nonsense and insult. The families and friends of those 9/11 have to grieve for the losses. But how many have we killed in return? How many civilians, how many terrorists? Not to mention the losses to our own side from the fighting. What about their families, what about their friends? More people die per year in car accidents than were killed in 9/11. Should we declare war on the automobile? I mean, think of their friends and family. What a crappy and intellectually dishonest appeal to emotion.
My goodness, are you serious?
I comment that certain folks would disagree with your comments that the threat of terrorism is some false, trumped up psychological effort to drum up support for expanding government power and wars and your response is this? You suggest I am appealing to emotion? Hardly. You say terrorism ain't a threat, that it is powerless, that it is an irrational fear. The folks I cited certainly don't believe that terrorism shoudl not be feared or that fear of terrorism is some trumped up and irrational pschological game.
How do you know that Madam Cleo? Or are you just assuming? Some things are ok so long as cases are built on gathered evidence and that proper protocol is followed. We're free from unreasonable search and seizure (though the government does this a lot, especially with drugs and alcohol), so the authority must first gather evidence, and then must go through the proper channels to obtain warrants. And the process should be tedious and difficult.
I am drawing an implication from your own comments.
You seem to be doing it yourself, so what can't I? If it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided; what's the purpose of trying to do so? Shouldn't we have just gone about our daily business and live with it? What's the purpose of the PA, what's the purpose of the War on Terror? If none of it can be stopped, than why do it? To decrease frequency? To make it look like we're doing something?
You're being obtuse.
There was plenty already in the government's power that it could have done. Consolidated agencies, increase communication between different agencies, refocus attention on certain groups, etc. It didn't need more power, it had enough.
What "more power" are you talking about?
Specifics, please.
more insult...seems to be your style. Were we not told not so long ago that there will be a biological terrorist attack sometime soon? Hmm...
Were we?
We do the same, we call it war. So what, strap a bomb to yourself and it's an act of terrorism; drop it out of a plane and it's an act of defense?
My God, what a sickening display of moral relativism. No wonder you think the way you do.
And what about all the people we kill, do they count? No? Here you are trying to tell me all the things terrorists do and why we should be careful when just above this quote, you're saying the opposite. They can strike at any moment, they drop massive skyscrapers on thousands of us, they kill people and destroy naval warships (it wasn't destroyed, it was crippled). What a bunch of BS this is.
BS 'cuz we have not been struck by terrorists for the past thirty years, huh? :roll:
I love how you just dismiss terrorism as some irrational psychological condition.
Did you not say it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided? If it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided; than doesn't that mean that on some level we have to live with it?
No, it doesn't mean we should just live it. We don't just live with pedophiles, rapists, and burglars, do we?
FISA for one. Does the SCOTUS even get to review that court?
It's not a secret court. And if SCOTUS had reviewed it would you all-of-a-sudden be accepting of such a secret court?
Need I remind you that FISA was created in the 1970s and not by the PA?
making warrantless easier to obtain (all warrantless wiretaps should be done away with)
Do you see what you're typing?
Making warrantless easier to obtain? If it's warrantless, there's nothing to obtain, right? :roll:
Maybe you should try being more specific, eh?
Search and seizure, privacy, redress, etc.
Where are these "loopholes?" What? Search and seizure didn't exist pre PA? What privacy loopholes are there? LMAO!!
Or is it you whom are trying to excuse gross increase in government size and power without fully understanding the consequences for doing so?
Clown, I already expressed my discontent with DHS.
So your hyperbole and dismissals make it so you can misrepresent and throw out an argument. Interesting way of "debate". I'd call it a temper tantrum, but que sera sera. The real threat to freedom and liberty is not posed by terrorists, but by ourselves and our own government.
:roll:
Who is arguing that the "real" threat to freedom and liberty is terrorism? Not me.
Yes, I've gotten the point through your mix mash of "logic" and "argument" that you were merely trying to lay down insult to dismiss an argument that dare be counter to your own. I understand your ilk's way of "debate". If you're not with us, your against us.
LOL!
