Replies

>>>... the USA Patriot Act, probably the most unconstitutional piece of legislation ever...

First off, I think under the circumstances, with America being at war, the Patriot Act is a good piece of legislation.

>>>This is not libertarian nonsense, it is just pure common sense.

Okay, it's just pure nonsense then. As for common sense, sitting back and doing nothing, isn't common sense in my book.

>>>I take the following to heart, and perhaps you should too:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". ~ Benjamin Franklin

LIke I said, in my original reply at RE:#6, You can't have freedom without security and with all due respect to old Ben Franklin, you can't have liberty without safety.

First off, I think under the circumstances, with America being at war, the Patriot Act is a good piece of legislation.

What is forgotten far too often is that the constitution was written for times of peace and times of war.

Congress has given the Executive branch undue power during every major conflict, under the guise of "temporary and necessary", yet not one of them has been revoked. This kind of power would have been inconceivable during the last conflict, just as national ID cards and fingerprinting every citizen are now. If we allow a little more power during every conflict, it has and will continue to, lead down a long slippery slope to a police state.

"You can't have freedom without security and with all due respect to old Ben Franklin, you can't have liberty without safety.

Giggle, snort, guffaw. Below is a few lines from an article, dated today, from the British press. I've bolded a few that lines that show that, once handed over, big gov doesn't like to release their authoritarian powers.

snip - Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said the new powers, to be enshrined in law next week, will remain useable only under carefully monitored circumstances.

"These powers are not taken lightly," he said, stressing the safeguards involved.

He said information could only be sought on grounds of national security, crime prevention, Britain's economic wellbeing, public safety or public health, tax or duty matters, to prevent death or any damage to a person's health.

But pressure groups were furious at the long arm of the law being allowed to stretch further.

"I am appalled at this huge increase in the scope of government snooping," Ian Brown, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research told the Guardian newspaper.

"Two years ago, we were deeply concerned that these powers were to be given to the police without any judicial oversight. Now they are handing them out to a practically endless queue of bureaucrats in Whitehall and town halls. end-snip"

The U.S. is (and has been) heading in exactly the same direction as the UK for years. First their guns, now their privacy. What do you suppose they'll lose next? I hope your children and grandchildren enjoy living in the cage being built for them.

First off, I think under the circumstances, with America being at war, the Patriot Act is a good piece of legislation.

Why do you call yourself "Reagan Man",when you are obviously a statist? I ask this as a serious question,not as a slam.

LIke I said, in my original reply at RE:#6, You can't have freedom without security and with all due respect to old Ben Franklin, you can't have liberty without safety.

HorseHillary! You will NEVER have freedom as long as you depend on anyone else for your safety and security! The Founding Fathers clearly chose liberty over safety when they decided to break away from England and become a sovereign nation. The "safe thing to have done" would have been to remain subjects of the English Crown. This is especially true for the leaders,who were all wealthy men who stood to lose everything.