What do you consider to be a greater threat to America? Terror, or Loss of Liberty?

[Freedom Ninja]

This poll is totally serious. The outcome of this poll could very well have an impact on the next big decision big brother makes.

You're absolutely right. This poll is a matter of national security! get it? Because the poll is about, national... security. Oh nevermind.

Like it or not, realize it or not. safety, freedom, and liberty must live in stasis with one another. Without one you can not have any of the others. Think about it.

That statement is pretty much the exact opposite of how I feel about the issue. They certainly do not live "in stasis" with one another. Freedom and security are not yin and yang. It is not a harmonious symbiont relationship. To me, freedom and security share a similar relationship to that of life and death. One can not be sort of dead, or vice versa. It is just not accurate to say "Without one you can not have any of the others." What you meant to say was: [STRIKE]Without[/STRIKE] Because of one you can not have the other.

To me, detaining enemy combatants in Gauntamo is not anti-freedom, yet many would say it is. So I see no compromise of freedom in the detention of enemy combatants without trial.

I'm sure that is easy for you to say, considering you have never been detained by a foreign nation. What if Canadian officials crossed the border into the USA and decided that your unlicensed "assault rifle" and anti-socialist party rhetoric was a threat to their national security and had you detained indefinitely without trial or representation.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I can't say I'm surprised by the results of this poll, not one bit.. America needs to wake the **** up!

 

[jbombelli]

You must be one of those truly "brilliant" people that thinks 9/11 was an inside job. A troofer. I would be harsher to you, and explain what I think of your kind, but that post would probably be deleted, too.

 

[wrigleycub]

Isn't the constant assualt on our liberties by the marxist in Washigton domestic terrorism?

 

[Garb]

Isn't the constant assualt on our liberties by the marxist in Washigton domestic terrorism?

Shhh... they're probably reading this as we speak...

And in case you're wondering, I'm not joking.

 

[ocsdor]

You must be one of those truly "brilliant" people that thinks 9/11 was an inside job. A troofer. I would be harsher to you, and explain what I think of your kind, but that post would probably be deleted, too.

Here, have a 2nd serving:

The cattle cars will be by soon to take you to your "happy camp."

 

[jblomenberg16]

Loss of liberty as a result of "terrorism" and the threat thereof. It has already begun...

 

[wrigleycub]

Well good for then, maybe they can look into my background too. Here is what they might find. A direct descedent of an original father of this country. A holder of the truth, meaning documented in black white, why our country came to be, how it came to be, and what it could become! I know the truth doesn't much match all the hogwash propaganda taught in our schools (you know Plymouth rocks, mayflowers, and Indians with fish and tabacco). Sorry let me get off my box. I digress!

Shhh... they're probably reading this as we speak...

And in case you're wondering, I'm not joking.

 

[flagtag]

I, too, chose "loss of liberty".
Whether it's someone else, or our govenment who decides to curb or limit our liberty by whatever means at their disposal (unConstitutional laws or acts of violence), it amounts to the same.

WE have to decide if we will put up with it and let "them" know that WE are willing to take the chance as FREE AMERICANS! (Think about it - we live with threats everyday. Chemicals, auto accidents, crossing the street and getting hit by an auto, falling down the stairs, fires, etc.)

Unless you live in a large city, near a neuclear plant, military base, etc., you don't have to worry as much about "terrorist" acts.

NO legitimate excuse to limit/deny WE THE PEOPLE of our God given, Constitutionally protected rights! None.

Now, if we could just get "our" government to OBEY the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION................

 

[TopDog]

Loss of Liberty

America has no greater enemy then the enemy within.

 

[turnandshoot4]

To the OP.

Did you know you could show poll results?

 

[level.eleven]

Terror is a precursor to government limiting civil liberties. Fear and security - PoliSci 101.

 

[rjstew317]

Terror is a precursor to government limiting civil liberties. Fear and security - PoliSci 101.

thats kind of the way i see it as well. they use terror, and the threat of terror, as a way to impede our civil liberties. example: TSA, homeland security, ect...
it really has nothing to do with being afraid of an actual terrorist attack because the threat of one is all that is needed.

 

[flagtag]

Except that the "threat" doesn't work for everyone. Many feel that the "possible threat" isn't worth giving up even the least amount of liberty. (Speaking for myself here)

 

[rjstew317]

Except that the "threat" doesn't work for everyone. Many feel that the "possible threat" isn't worth giving up even the least amount of liberty. (Speaking for myself here)

i hear you, but the "threat of terror" makes it much easier for them to take your liberty.

 

[ghunter]

Loss of liberty will result in much more terror than we have now.

 

[Lars]

Why isn't "The apathy of the American Electorate" on the list.

That's a far bigger threat than the other two combined.....

 

[thompal]

As far as I'm concerned it became too late for that and became our affair when they murdered several thousand of my countrymen, followed by the joyous celebrations and tens of thousands of them dancing in the streets. I want every last one of them dead.

I understand that.

Here's my problem with the whole "US invades the middle east" scenario.

After 9/11, people were rightfully pissed with a certain flavor of middle easterner, but nobody knew exactly who they were. Sabers were rattled toward Iraq. Hussein said "we don't have nukes. We don't have a delivery system capable of reaching the US. Even if we did, we'd be stupid to ever consider doing that."

AT THE SAME TIME, North Korea was saying "we HAVE nukes. We HAVE a delivery system. And we might do a non-provoked preemptive strike on the US mainland."

So, of course, we invaded Iraq. Facts have shown that Hussein had no nukes, and no delivery system while NK obviously has nukes and delivery systems, and is absolutely insane.

Hussein was put in place by the US, mind you. As was the Shah in Iran. And why is the US so tolerant of Saudi Arabia, even though a large number of terrorists come from there? Is it because they let us have bases there, in exchange for our selling them hardware? There's also the inconvenient fact that the Taliban was supplied and trained by the US also.

They don't want us there. We don't want them here. We should just let them alone, but if anything tries to fly in or out of their little hell-hole, it dies. We don't buy one single thing from their corrupt little domain, and we don't let anyone sell anything at all to them. They want to be in charge of their own destiny, then our most effective retribution would be to let them rule themselves, but not one person more.

 

[rambone]

Why isn't "The apathy of the American Electorate" on the list.

That's a far bigger threat than the other two combined.....

Oh yeah.. this is far from a comprehensive list of all possible threats. I mainly wanted people to consider their "liberty vs. security" positions.

 

[MARK1]

Very simple short and sweet
i would much rather fear terrists
vs getting slowly dismantled by my
own brothers and sisters.
Lets clean our closet before we seek others!!!