tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post112046431545643045..comments2023-06-08T07:55:06.778-04:00Comments on PHREADOM: Independence DayJStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-1120780122383976332005-07-07T19:48:00.000-04:002005-07-07T19:48:00.000-04:00christianconservativefreak: glad that we agree on ...christianconservativefreak: glad that we agree on that. :) thanks!JStressmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-1120642938656428482005-07-06T05:42:00.000-04:002005-07-06T05:42:00.000-04:00I think I was speaking more generally of the actio...I think I was speaking more generally of the actions of the rebels themselves. which history does actually validate.<BR/><BR/>beyond that, you've really lost me, because from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like anything I disagree with... or more to the point, that it sounds like what I do believe and advocate.<BR/><BR/>as for the last part, I do <I>not</I> agree with you there. I think it's ridiculous of you to even infer that the risk of being a victim of a terrorist act is justification enough to give up my privacy. I'd rather take the risk of being blown up by islamic militants than you very much... as the chances of this happening are about as great as me being attacked by a shark. and I'm sorry, but I don't spend my days fretting over an imminent shark attack, or being struck by lightning. I go about my daily business, thankful for my civil liberties and privacy etc.<BR/><BR/>fucking ridiculous. seriously.<BR/><BR/>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."<BR/><BR/>attribute that to whom you will (usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin), but the point generally stands (although I'm sure you'd love to debate that as well). when you start giving up your most basic rights in order to gain some false sense of security (remember, the terrorists who blew up the WTC were all caught on camera... did that stop the attack? not at all. or how about the gun laws in effect during Columbine? nope. not at all.), you really are just screwing yourself on both counts.<BR/><BR/>what you fail to realize is that the government is so saturated in information with it's orgiastic gluttonous gathering... with it's cameras and databases etc.. that BY FAR... and I mean FAR AND AWAY by far... the only real effect that it has is losing your privacy. criminals don't obey the law and this crap isn't helping to slow them down... all it MIGHT do is help after the fact to catch them... in which case generally the normal law would apply anyway. in the meantime thought MILLIONS and MILLIONS of absolutely innocent people are losing their rights because people like YOU foolishly and ignorantly think "well, if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?".<BR/><BR/>and I know you're smart enough to have read books on that subject Gabe. honestly I'm a little shocked that you'd write something so ridiculous here.JStressmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-1120618432144469852005-07-05T22:53:00.000-04:002005-07-05T22:53:00.000-04:00On terrorists...Actually, that has very little bas...On terrorists...<BR/><BR/>Actually, that has very little basis in fact considering the basis for the American Revolution was derived from the same natural law principles that were enshrined in the British Constitution. If one reads not simply Jefferson's _Declaration of Independence_ but also his previous tract _The Rights of British Americans_ you see a very sophisticated argument laid out for why, by the right of nature, the American colonies ought to be a self-governing entity. Such a view was predicated upon the British Constitution itself--it was not derived from a competing or even an alien ideology.<BR/><BR/>The legality or illegality of the actions of the Americans who rebelled against England really should not be an issue if one is concerned with the larger, universal right they appealed to over the positive law of England at the time. To sit with your logic would mean that a people are limited to the laws of their time and ought not to look for the higher principles which might make a better guide for how they live their lives or even organize society. By your reasoning, should we not look down at those who harbored Jews during the Nazi reign in Germany since they were breaking the law?<BR/><BR/>The trade off between freedom and security has always been there, only one has to wonder what freedoms we have really lost. If you think your library records are that sacred, then I suppose I pity you or anyone else who thinks the government having quicker access into possible links to any form of terrorism is not worth the fact they may discover someone checked out _Sex_ by Madonna two dozen times from the local library.<BR/><BR/>Anyhow...G Sanchezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11797757461858023882noreply@blogger.com