wouldn't the act of reducing liberty qualify as unpatriotic?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin
2007-11-14 05:45:28 · 12 answers · asked by kelsey.dgaf 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
don't be all uptight about it, i'm just trying to plant seeds and share ideas.
2007-11-14 06:14:29 · update #1
An Orwellian oxymoron at that. War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength.
2007-11-14 05:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by haywood jablome 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I feel assaulted by the requirements of the Patriot Act.
Why should we all pay with a loss of our liberty because the Federal government cannot or won't do one of the 2 jobs that are constitutionally the responsibility of the federal government?
Why should I be required to prove my identity over and over again in my daily life because the government won't secure our borders?
Why should all Americans be treated with suspicion by the officials of our elected government, who we are paying, to provide services to us.
Why am I required by the government, to provide my Social Security Card, which the government told me was not to be used for identification purposes, to enable me to get a driving license, or any other documentation.
The government has certain responsibilities, mandated by the constitution, which we elected officials to take care of, now because they haven't lived up to their responsibilities, I am forced to change my life, and to pay for even more bureaucratic layers so that we can be safe. In addition, I am treated like I am the criminal.
I have a better idea, Throw all the bums out.
2007-11-14 06:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thank you for using that quote the right way...Ben was obviously speaking in general terms, you can tell by the first 2 words. the constitution doesn't do us much good while the Patriot acts exist... the government considers everyone a potential terrorist. And if you think the P. Acts are bad you should look at HR 1955.
2007-11-14 05:54:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
franklin also wanted the turkey as our national bird. how do you suppose we deal with the threats out there.? ask them nicely to stop. and i have yet to loose one personal freedom via the patriot act. i do not care if they wiretap foreign nationals or anyone whom the gov. sees as a threat. what is your or anyones solution in dealing with terrorist. the next time it happens are you or anyone else going to blame the gov for not doing enough to stop it? YES! instead of asking rhetorical statements, which you already have your answer, post your solution and lets see if anyone salutes it. otherwise, post what freedoms you have ACTUALLY lost.
2007-11-14 06:02:39 · answer #4 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Can you quote the sections of the act you have a problem with?
Or are you criticizing something you know nothing about?
BTW - are you aware that just about every provision of the 'Patriot Act' already existed as anti-racketeering Federal laws?
2007-11-14 06:05:59 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I love the way people throw that quote around like it applies to anything today or even know what the context of the quote was. It was actually part of a petition to the King to fund arms purchases for the western settlers to better fight the Indians (the terrorists of the era). It had nothing to do with government intrusion into personal rights.
The Patriot Act is a tool to combat terrorism in the modern environment. Instantaneous communications world wide demand a new way of figuring out who and where the bad guys are. That's what the Patriot Act does. That's what was demanded of the government by the people after 9/11.
2007-11-14 05:52:17 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The Patriot Act has always been there... We just gave it a name.
2007-11-14 05:51:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
the only people who seem to have a problem with this is the ones who have something to hide..i could care less if the fbi wanted to come to my house...i could make them coffee..and then i wouldnt be so lonely..mmm men in uniforms..lol..just kidding..not about the men in uniforms part, but the being lonely part..lol
2007-11-14 06:11:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You got it. (Although it's not a true oxymoron, its name and its content/objective stand for two opposing ideas.)
I think that's why they chose that name--b/c it's misleading--but it's (supposedly) an acronym.
2007-11-14 05:55:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is nothing wrong with the patriot act. its the people who abuse the power in the act that we need to watch. it is a slippery slope once they start down and our civil liberties are getting trampled on the way
2007-11-14 05:56:05 · answer #10 · answered by froggy_logic 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋
yep
2007-11-14 05:53:22 · answer #11 · answered by Kevy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋