Quote:
Originally posted by T-Rav@Nov 19 2002, 10:43 AM
JR, once again I think your argument is contradictory. You yell and scream at the Liberals for being "paranoid" and "fear mongers", when they bring up the possibility that some of our privacies may be infinged on. Then you claim that internal security (spying on our citizens) is necessary because of the terrorists threats. That is just as paranoid. It is not logical to accuse one group of using fear and then ignore the same tactic by another group. If you truly believe passing these laws making it easier to spy on our citizens will protect us from terrorists, then say so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are paranoid, I am paranoid, "they" are paranoid. We are all paranoid, but for different reasons.
My opinion on this is that making it easier to spy on citizens does not make us any safer.
Now here comes the part where JR says that the terrorist threat is real. OK, lets assume that it is. That does not give the government the right to spy on our citizens. You pay a price for freedom sometimes. Some of us are willing to take the risks and pay the price. Others want complete and total security. News flash, you ain't gonna get it.
|
i dont think i am being contradictory. i am saying that people cant have it both ways. you cant demand increased security and safety and not expect it to come with a price.
you said:
"Then you claim that internal security (spying on our citizens) is necessary because of the terrorists threats. That is just as paranoid."
I dont think its paranoid to point out that terrorism is real. around 3000 people were killed on 9/11. That was a terrorist attack. those same people are trying to kill americans, french, russians, isrealis, austrailians etc etc etc. its happening right now. its nothing new. to say terrorism is not a threat is to say that these things are NOT happening.
i beleive that terrorism is real.
i beleive that the government should have the tools to deal with it.
that was a fundamental purpose of forming the Homeland Security department... to eleminate the beurocracy in information sharing and jurisdictions when it comes to these matters.
It IS paranoid to use scare tactics about "what might be" and scare people with the notion that "big brother is coming to get us".
i dont think it is the same it is a "scare tactic" to point out that our lives are in danger because terrorism is real. thats just a fact. you characterize it as a scare tactic.
i dont expect "complete and total security". i dont recall ever asking for it or demanding it.
i will say this:
there is no way to get the bad guys, without making it possible to better surveil, follow, track, detain and arrest them.
i am just one of those people that fails to understand what rights i am losing.
Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 19 2002, 11:32 AM