentence, you talk about people defending Bush and how that is apparently wrong.

:bs:

Bush was mentioned because the policy was his, it had to be done to introduce the subject. No where in my post did I criticize the man, and in my second post (where I was giving my opinion to the question) I didn't mention him at all.

 

[bomber101581]

I don't think we should make the trade.

Every year 40,000 people die in car accidents. More die to random violence. Life has risk, and I accept that. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and any day it could be me. I would rather live my life in the freeest America I can, than have big brother watching over my shoulder, listening to my phone calls, reading my email etc to keep me safe from a 1 in 100,000 risk that I might be killed by a terrorist during my workday.

i would add something, but you said exactly what I think.

 

[bomber101581]

I have to agree......by allowing our freedoms to be infringed upon in the name of "safety", we have really done exactly what they wanted. Funny though, how Obama refuses to turn around those little things, like oh, the Patriot Act. Guess he's against freedom and liberty as well. Same screwjobs, different names.

also agree. Frankly I am suprised at the lack of action from Obama. I'm hoping that its because the economy is such a distraction, but I know better

 

[Blintersifrid]

Personally, I think that the Patriot Act was a kneejerk reaction to the attacks, and stunk to high heaven when it was passed.
It was definitely a case of slamming the barn door after the horse was long gone.

I don't care *who* is in charge, they will always try to take more power.
Unfortunately, most people are more than willing to let them.

If most weren't, we'd live in a very different country than we do.

Sifrid

 

[bomber101581]

I will try to stay on topic, without insulting anyone, or getting raving pissed and using blanked out swear words..... this could be tricky

What I see happening is a value being placed on Life above freedom. Of course, what good is freedom if you're dead (this is an argument I hear a lot). Well I would say ask that question to people living under tyranny. IMHO, life is meaningless without freedom, so Life must be risked to maintain that freedom and I don't mean the life of soldiers. To say that you support the troops, but are unwilling to sacrifice your own safety daily to preserve the freedom this country was founded on is worse than hypocritical, its shameful.

Its funny what a little perspective will do for a person. Your odds of dying a gruesome death in a car are infinitely higher than dying in a terrorist attack, yet you don't hesitate to get behind the wheel of your car everyday and drive to work. We willingly put our entire families at risk when we all pile into the car and drive to Grandma's, yet as careful as you are driving, you could still be run down in the blink of an eye by a drunk driver. Yet where is the outrage, the change in laws, the long term imprisonment without trial, the surveilance, the stripping of rights for drunk drivers? Yet we are willing to let our government listen to our calls, read our library records, scan our bodies at the airport, secretly spy on us, data mine our consumer information for suspicious activity, all so that they can tell us that they will protect us from something that they cannot. All of this we will allow, without even having committed a crime to justify it.

Shame on us for chosing the easy way out when so many before us have chosen to die for our freedom.