Ron Paul: A New Hope.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So other than turning Americans into a bunch of pussies what has it done to this country?
That was not an attack by a country. We as a country have never been threatened by a country that we did not directly provoke.
Also, it wasn’t catastrophic. It killed less than .001% of the population. A catastrophe would have totally wiped this country off the face of the Earth. It will never happen.
The values of liberty are greater than a mere 3000 people.[/quote]
Where to begin?
Outside of you pathetic nihilism and your completely laughable “tough guy” routine - 9/11 has emasculated America? - I say we play your game manipulating statistics.
The Patriot Act likely affects less than .001% of the population - so it’s worth keeping around, right?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Patriot Act likely affects less than .001% of the population - so it’s worth keeping around, right?
[/quote]
How do you compare these two ideas? The patriot act is completely unconstitutional. When government interferes with liberty it affects everyone. Your rights are no more secure than someone who would do us wrong – how does that help?
Just because I wouldn’t define 9/11 as “catastrophic” doesn’t mean I don’t think the criminals shouldn’t be brought to justice. I am just not willing to commit an act of war in seeing it done.
The good doctor on PBS. This interview was a little more congenial than the one on O’Reily:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do you compare these two ideas? The patriot act is completely unconstitutional.[/quote]
I suspect you are just repeating what you read on LewRockwell.com and you actually don’t have much of an idea.
The Patriot Act actually does help ferret out terrorists and save some lives - and if the cost is only harming less than .001%, it’s not “catastrophic” (in your own view), so there is no harm?
What - 3000 people losing their ultimate liberty (the right to exist) is hardly catastrophic, but one person losing their liberty (being spied on, for example) is a catastrophe?
So the the passage of the Patriot Act is more harmful to America than a terror attack that kills 3000 people.
Let’s review your terms:
(a) 3000 Americans killed by foreign terrorists as a political act = non-catastrophic crime committed
(b) Passage of the Patriot Act = catastrophic act of war
As if I needed more proof of your lack of seriousness.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is the best coverage yet:
“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.”
And yet the WTC was destroyed and the Pentagon was severely damaged…
And all your military could not prevent it, so it is hardly a good reason to stockpile weapons.
Are all austrians this naive, or is it just you? Oh wait…I forgot…you’re the jealous one.
Naive?
If 3000 dead are a “catastrophe” and 2 towers are an “enormous” economic damage and all that was began a “war”, is it not interesting that the most powerful army in history could not prevent it?
More weaponry is hardly the answer and applying old solutions to new problems is what destroys empires.
LOL!
[/quote]
You do not even pretend to have a brain, do you?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I suspect you are just repeating what you read on LewRockwell.com and you actually don’t have much of an idea.
[/quote]
We have these two bills of writ that specifically provide for due process. I am pretty sure there is no wording in the rest of the document that give the gov’t permission to spy. Why do you think the patriot act is costitutional? Please show in the constituion where it is provided – please also remember Amendment X.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Why do you not understand that government hegemony is more disastrous than a criminal act? Criminal acts will not destroy this country but our government will.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do you compare these two ideas? The patriot act is completely unconstitutional.
I suspect you are just repeating what you read on LewRockwell.com and you actually don’t have much of an idea.
When government interferes with liberty it affects everyone. Your rights are no more secure than someone who would do us wrong – how does that help?
The Patriot Act actually does help ferret out terrorists and save some lives - and if the cost is only harming less than .001%, it’s not “catastrophic” (in your own view), so there is no harm?
What - 3000 people losing their ultimate liberty (the right to exist) is hardly catastrophic, but one person losing their liberty (being spied on, for example) is a catastrophe?
Just because I wouldn’t define 9/11 as “catastrophic” doesn’t mean I don’t think the criminals shouldn’t be brought to justice. I am just not willing to commit an act of war in seeing it done.
So the the passage of the Patriot Act is more harmful to America than a terror attack that kills 3000 people.
Let’s review your terms:
(a) 3000 Americans killed by foreign terrorists as a political act = non-catastrophic crime committed
(b) Passage of the Patriot Act = catastrophic act of war
As if I needed more proof of your lack of seriousness.
[/quote]
If you put up any more strawmen this becomes Summersisle.
Do you need them for a good harvest?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Terrorists blow up the twin towers and also damage the Pentagon and you don’t think that’s catastrophic.
[/quote]
So what? How did that make America worse off?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Okay, stupid I’ll review this really fast as I don’t want to spend much time with someone who is so mentally “challenged”.
Your logic sucks (as usual). Because our hardware could not prevent the terrorist attack does not mean that it has nothing to do with preventing future attacks.
That I would actually have to inform anyone of this over the age of say 16 is shocking.
Now go something productive with your time like making austrian pudding or washing the dishes…oh that’s right you use paper plates… Every time that you post you sound like a retard.
An anti American retard.
[/quote]
So next time they blow up a train, a bridge or poison the water supply the mighty US military will do what exactly?
Count the bodies and confiscate the guns of the survivors?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Are you saying that this act helped us? If it didn’t help us then we are worse off right?
[/quote]
Don’t be stupid. It didn’t help or hurt the US. It was a crime. It didn’t “hurt” America any more than any other murder hurts this country. It sucks for those involved, no doubt, but I wouldn’t say it was detrimental to American society as a whole – except for where it allowed our government more control over us.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We have these two bills of writ that specifically provide for due process. I am pretty sure there is no wording in the rest of the document that give the gov’t permission to spy. Why do you think the patriot act is costitutional? Please show in the constituion where it is provided – please also remember Amendment X.[/quote]
And I am pretty sure the 4th Amendment protects against “unreasonable” searches and seizures - and the qualifier is not superfluous. National security - as a prerogative of the executive branch - gets a great deal of deference in the exercise of those constitutional powers. Warrantless searches can be “reasonable” if basic law enforcement probable-cause standards are impractical. National security certainly qualifies - in fact, there is no greater need for the exception than national security.
The “reasonableness” term means something - and it was no accident the Founding Fathers put it in in order to leave a class of actions available in times of national emergency. They were infinitely smarter than revisionist libertarians, and the phrasing is no mistake of history.
The Constitution was not written to be a suicide pact, where the provisions protecting liberty were to be used by enemies to destroy those very provisions.
And it is always worth quoting “government hegemonist” and “fascist”…er, wait, I mean libertarian patron-saint Thomas Jefferson to emphasize the point of the Constitution not being a suicide pact:
The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.
[quote]orion wrote:
If you put up any more strawmen this becomes Summersisle.
Do you need them for a good harvest?[/quote]
Wait, is this another time when you know better than me what I am thinking and you can boast “I know, and I am right”?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
So, you’re saying that the terrorist attacks were neither good nor bad for the country, they were simply neutral.
Is that correct? [/quote]
Lifticus is feverishly searching LewRockwell.com to find out what he is supposed to believe so he can answer your question.