[riley1992]

"We are in a new world," declared Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, the House minority leader. He told Reuter last week that "we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties. But we are not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had."

You just completely contradicted yourself in the same breath, you idiot.

[riley1992]

Cynthia Vespa, 35, of Harrison Township is ready to accept anything that will make her three children more secure.

And so it begins.

[ResistorSister]

You know, we counted on those folks in congress that I believe are for the most part idiots, to keep our country safe. They were not able to do it.

We better start telling those clowns in the Federal government that we do not want them making wide-sweeping security laws against American's rights. We want them to protect this country's borders. But we will protect our states, cities, and towns.

[wysiwyg]

Freep this poll.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Sobering.

[ingeborg]

Let's see, I can think of a whole list of things that need to be curbed. Those subwoofers that create a fog of brain-deadening noise so that you cannot listen for danger . . .

[gore3000]

The only thing they have proposed for the airlines that could have stopped this is armed guards in every plane. Every other measure being proposed would not have done anything to stop this. They apparently had legitimate ids, they did not have guns, even if they had not allowed any metal onboard, knives can be made of almost anything.

Where there is a will there is a way. We know that terrorism requires the support of a government to finance it, train the terrorists, get them their weapons, pick possible targets, and get them the information they need for their evil deeds. We need to get rid of ALL the governments that support terrorism. Destroying our freedoms will not stop this.

[Dahoser]

One thing we need to distinguish between is erosion of our civil liberties versus erosion of the convenience in attending entertainment events, etc., because if we do not, we surely shall lose our civil liberties. Those who wish to take them away want us to complain about going through a metal detector at Yankee Stadium so they can loudly proclaim how no one has the right to watch a baseball game while they quietly move to erase protections from searches and seizures, and abridgement of speech.

[Caipirabob]

There are compromises that you make for your nation in times of war in order to preserve and pass on such rights and liberties to the next generation. Many us of have never been subjected to such times so this may seem a fearful change, but I see it as part of the sacrifices we need to make in order to wage and win a war. If we begin to see a siege mentality kick in, then we need to become concern, for such abuse of civil rights without a state of war is intolerable and America will simply consume itself from within. Otherwise I see this as simply part of the sacrifices we need to make to save the nation and the ideals upon which America was founded for the next generation. We've had it so good for so long that such a sacrifice may be offensive to some in this generation, but I see it as no more than those who laid down their lives in service to our nation to save it for us to enjoy.

[The Raven]

I'd give some liberties to Bush - except for one thing. I trust him. In the future, we may have Hillary (although her chances are slimmer, now) or who knows what kind of future leader we may have.

[The Raven]

Are we now rethinking confiscation of guns???? I haven't heard much about the second amendment recently.

[ICU812]

Bookmark. Saw this coming.

Kill the bad guys, don't take our liberties!

[Maquisard]

And just remember folks, If you don't tote the govenment line, Then you will find yourself named a "Terrorist".

[SUSSA]

The terrorists already won. They wanted to destroy our way of life and congress is doing the job for them.

[DWSUWF]

There are ALWAYS those slobbering, room-temperature IQ shills who are willing to stand in line with their liberties in a paper bag, waiting to hand them to a soldier armed with a gun in exchange for a paper chit with the word 'Security' written on it.

These liberty scorning pigs are FAR greater threats to our nation than the terrorists who attacked us.

And they (together with the home-grown fascists who are dictating to them) deserve to suffer precisely the same fate.

[verity]

""My 5-year-old daughter asked me, 'Are they (terrorists) coming to Graham Elementary next?' " Vespa related. "I said, 'Honey, I hope not, we're going to do everything we can to keep you safe.even though we follow riley1992's advice to paint a big bullseye on your school. "

[gjenkins]

How do we combat terrorism without destroying liberty? I would propose that the only way is if we 1. Quickly and overwhelmingly punish those responsible 2. Show that it does not change our life in the least and therfore is futile.

[Don Myers]

The socialists are getting what they have wanted all along. Isn't anyone smelling something wierd yet?

[HENRYADAMS]

When people lack the necessary internal controls and confuse license with liberty then it becomes necessary that controls be imposed from external sources. This is a law eternal.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The "freedom versus security" tradeoff is a false choice. 

The WTC attack did not occur because Americans have too much freedom. 

It occurred because:

1. U.S. border/immigration policy (or selective enforcement thereof) allowed known terrorists to enter and remain in the country while attending flight school.

2. The terrorists were able to gain access to the cockpits of the hijacked aircraft.

The fact that William Cohen, Dick Gephardt and other statists propound that the only solution to terrorism is to "trade freedom for security" betrays the reality that their true agenda is to curtail freedom.

[IronJack]

We now all understand changes have to be made for our safety, and we must accept that."

We must NEVER accept that. It is an admission that the loonies won.