Skip to comments.
There Will Be No Civil Liberties If We Lose This War
The New Media Journal.us ^
| December 30, 2005
| Frank Salvato
Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401-419 next last
The writer nails this one. I am amazed the "civil liberatarians" have no care whatsoever for how their efforts will hurt the American people as a whole.
1
posted on
01/01/2006 2:55:54 PM PST
by
SunSetSam
To: SunSetSam
2
posted on
01/01/2006 2:58:42 PM PST
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: SunSetSam
3
posted on
01/01/2006 3:00:15 PM PST
by
StarCMC
(Old Sarge is my hero...doing it right in Iraq! Vaya con Dios, Sarge.)
To: SunSetSam
"I am amazed the "civil liberatarians" have no care whatsoever for how their efforts will hurt the American people as a whole."
Don't be. The ACLU crowd are a classic example of "the man that cut off his nose to spite his face."
4
posted on
01/01/2006 3:00:47 PM PST
by
Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
To: ncountylee
"Lose and become Iran."
Yup. Couldn't have said it better.
Freedom isn't free.
5
posted on
01/01/2006 3:01:20 PM PST
by
DougJ
To: ncountylee
Lose and become Iran. Win and become what? A country where the rule of law is only adhered to when convenient?
To: SunSetSam
Maybe when a few Liberals are at a cafe, and the sudden burst of light and fire erupts around them, will finally understand this one point. What good are civil liberties if YOU'RE DEAD!
7
posted on
01/01/2006 3:01:31 PM PST
by
mosquewatch.com
("The enemy is anyone who will get you killed, no matter what side they are on.")
To: SunSetSam
You bet he nails it. There's not a supposition in this piece that I would disagree with it.
8
posted on
01/01/2006 3:03:12 PM PST
by
OldPossum
To: Sola Veritas
That is because they are so obsessed in one area that they lose perspective regarding the complete issue.
9
posted on
01/01/2006 3:04:19 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: SunSetSam
This is just another example of why there should have been a formal declaration of war after September 11, 2001. Against whom?
Those on the progressive left have just begun mentally chewing on what for them is a gargantuan idea, that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are but battles in a much more monumental war. Those who understand the danger facing our country have come to the realization that there are two major fronts in our struggle for survival; the physical front (locations of armed conflict) and the ideological front (where the battles for the mind of a society take place).
These are major battles in a larger war. Every time a terrorist is killed or a terrorist cell ripped apart, a minor skirmish is won. Yet the minor skirmish is a major battle to those specific combatants.
The writer nails this one. I am amazed the "civil liberatarians" have no care whatsoever for how their efforts will hurt the American people as a whole.
What makes you think they don't want the Islamists to win. What has the ACLU done in my lifetime (55 years) to suggest that they want the United States to exist as a going concern or exist at all, for that matter?
10
posted on
01/01/2006 3:08:58 PM PST
by
stevem
To: SunSetSam
There Will Be No Civil Liberties If We Lose This War Sure there will, as long as you convert to worshipping the moon god at a fever pitch, and you're not a woman or a small farm animal with your rear end exposed.
11
posted on
01/01/2006 3:09:59 PM PST
by
TADSLOS
(Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
To: stevem
Against whom?The War against the Barbary Pirates is an excellent example that should have been followed. Warfare need not be against a specific nation or state.
To: stevem
What makes you think they don't want the Islamists to win. What has the ACLU done in my lifetime (55 years) to suggest that they want the United States to exist as a going concern or exist at all, for that matter?
The ACLU, a lot of the Democrats, and the Islamic nut cases all have the same goal - destroy this country.
13
posted on
01/01/2006 3:18:22 PM PST
by
penowa
To: SunSetSam
Great article, yet the author pretty much regards the left as loyal opposition. They are not. They share the same near term goal of the islamists, the military defeat of the US.
The end goal of the left after our defeat is the creation of a utopian socialist society. They will (ab)use our Constitution to get there.
14
posted on
01/01/2006 3:21:25 PM PST
by
Jacquerie
(Democrats soil institutions)
To: SunSetSam; MeekOneGOP; potlatch; ntnychik; PhilDragoo; Happy2BMe; dixiechick2000; ...
15
posted on
01/01/2006 3:22:23 PM PST
by
devolve
(<-- (-in a manner reminiscent of Senator Gasbag F. Kohnman-)
To: Non-Sequitur
Licoln suspended habeas corpus; FDR locked people up in a mental hospital for the duration.
A little domestic spying is the LEAST of people's civil liberties problems: unless you are a terrorist.
16
posted on
01/01/2006 3:22:34 PM PST
by
clee1
(We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
To: devolve
Victory is a strategy. Someone needs to tell Murtha that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.
17
posted on
01/01/2006 3:25:43 PM PST
by
stevem
To: Non-Sequitur
I love when people with no historical perspective, no knowledge of history, and no regard for a very real enemy decide to post. Do a little research and look up what Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton did to protect national security. Despite the fact that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR interned anybody who looked Japanese, and Clinton did unwarranted searches on a suspected Russian spy (it's amazing that now Clinton has to politically separate himself from one of the few times he did the right thing) civil liberties to do anything that doesn't include Christian beliefs are at an all time high.
To: clee1
Licoln suspended habeas corpus; FDR locked people up in a mental hospital for the duration. Lincoln didn't violate the law when doing it. And I'd be interested in documentation on your FDR claims.
A little domestic spying is the LEAST of people's civil liberties problems: unless you are a terrorist.
And who decided who is a terrorist?
To: Non-Sequitur
Win and become what? A country where the rule of law is only adhered to when convenient? Classic heads-I-win-tails-you-lose scenario.
20
posted on
01/01/2006 3:32:37 PM PST
by
garbanzo
(Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 401-419 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson