Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (577)	3/27/2006 5:04:55 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

Did I saw there WAS a loss? No. I said that the erosion of our constitutional freedoms was worth dying for. I did not say there had been one. I'm not sure there has been. I think there may have been, but I'm not an expert in con law, and I'll need to continue to read all the experts in order to figure this out. What I said was that the loss of our constitutional freedoms was worth some risk. All life has risk. I risk my children's lives every time I put them in my car- since we know there are accidents out there just waiting to happen, but we think getting to the doctor, or going to the store is important, and that the risk is low enough that the benefit of living our life is worth getting in the car. Thus it is with the risk of terrorism balanced against constitutional freedoms (for me, perhaps not for you). I think some risk is acceptable in order to keep our freedoms, even if that risk affects me and my family (and, imo, it would be wrong of me to accept risk for other people, so I and my family could enjoy the benefit. That would make me uncomfortable.) I hope this clarifies the issue for you- because I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

To: jlallen who wrote (577)	3/27/2006 5:49:45 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 14758

Have we ever fought a war where the rights of the minority were as protected as Muslims in this country and rightfully so. During WW2, ionescos boy FDR put japanese americans in camps. She probably has some lame excuse for this. Actually i do too. It was differeint times and it did probably protect japanese americans from asian peril americans. But thats no reason to charge bush with violating rignts of muslims when that has not happened except in the rarest of cases. Bin Laden calls and ionesco wont eavesdrop and her kids get killed and she whines about how bush wanted have eavesdropped instead of the losss of her kids lives. And then the pompous ass says her kids would have died in the fight for freedom against bush but not in the fight for our survival against bin laden. A moron is a moron.