Quote:I haven't even discussed civil rights with you.
You can believe whatever you want Im simply pointing out the moment you require government to complete x task you've compromised liberty.
You've gone back to my discussion with JFC a few times where I was specifically debating his different stance on the role of government at the local and federal level. Complaining about big militarized police forces while supporting big militarized domestic surveillance is contradictory.
And I'm saying your statement that "Either you believe in liberty or you don't. Liberty isn't a part time practice" is radical and sounds like something Oklahomie would say regarding left wing issues. Statements like that imply that any time I don't support a specific 'liberty' (ie. being able to ban blacks from establishment) I'm then disagreeing with every other 'liberty' that exists.
Quote:And I'm saying your statement that "Either you believe in liberty or you don't. Liberty isn't a part time practice" is radical and sounds like something Oklahomie would say regarding left wing issues. Statements like that imply that any time I don't support a specific 'liberty' (ie. being bale to ban blacks from establishment) I'm then disagreeing with every other 'liberty' that exists.
Why do you keep going back to this civil rights discussion we haven't had?
And yes either you believe in liberty or you believe government is required to restrict liberty for the sake of security, fairness or whatever.
Honest question: Have you taken any level of English past High School? Your reading comprehension is terrible. I'm using the Civil Rights issue as an example of areas where someone objective (ie: not radical one way or the other) could see "liberties" crossing lines.
Again, blanket statements and absolutes make you sound loony. Just because I don't believe that people should be allowed to do everything they want (as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others) doesn't mean I think people should have no liberties.
Once again, for EXAMPLE, just because I don't think people should be allowed to ban blacks from restaurants does not I support EVERYTHING being regulated by government. Make sense? Probably not to you, but to someone who doesn't look at everything through a "My way or it's wrong" lens it makes sense.
Quote:Honest question: Have you taken any level of English past High School? Your reading comprehension is terrible. I'm using the Civil Rights issue as an example of areas where someone objective (ie: not radical one way or the other) could see "liberties" crossing lines.
Again, blanket statements and absolutes make you sound loony. Just because I don't believe that people should be allowed to do everything they want (as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others) doesn't mean I think people should have no liberties.
Once again, for EXAMPLE, just because I don't think people should be allowed to ban blacks from restaurants does not I support EVERYTHING being regulated by government. Make sense? Probably not to you, but to someone who doesn't look at everything through a "My way or it's wrong" lens it makes sense.
You're being dishonest now, you've been attempting to shift the discussion but I'll play along.
Let's talk civil rights sense you have an agenda to paint libertarians and myself specifically as loonies.
Yes I like almost all libertarian oppose the civil rights act on the grounds the federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate how private individuals conduct business no matter how stupid or disgusting we personally find it. You disagreeing and supporting legislation to dictate private behavior from the federal government doesn't mean your anti liberty it means you'll compromise and seek government oversight so long as it fits your notion of right and wrong. Here's where your logic is flawed, when you give power to government to correct social injustices that power is permanent. The same institution that created injustices such as slavery and segregation you've now given the power to correct as they see fit social injustices. You'll never legislate morality you'll only lose liberty trying.
Now spin away....
Quote:You disagreeing and supporting legislation to dictate private behavior from the federal government doesn't mean your anti liberty it means you'll compromise and seek government oversight so long as it fits your notion of right and wrong.
We are getting somewhere. The rest of your post was just noise, but at least we are getting somewhere with this sentence. I also believe that this is the closest you'll get to opening your eyes and realize that not everyone has to agree with radical idealism to be justified in their views. I'll leave it at that. Have a nice night.
Quote:And what about all those years before 9/11?
All they data and tech didn't stop the boston bombings? Guess we haven't given up enough privacy up, bring on the cameras America! Land of the free right?
Its been proven that the years before 9/11 the previous administrations did not take the threat of a attack on American soil seriously.
As for the Boston Bombings, in case you didnt realize, they have surveillance video of the attack, something that you hate because it violates your privacy right?
Anyways, the FBI and HS was able to quickly arrest the suspect and isolate him and determine whether or not he was connected to a terror group. Which included executing a search warrant, and also doing a background check of all his associates. Oh I forgot, you hate that they were doing a background check on some of his associates that had no connection to the attack.
Carry on..........................
Quote:Its been proven that the years before 9/11 the previous administrations did not take the threat of a attack on American soil seriously.
As for the Boston Bombings, in case you didnt realize, they have surveillance video of the attack, something that you hate because it violates your privacy right?
Anyways, the FBI and HS was able to quickly arrest the suspect and isolate him and determine whether or not he was connected to a terror group. Which included executing a search warrant, and also doing a background check of all his associates. Oh I forgot, you hate that they were doing a background check on some of his associates that had no connection to the attack.
Carry on..........................
Maybe if people would have "grown a set" they could have stopped the Boston bombings.
:pinch:
Quote:Its been proven that the years before 9/11 the previous administrations did not take the threat of a attack on American soil seriously.
As for the Boston Bombings, in case you didnt realize, they have surveillance video of the attack, something that you hate because it violates your privacy right?
Anyways, the FBI and HS was able to quickly arrest the suspect and isolate him and determine whether or not he was connected to a terror group. Which included executing a search warrant, and also doing a background check of all his associates. Oh I forgot, you hate that they were doing a background check on some of his associates that had no connection to the attack.
Carry on..........................
All that and you still can't prevent bad people from doing bad things, that's the point.
Quote:Your lack of respect for the victims of 9/11 continues to amaze me. "They had BOX CUTTERS supposedly. Ohhhh my so scary.". Are you 14 years old or something? This type of disrespect coming from an adult would be utterly embarrassing.
I think the point now is that you can either die fighting, win fighting, or get flown into a building, but waiting it out isn't the option that it used to be. Which is unfortunate, in the 70s and 80s the terrorists were professionals working on a political agenda, not zealots working to kill the unbelievers.
Quote:All that and you still can't prevent bad people from doing bad things, that's the point.
Doing bad things like what? Commit multiple terrorism acts to where hundreds if not thousands of people are injured or killed.
I see you didnt refute my point I made about the Boston bombings and how everything was under surveillance, and how the suspect and his family/friends were under surveillance as well.
Quote:Doing bad things like what? Commit multiple terrorism acts to where hundreds if not thousands of people are injured or killed.
I see you didnt refute my point I made about the Boston bombings and how everything was under surveillance, and how the suspect and his family/friends were under surveillance as well.
Yes I did and that's my point, all that surveillance and it didn't stop a damn thing. Isn't they why I'm supposed to give up all my liberty for security?
Quote:I don't want the fear of "terrorist" being used to trump individual liberty and freedom. That's the compromise programs like the TSA, NSA, and Homeland require from you.
If the TSA/HS handled border security you would be ok with them being extremely intrusive and compromising individual liberty and freedom though. I don't see how that is different than the TSA doing the things they do.
Quote:Yes I did and that's my point, all that surveillance and it didn't stop a damn thing. Isn't they why I'm supposed to give up all my liberty for security?
To be fair it did help to stop them from doing it again.
Quote:If the TSA/HS handled border security you would be ok with them being extremely intrusive and compromising individual liberty and freedom though. I don't see how that is different than the TSA doing the things they.
There's a difference in how we treat foreigners coming into the country and civilians. As a foreigner coming into America you don't have protected constitutional rights, once you assimilate and become a citizen you do.
If we attempted to secure the border half as well as we attempt to secure airports we'd be 100 times more secure.
Quote:To be fair it did help to stop them from doing it again.
You don't consider the Boston Bombings terrorist actions?
Quote:There's a difference in how we treat foreigners coming into the country and civilians. As a foreigner coming into America you don't have protected constitutional rights, once you assimilate and become a citizen you do.
If we attempted to secure the border half as well as we attempt to secure airports we'd be 100 times more secure.
Spent about 7 months in Toronto for work and made multiple trips to/from Florida. Was constantly harassed by US border security and multiple times had my baggage searched. Not once for either going into Canada...
Quote:Spent about 7 months in Toronto for work and made multiple trips to/from Florida. Was constantly harassed by US border security and multiple times had my baggage searched. Not once for either going into Canada...
Canada isn't suffering from the same blow back we are. We've ticked off half the world with our puppet states. Canada also doesn't have a cartel ran government south of it's border, Mexico is a direct threat to our national security.
Quote:Canada isn't suffering from the same blow back we are. We've ticked off half the world with our puppet states. Canada also doesn't have a cartel ran government south of it's border, Mexico is a direct threat to our national security.
Still my bags were searched multiple times. That's ok with you but not having them search on domestic flights? For perspective I have over 200k miles flying with delta domestically and have never had additional screening past the scanners and xray belts.
It doesn't bother my either way. I just kind of accept it for it is and roll with it. I'm just saying it's just as bad. Driving back from Mexico you take the chance of being searched seemingly randomly in the same manner.
Quote:Yes I did and that's my point, all that surveillance and it didn't stop a damn thing. Isn't they why I'm supposed to give up all my liberty for security?
I like your passion for how you feel about certain political topics, but you have a dangerous way of thinking when it comes to homeland security.
For you to say, or even consider you are giving up your liberty for security is a bit radical, or a tad Micheal Moorish.
Are you just annoyed at the fact that you have to be more alert when you are in a large group setting that is a prime target for terrorist?
Did you share these same sentiments about HS the few years after 9/11?
Quote:I like your passion for how you feel about certain political topics, but you have a dangerous way of thinking when it comes to homeland security.
For you to say, or even consider you are giving up your liberty for security is a bit radical, or a tad Micheal Moorish.
Are you just annoyed at the fact that you have to be more alert when you are in a large group setting that is a prime target for terrorist?
Did you share these same sentiments about HS the few years after 9/11?
Initially post 9:11 I was as war hawkish as any other red blooded American it wasn't until years later stepping back and examining what's happend sense that I've changed my stance. Ron Paul is right what happend on 9/11 was tragic but at best predictable based upon our actions in the Middle East.
Blow back is real every action has a reaction. Instead of ending our nation building campaigns were embarking on more, we're arming more rebels that will turn on us in the next decade, we're ignoring our borders where the real danger lies and focusing on establishing a total police state at home.
Ignoring every conspiracy theory there is the reality still remains one institution is the greatest threat to me and you and that's government not some dirt poor jihadi across an ocean and desert that can't afford the ammo for an ak without our funding. I don't deny radical Islam hates us or wants us gone, but they've felt that way about everyone for decades. It wasn't until we made them rich buying oil and arming them to establish puppet states that they could do anything about it.