A situation like what?

We're not in a state of emergency like Faux News would like to have you believe.

A situation like whether or not to use wiretapping. The Founding Fathers didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the Constitution or they would have used more specific language, I'm sure.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

In a world where ANYONE can put up mysterious devices made of wires and batteries on WALLS OUTDOORS, I think we need to entrust all our safety to the benevolent forces of the Government.

RON PAWL

...

: D *cuddle*

RON PAWL

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

yep cool story bro too bad money and taxes used for public funding and services aren't the same thing as liberty and so that's an invalid and unacceptable comparison by anyone's standards other than your own

yep cool story bro too bad that's not what we're talking about

yep cool story bro too bad money and taxes used for public funding and services aren't the same thing as liberty and so that's an invalid and unacceptable comparison by anyone's standards other than your own

Who made you arbitrator of all that is valid? By the very definition of liberty, having the gov't take your money away is an infringement on your liberty.

It's what we libertarians like to call a necessary evil, since, though forcibly removing wealth from people, it's the only way a people can function and flourish with benefits like roads and such available for public use. We do all that we can to minimize it, as voters, but still realize and maintain, with robust realism and precise action, that it must exist as a backbone for society.

And I'm not the arbitrator of all that is valid, but I think that you have to wait a sec before you try and reevaluate a significant founding father's words here, like say oh I don't know Ben Franklin.

And liberty cuddles?

Exactly what civil liberties are "they" taking from us? The right to talk about planting bombs and killing civilians?
Seriously, what do you lose?

Because the best "bad guys" or whatever you want to call them would have already encoded their messages after hearing about this. Heck, even FDR and Churchill back in their heyday had their telephone receivers all jacked up with doohickeys to talk to each other without getting intercepted. It's not new technology to bypass the wiretap and I don't think it would be of more use and wouldn't, thus, justify the liberty it seemingly revokes.

You're assuming that the government only will spy upon those who will definitely plant bombs and kill civilians. If you're merely suspected of planting bombs of killing civilians, some jerk in a black suit is recording your phone calls. All it really takes these days to be suspected is to be named "Reswan Abdulsalam," and have a family in back in Yemen who you talk to on a normal basis. Here, I'll pose a question to you; what does the FBI gain by having the power to monitor millions of people? I mean, other than power?


Hell though, the FBI doesn't even really care about "Islamic terrorism" anymore. It's not profitable. They're too busy trying to prosecute some dumb arsonist hippies as terrorists.