2007-02-20 05:36:24 · 9 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ha! It's a conundrum to say the least.
Some people believe you have to give up a little freedom for safety. But, I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best..."They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
2007-02-20 05:40:20 · answer #1 · answered by Groovy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
OK since those who say there is no info on what freedom restrictions there are don't seem to know much about the news here we go.
The recent government and sitting President enacted legislation making it legal for any law enforcement agency or military agency to arrest you without charges or court approved order and hold you without trial indefinitely for no other reason than suspicion of being an enemy. That same legislation said the President is the sole authority of what makes someone an enemy.
So in Clinton's time (who by the way has come the closest to killing Osama and who DID warn Bush about terrorism..real ****** huh?) it was legal for me to disapprove of *MY* government's actions and there was no penalty for my disapproval.
Now in Bush's regime I can be arrested and detained for no other reason than President Bush wants me to be arrested and held without any of my Constitutional rights.
This is one example...go find others for yourself since I am not a school teacher.
As to why "Neo-Cons" do this it is because they only want people to be free if they do and act EXACTLY like they do. They want all of society to walk, talk, act and believe the same as the Neo-Cons because then they will be in total control with no one left to fight them for power.
2007-02-20 13:58:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, the tern "Neocon" should be retired. People use it to refer to right-wingers who have always been among us, but it properly refers to a specific movement that has discredited itself with the Iraq War fiasco.
That said, right-wingers are incapable of seeing the contradictions in their own positions since they are based on gut attitudes rather than reason. They don't like to think; it hurts their brain.
2007-02-20 13:41:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
You really need to provide an example of how your freedoms have been restricted. I hear this argument all the time, yet not one example of someone not being able to something that they could do under, say, Clinton (except for planning terrorist attacks, apparently that was allowed...).
2007-02-20 13:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If another 9/11 happens and somebody comes up to me as people are jumping out of buildings and says "hey, at least the government isn't checking up on terrorist calls from within", that's not going to make me feel better.
2007-02-20 13:41:34 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's really stupid to destroy what you are supposedly defending in the process. Kind of like digging a hole and putting the dirt back in the hole on top of yourself.
2007-02-20 13:41:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Since you didn't provide an example of what you're talking about or otherwise define your parameters, this question is pointless.
2007-02-20 13:39:54 · answer #7 · answered by cornbread 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because the want Christian Theocracy is the USA.
2007-02-20 13:40:11 · answer #8 · answered by Cut The Crap 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
They are evil.
2007-02-20 13:39:30 · answer #9 · answered by Mario Savio 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋