Stupiderthanthou
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- In front of my computer.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Stupiderthanthou said:I ask you, as I am sure you have been asked before, this: in the most general sense, which is it first and foremost the president's responsibility to provide? Freedom, or security?
Stupiderthanthou said:I ask you, as I am sure you have been asked before, this: in the most general sense, which is it first and foremost the president's responsibility to provide? Freedom, or security?
I'm very curious as to everyone's opinion.
Stace said:I think his primary responsibility should be protecting the freedoms of the people right here in the United States; worry about everyone else later, or maybe even not at all sometimes. We're not the worldwide babysitters, after all, nor should we be.
Why is this an either/or? Is there really no way to uphold the 4th Amendment, AND keep our beaches free from invading troops?M14 Shooter said:If you had to make the choice between violating the 4th amendment rights of a few people and keeping the enemy from landing troops on our beaches, razing our cities and subjugating us, what would you choose?
National Defense is the Fed Gvmnts first priority - if you can't protect the people from the enemy, nothing else really matters.
National Defense is the Fed Gvmnts first priority - if you can't protect the people from the enemy, nothing else really matters.
There can only be one "first priority", and therefore its a one-or-the other situation.Why is this an either/or?
Thats all you needed to say. Thanks.If it had to be one or the other, I would definitely agree that keeping the country safe is #1.
I dont believe the question was limited to the situation on 15 JAN 2005. GWB is the president right now, but the question to applies to all Presidents, past, present and futureBut I don't believe the enemy we are facing now is going to invade,
Not sure how your question stems from my statement.FinnMacCool said:So given the choice between being enslaved and being killed, you would choose enslavement?
Not sure how your question stems from my statement.
Stupiderthanthou said:When he talks about foreign policy, the president is always using the word freedom; we will "bring freedom to the Middle East," replace tyranny with "freedom and democracy." When he talks about problems here at home, the watchword is security; "homeland security" is a priority, he says, or "national security" is being neglected.
People lap both spiels up like kittens after milk despite the obvious disconnect. Increased security at home has, without a doubt, lessened our freedoms; more freedom abroad has meant decreased stability (think the whole of Iraq, here).
I ask you, as I am sure you have been asked before, this: in the most general sense, which is it first and foremost the president's responsibility to provide? Freedom, or security?
I'm very curious as to everyone's opinion.
FinnMacCool said:Its about priorities. National Security.
Sounds about right here, but I'd like to "tweak" it a touch...americanwoman said:I would say since we already have freedom-somewhat-then the presidents responsibility is to make sure we are secure at all times.
We can never be fully secured so someone has to atleast watch out for us.
I laugh everytime someone says our freedom is jeopardized. by who? Even if we are attacked we would never loose our freedom.Only if someone overturned our government would we loose the freedoms we have.
Now who the f_ck is going to do that? Iraq? They don't have a navy! How the hell are they going to get over here? Have you no faith in TSA?Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
If you had to make the choice between violating the 4th amendment rights of a few people and keeping the enemy from landing troops on our beaches, razing our cities and subjugating us, what would you choose?
cnredd said:Sounds about right here, but I'd like to "tweak" it a touch...
Ever notice there are some here that push the panic button whenever someone mentions "liberty" or "freedom"?
Example - They sound like the day before the Patriot Act was a beautiful day filled with blue skies and flowers, and the second it was signed, all of a sudden we turned into Stalinist Russia...EVERY freedom that has ever existed has been totally decimated and we will turn to Martial Law by 3pm next Tuesday...
And they say Bush uses scare tactics...:shrug:
What you've just stated is perfect...Kandahar said:I'll agree that some people do tend to be a bit alarmist about it, but the bottom line is that they're right. Police states can be created through incremental infringements on our civil liberties, each step seeming perfectly reasonable given the previous one.
For example, consider the following line of thought:
1. Suppose the current law says that police can't search the premises without a warrant (or permission) and without notifying the owner.
2. Given #1, it's not such a big step to say that they can do it without notifying the owner, if they have a warrant. After all, the searchee is suspected of some kind of wrongdoing.
3. Given #2, why get the warrant at all? Our law enforcement doesn't have time to wait around for court permission while the searchee might be out plotting or committing crimes (This is essentially Bush's argument for wiretaps).
4. Given #3, why even notify the court at all? They didn't need to sign off on it, and since the courts aren't in the law enforcement business they don't need to know about it at all.
5. Given #4, we don't REALLY need much evidence that the searchee is doing anything wrong, do we? He'll never know about it (nor will the courts), and if he isn't doing anything wrong he won't mind. And if he is doing something wrong, our search might prevent a crime.
In just four easy steps, we've gone from a perfectly reasonable policy to an unchecked police state. None of the steps are that radical in themselves, given the preceding step.
That's the same reason I oppose a national ID card; it's not that the government will suddenly have access to new information that it wouldn't otherwise have, it's because it is simply the next incremental step toward authoritarian statism.
cnredd said:What you've just stated is perfect...
for paranoia...
cnredd said:You're first paragraph sums it up nicely...Police states can be created ...
"can"...mighty big word there...and that's the defense used in cases where liberty and freedom are concerned...
There has to be a separation where the immediate results of tightening freedoms outweighs long term issues that you yourself have only claimed as possibilities through the use of the word "can"...
cnredd said:Living in the world of negative outcomes will just prevent any positive intervention...
cnredd said:Mostly everything, and in this case, national security, will ultimately infringe upon something else, in this case, freedom...The real question is...
Will the positives outweigh the negatives?...If you skip the knee-jerk reactions, it's an unequivical "yes"...
Just like the word "can", you choose to use the word "tendancy"...You're more concerned with what "may" happen instead of concentrating on what "is" happening...Kandahar said:Not at all. Government naturally has a tendency to abuse its power as it gets bigger. To not acknowledge this is naive.
You say they don't produce "discernable benefit"...some say otherwise...Who to believe?Kandahar said:Many of the Bush Administration's policies - such as wiretapping without a warrant, holding suspected terrorists without charges, and some of the provisions of the Patriot Act - produce no discernable benefit in protecting the American people. They do, however, represent an incremental step toward authoritarianism.
Once again...you don't...some do...AFAICT, most want the Patriot Act revamped...not thrown away...That tells me there are some redeeming laws applied with "discernable benefit"...Kandahar said:I don't live in a world of negative outcomes, but if you're going to advocate policies that take away our civil liberties, there had better be a damn good reason for doing so. I just don't see any such reason in most of the cases.
Please explain this "high cost"...This is the same extreme rhetoric I've referred to earlier...Kandahar said:It's not that simple. You can't just say that "national security" will ultimately outweigh "freedom." Each policy needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and most of them produce little benefit in national security while having a high cost in freedom.
cnredd said:Just like the word "can", you choose to use the word "tendancy"...You're more concerned with what "may" happen instead of concentrating on what "is" happening...
cnredd said:Do you think the USA is more free now than in 1960?...And if you answered "yes", which I don't see why you wouldn't, here comes the second question...
Don't you think that there were many people saying the exact same thing then?...I'm think it's obvious they were proven wrong with time...can't you acknowledge that the same possibility is in the here and now?...So far you haven't...
cnredd said:You say they don't produce "discernable benefit"...some say otherwise...Who to believe?
cnredd said:As for the "incremental step", that logic is flawed...If I were to punch your arm, would make the logical leap that it's only a matter of time before I kill you?(No personal shot intended...you get my point)...:2wave:
cnredd said:Once again...you don't...some do...AFAICT, most want the Patriot Act revamped...not thrown away...That tells me there are some redeeming laws applied with "discernable benefit"...
cnredd said:When a multiple rapist is on the loose and the authorities tell you to lock your doors and windows, will you cry about your "liberties" and "freedoms" being taken away in an incremental step to authoritarianism?...Don't think so...
cnredd said:Please explain this "high cost"...This is the same extreme rhetoric I've referred to earlier...
Example - They sound like the day before the Patriot Act was a beautiful day filled with blue skies and flowers, and the second it was signed, all of a sudden we turned into Stalinist Russia...EVERY freedom that has ever existed has been totally decimated and we will turn to Martial Law by 3pm next Tuesday...
The "high cost" reference, with all due respect, is not only not needed, but a scare tactic frequently used to oppose the government for the sake of opposing the government...
Should we be wary of the government?...Of course...
Should we have the kneejerk reaction that everything they do MUST be anti-freedom and only to gain more power?...Ridiculous...
cnredd said:GWB has three years left(almost to the day)...Nomatter what claims of "dictatorship" and "absolute executive power" is thrown at him, I guarantee that by Feb. 2009, any "power" you think he may attempt to snatch will not be his to keep...
I have a feeling you wouldn't want to wager that...
Billo_Really said:Now who the f_ck is going to do that? Iraq? They don't have a navy! How the hell are they going to get over here? Have you no faith in TSA?
Looking at it that way, if George Washington hadn't started this country when he did, Iraq might of over-ran us.Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
What part of 'I dont believe the question was limited to the situation on 15 JAN 2005. GWB is the president right now, but the question to applies to all Presidents, past, present and future' didnt you get?
Billo_Really said:Looking at it that way, if George Washington hadn't started this country when he did, Iraq might of over-ran us.
What do I win?Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Is someone holding an "Most Asinine Statement of the Day" contest?
If so, I think you have it locked up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?