>Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.
>> Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
>> Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.
>
> For one, I now need a passport to go to Canada that I have to buy
Huh? You never had a "RIGHT" to travel where you want without a
passport. No right was taken away. Security became stronger. You need
to learn what the term 'rights' mean. Start by reading the constitution.
> another there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and
> eves dropping that has been done
I asked what right YOU had taken away and have been affected by. Now
you're making a guess and touting what you've 'heard'. How about facts?
> How many people have been barred from flying because they haver same
> name
We learn and make improvements to try to avoid issues like this but they
have happened for years and will continue. Nothings perfect. How many
people has this security caught and prevented possible serious crimes?
Again, what right of yours was taken away? Or are you just on the
liberal bandwagon of hearsays and guesses?
> I could go on but I can clearly say I have never seen such secracy in
> government as today.
Yes I know the liberals want our enemies to know our security plans and
actions. Still can't answer what right YOU have had taken away can you?
Just the liberal whines about what you do not know...but it must be
bad right?
bob r - 17 May 2007 04:26 GMT
>>> Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> Just the liberal whines about what you do not know...but it must be bad
> right?
Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
loved the security of the Soviet Union.
miles - 17 May 2007 04:35 GMT
> Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
> loved the security of the Soviet Union.
I've been to Russia (in 1979). Have you? Again I ask, what 'right'
have you yourself lost?
Dan Listermann - 17 May 2007 14:15 GMT
>> Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
>> loved the security of the Soviet Union.
>
> I've been to Russia (in 1979). Have you?
Then you know how secure it was . . .
miles - 18 May 2007 01:05 GMT
>>> Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
>>> loved the security of the Soviet Union.
>> I've been to Russia (in 1979). Have you?
>
> Then you know how secure it was . . .
Yes I do, and you don't. You have no clue what you are trying to argue.
Dan Listermann - 18 May 2007 14:07 GMT
>>>> Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would
>>>> have loved the security of the Soviet Union.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yes I do, and you don't. You have no clue what you are trying to argue.
Well then maybe you need to clarify your point.
> I now need a passport to go to Canada
I believe you need a passport to RETURN to USA from Canada. If you really
need one to ENTER Canada, your issue is with them.
I have never been to Canada. However, when the time finally comes that I wish
to go, I'll have to get a passport. How draconian can it get?
> there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and
> eves dropping that has been done on John Q Public last several years.
Yes, the silence is "deafening". I'm sure the New York Times is as frustrated
as you that it is increasingly difficult to reveal national secrets and
security operations.
> How many people have been barred from flying
> because they haver same name
None. (Zip, zero, nada.)
> air marshalls on flights but they stopped them under reagan.
Ah, HA!! I always suspected he did more than just sleep and eat jelly beans.
...those RASCALLY Republicans!
> I have never seen such secracy in government as today.
Ignoring the obvious (just what DOES "secrecy" LOOK like?), do you suppose it
could be due to the fact that we're at war?
I can just envision the New York Times headline, dated June 4, 1944:
"Invasion Tomorrow at Normandy". Subhead: "Calais Just a Ruse". The next
day's headline would read, "Weather Delays Invasion, Now Set For Tomorrow".
> Curretn adm9in used fear to get there way
Yep, they did it ALONE while 435 members of Congress were out to lunch.
> fortunately the game is about over now.
Yeah, then we can all relax, bring home the troops (invalidating the ultimate
sacrifice by their fallen comrades) and wait for the next attack. What a
plan. <sigh>
> (The Patriot act should have never been passed
With the word "patriot" in it, I'm surprised it was.
> and would never been passed today. )
Agreed, considering MUCH more pressing issues like <yawn> health care,
education and the minimum wage.
Rush IS right: It's going to take a couple or three more attacks, probably
even more devastating than 9/11, before we wake up to the threat we STILL
face. Sadly, many of the plethora of lily-livered leftists that exist today
STILL won't "get it". Peace, man.

Signature
JR