between living in a country that upholds the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution...with the risk of terrorist attacks...
---------OR--------
living in a country where citizens and their rights were diminished and violated in order to gain increased protections from terrorist attacks?
which would you chose and why? remember, in the US, very few people have been directly affected by terrorist attacks OR anti-Constitutional measures passed by our own government. but the threat of both is a real one.
2007-11-12 06:08:46 · 26 answers · asked by Free Radical 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
dpj5 -
"not many" = less than 3500 people out of a nation of 300,000,000+
2007-11-12 06:19:04 · update #1
a history lesson, changes of subject, and "both" do not answer the question.
2007-11-12 06:20:10 · update #2
moody -
did you know that, when Hitler made it mandatory for Jews to wear yellow stars many said "eh, so what? everyone already knows i a Jew anyway" and laughed it off.
where do you draw the line? ok, so you and i have nothing to hide. so why not 24 surveillance in our homes? why not indications on our drivers license that indicate what religious affiliation we belong to? (some countries actually do this). certainly you wouldn’t balk at this would you? and if you would, well then, just what are you hiding, hmmmmm?
the bottom line is that knowledge is power, and that power is fundamentally susceptible to abuse and can be applied in ways you might not expect.
2007-11-12 07:13:27 · update #3
How about a country that upholds it's freedoms granted by it's constitution with enough global integrity in its foreign policies, so as to not give rise to any repercussions that can be construed by some of it's uninformed citizens as random acts of terror.
2007-11-12 06:18:58 · answer #1 · answered by TJTB 7 · 11⤊ 1⤋
I'll take freedom over security.
They said the terrorists attacked us to destroy our freedoms. Well, I guess they're winning, because it didn't even take one month for Bush and company to start throwing that "g-d d----d piece of paper" into the trash. There is no serious terrorist threat or else they would have attacked us via our wide open borders a hundred times by now. It's all just an excuse to grab more power and more control.
For those who agree with option one, there are only two real choices in the ongoing presidential race:
1. Don't vote at all. Withhold all consent to the farce of American politics. Have you ever heard the saying, "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal?"
2. Vote for Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate from one of the two major parties who believes in the rule of law and the principle of freedom over security.
-yk
2007-11-12 14:27:03 · answer #2 · answered by Yaakov 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I would rather live in a country that upholds my freedoms granted to me by the constitution.
Living in a country whose government controls your life is not a country worth living in.
2007-11-12 14:41:27 · answer #3 · answered by Mother 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I would most definitely prefer the first option.
The illusion of security can be broken no matter what safeguards are in place. When there is a will, there is a way. Besides. take away enough freedom from the people and there is bound to be a revolt in the long run.
2007-11-12 14:18:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 1⤋
I'll take living in a country that upholds the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I'm not willing to conceed victory to terrorists by letting them take away my freedoms.
2007-11-12 14:16:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Those that trade freedoms for security deserve neither.
Nor do they have them.
We are not one iota "safer" with all the government and all the new laws. We are just more controlled.
2007-11-12 14:23:32 · answer #6 · answered by Gem 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I'll go for the first one, but i do not agree that the second one even has the benefit of increased protection :)
2007-11-12 15:14:48 · answer #7 · answered by . 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaeda doesn't have the power to take away our democracy and freedom. Only we have that ability, and we are beginning to go down that path.
2007-11-12 14:27:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
I haven't been affected by either. The first one sounds better though. But seriously, do you really think the American people would let that happen? You've got a lot of gun toten' people out there that love their "raghts".
I think inevitably, both sides have been caught in a stalemate of "fear mongering". People are beginning to think for themselves again, and everyone know that both sides are full of sh!t.
2007-11-12 14:16:30 · answer #9 · answered by alex l 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I would definitely choose the first, because I know better than to think that the second one could ever be okay under any conditions. *sm*
2007-11-13 09:34:31 · answer #10 · answered by LadyZania 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋