Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
So, you're comfortable with the idea of wearing a head to toe garb with just your eyeballs visible behind a mesh screen?
'Live free or die; Death is not the worst of evils'
The most appropriate responses whenever this supposed dilemma is brought up.
Actually, the ACLU crowd is a classic example of someone who would cut of your nose to spite your face, but your point is well taken.
Shame on this Administration for preying on the irrational fears of timid people like you.
Is a terrorist just the ones who blow up buildings or does that include those that aid them? And if so how do you define aid? Is aid limited to materially assisting them or does it include moral support? And if it includes moral support then does that support include anyone who opposes the U.S. actions in Iraq? See? The whole question of who is a terrorist depends on who is doing the defining. The question of what laws should be followed and what laws can be ignored shouldn't be.
There are far too many appeasers on these boards. Probably because "their guy" is in charge.
And yes, your comment was in the right place.
The ACLU isn't interested in protecting civil liberties. It's interested in bashing President Bush. In the same way it trashes Christian holidays and values, but has no problem when California school districts order students to be Muslims for three weeks and pray to Allah.
bump for later read
Lolol No sarcasm tag needed on your post. My tag line speaks for me. :-)
Liberals, Democrats and Socialists in this country are blinded by by their hate for anything Republican.
They are also desperate to obtain and keep power. They would let this country be overrun with a 100 million illegals, if they thought it would bring them the vote....which is where we are headed.
The ACLU is not germane to my point.
There have been so many stories on this it's hard to know what actually happened. I've heard international calls only then it was international calls terminating in the U.S., then it was international calls originating in the U.S.
When an enemy of this country makes a phone call from overseas into our country, the president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the constitutional right and the duty to examine that phone call. It all falls under the current war being waged against al-qaeda.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Free, when convenient.
And you or I saying Bush didn't break the law doesn't make it so, either. All the facts need to be examined by competent authorities and the matter brought to trial if the evidence warrants. Only then can the statement that the law was or wasn't broken be made.
Right between abortion rights and gay marriages.
What good does it do to be alive, but not free.
"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
Islam cannot defeat us militarily. The only way for us to lose our civil liberties is at the hand (and jackboot) of our own government but only if we let it happen.
So you believe those to be Constitutional?
Crap! I forgot to ping you Badray! Head here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550421/posts
Both of those events took place at a time when more people and more people in government had an appreciation for liberty -- despite the extraconstitutional measure taken by government. Both were still wrong.
Nowadays, more people seem to care about safety, not liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.