Re: OT: your congressman sucks

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel <njnagel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:g3rr8g02ss9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Jim Yanik wrote:

Larrybud <larrybud2002@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:Xns9AC77644AD57Clarrybud2002yahoocom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



I suppose I should remind you that you're far more likely to be
hurt or killed in a car crash than you ever would be from
terrorists. IOW, the threat is greatly exaggerated and people
who think otherwise are just paranoid.

A car crash never shut down a major industry for 2 weeks, or caused billions in damage to the largest city in the US. And that was just with a handful of planes and 3,000 dead. Once they get a nuke, it'll
make 9/11 look like an appetizer.

The same arguments you and Brent use were the same arguments used by the pre ww2 isolationists.




People are in denial,and they try to minimize the possibility,so they
feel safe.


Or they feel safe because they have taken steps to ensure their own, individual, personal safety


Oh? how do YOU protect yourself against a bombing or a jetliner crashing into your workplace?

I don't worry about either. They're so rare as to be insignificant. However if I did see someone pleanting a bomb or was aboard a jet that was being highjacked, you better believe that I'd do something about it. (ref: United 93)



and a) don't count on the government to
keep them safe and b) are willing to engage terrorists themselves in
the vanishingly small chance it should become necessary.


Yeah,the WTC occupants really were able to "engage" the terrorist-
controlled jetliners. real close-contact,too.

See above. At least one plane never made it to its destination.


Or you could just turn into a simpering *** like the apparent
majority of "conservatives" (note quotes) and beg the government to
protect you from the big, bad boogeyman in the closet. I'm not scared
enough to give away my rights because of the slim possibility that
someone halfway around the world might try to hurt me.

nate



I haven't lost any rights,

Yes, at least theoretically you have

and neither have you.

yes, theoretically I have.

When it comes to National security,people's rights always have been limited. The Constitution is not a suicide pact,and the government is allowed certain powers under the Constitution for the purpose of national security.

IOW it's just a goddamned piece of paper.

People who believe that should NOT be allowed to vote.

If you had bothered to read Andrew McCarthy,a former Federal prosecutor,you'd know that. But,no,you just dismissed it as "right wing" nonsense,before even finishing an article.

Post something that makes sense, then maybe I can stand to read more than a couple paragraphs. I can't stomach your defeatist propaganda and utterly reject the notion that "safety" is worth giving up all that this country stands for. Yes, we have made missteps in the past WRT civil rights and liberties but that doesn't mean we have to keep on doing it.

Keeping the US "safe" by abdicating all one's rights to the government is worthless, if I wanted to live in a police state I'm sure I could have found one ready-made to emigrate to.

nate



--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
.