It is not wrong to question your government!

I have not been active on these forums for very long but it seems there are a number of people here who would call those that question their government terrorists. Specifically the US and UK governments.

Questioning the actions of one's government does not make a person a terrorist, nor does openly expressing contempt for the actions of one's government.

Government needs to be kept in check. The freedom to question one's government and to hold the government accountable for its actions is a right of the people. The people should not allow that right to be eroded in any way.

I for one do not want to live in fear of my government. I want to have the freedom to question the activities of my government, in peacetime and especially in times of war.

As a citizen of the US I do not want to sacrifice any of my constitutional rights because of a "war on terror". I don't want to see the constitution "bent" even a little to fight a "war on terror". Too many men and women have given their lives to secure the freedoms we enjoy in my country. By allowing terrorism to erode those rights in the slightest degree, is allowing those outside this country to do grave harm to the citizens of this nation.

We have had a policy of not negotiating with terrorists for a long time now, how then is o.k. to "negotiate" the rights of the people to fight a war on terror?

 

and just what religion to you belong to?

 

I agree with you but sadly I live in fear of my government. So in hopes to not be put on some list, I will post some quotes by two of our founder fathers:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

"I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men."

"Do not, however mistake me. It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic."

-Benjamin Franklin

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

-John Adams

 

You should question your government more than they question you. A government should be afraid of its people and not the other way around. In a democracy we control the government and choose who goes into office.

 

I don't "belong" to any religion. I was raised Southern Baptist but I do not consider myself a Southern Baptist. I studied world religions in college and found that my own personal beliefs were more in line with Eastern "religions".
Much of what I learned as a "Christian" has carried over in my daily life and is incorporated into my effort to become a more spiritual being.

I don't see what my religion has to do with my post though? How do you see religion in terms of my original post? Were there religious overtones I am not aware of?

 

Not Sure, I'm agree everyone got a freedom to question

 

Where are the questions? Most people I see don't really ask questions, they make unsubstantiated allegations based upon what conspiracy nuts tell them to think. And the few that do ask questions, when they are responded to, resort to denial.

Not sure how that equates to the newly redefined definition of "patriotism" that seems to be all the rage. I've noted quite ofter here, that some hide behind the premise of asking questions, when in fact, their real goal is to foster anti-American sentiments.

Though virulently hated by the left, Ann Coulter makes a valid point when she says:

We sure see that a lot here.

 

The question is what is your
"government" and do you let anything between you and the Creator


`hachoo *surrender*

 

I will ask you a question and at this point you should know I am not trying to box you into a corner, but rather I would like to hear your opinion.

I see the current administration eroding the rights of the people in the pretext that they are fighting a "war on terror".

I for one want all of my rights intact. I feel that if we as a people give up any of our rights then those that would do harm to this nation have won.

So my question is, are you willing to sacrifice your liberties on this war on terror?

 

Correct supporting terrorist groups such as hamas does though, i suspect you have read a few lines of text & thought "oh that's a disgusting attack to make" without checking if these people actually do support terrorists.

Questioning governments actions & policies is a good thing, making unfounded claims is not.

 

Thank you. This is a perfect example of what I was saying. With no offense to you, as illustrated below, there is no question for the government, but rather a pretense of asking one, when in fact (as I pointed out earlier), it's really just an unsubstantiated allegation.

There is no pretext of fighting a war on terrorism. We are fighting such. Some people are happy that terrorist plots are being thwarted, others seem to be quite upset about it. Your displeasure in Bush may obscure this hardened fact.

So first, let's establish what right you believe you have, that you feel is eroded. "Feeling" it isn't enough. Emotions do not substitute facts.

"Feeling" that you have lost rights, that you are not specifically aware of, is not actually losing any rights.

Terrorists have lost rights. Since neither you, nor I, are terrorists, I'm not aware of any right you, or I have lost.

I have not sacrificed any liberties. Nor have you. Of course, if you believe you have, I'd welcome to know the exact right you believe you once had, but no longer have.

Let's review my day, yesterday:

1) I exercised my right to get into my car and drive to the DPS office to pick up a new window sticker for my automobile tags.

2) I exercised my right to call my wife, who is spending a week with her parents in Oklahoma helping her parents.

3) I exercised my right to call my daughter-in-law to see how she, my son and my grandson are doing.

4) I exercised my right to choose a restaurant to eat.

5) I exercised my right to choose a store to get some stakes for my campari tomato plants.

6) I exercised my right to set the temperature of my central air to 68 degrees.

7) I exercised my right to watch WWE wrestling last night.

8) I exercised my right to choose numerous other TV Cable channels to watch.

9) I exercised my right to place an online order from LL Bean. Today, I will exercise my right to enjoy the new clothes I purchased, that will be delivered overnight.

10) I exercised my right to pre-order a pair of New Balance NB Zips that are due to be released today.

11) I exercised my right to spread lawn fertilizer on my yard that will make it greener than my neighbors.

12) I exercised my right to participate in debate on this forum.

13) I exercised my right to point out what a nut alex jones is.

14) I exercised my right to take some Pepcid AC for the heartburn I had after eating Mexican food.

14) I exercised my right to work on a software project that will earn revenue for my family.

15) I exercised my right to check my sites ranking with Digital Point's Keyword tool.

16) I exercised my right to view various sources of news to stay current with world events.

17) I exercised my right to turn the speed on my fan from low to high.

18) I exercised my right to brush my teeth with the toothpaste and brush of my choice. I exercised my right to take a shower, using the soap and shampoo of my choice. I exercised my right to not shave yesterday, because I felt like being grungy. I exercised my right to use anti-persperant, as opposed to just "deoderant" because everyone knows that anti-persperant helps prevent sweating and odor, where deoderant simply covers up (for a short period of time) underarm odor. I exercised my right to spritz on some cologne that I exercised my right to pick out from hundreds of available brands.

19) I exercised my right to leave the toilet seat up, as my wife is out of town for the next week, so I can be the slob that I want to be.

20) I exercised my right to walk down my sidewalk and retrieve my daily mail. Of which, contained the payment request for the first month's payment for the new car I exercised my right to pick out and purchase last month, for which my wife exercised her right to drive to another state to visit her parents, for which I exercised my right (and duty) to purchase insurance from the insurance vendor of my choice.

21) I exercised my right to listen to Def Leppard and a few other groups on my DVD player.

22) I exercised my right to not exercise at the gym for which I have a membership, for which I exercised my right to choose from several different clubs in the relatively small town, for which I've exercised my right to live in.

23) I exercised my right NOT to stop in at the local "titty bar" because my wife is out of town, for which 10 years ago, I might have otherwise exercised my right to stop in and see a few bouncing headlights.

So which right is it, that you believe I once had, that I no longer have?

 

A couple of days ago I exercised my right to be denied something because of my political believes.

 

asking a question doesn't really do much...doing something about it does. If your local rep in the govt. is not doing what you think is appropriate, vote against her/him.

 

Care to share more?

 

It is a sin to question ur government because our government is perfect and they have shown that they can be taken for every word they say as gospel truth. The world would be a better place if we stopped thinking and just trusted the government of teh country that we live in and always defend its views and be totally biased for it. Why should world opinion matter? They are all wrong anyways.

 

Having the ability to questioning your government is the difference between being a patriot and a blind nationalist.

What i say is love your country and your fellow countrymen, Even if you have to hate your leader to do it. How can someone claim to love a country and their countrymen when their leader is spending the counties money on a no good war and taking rights away quicker than any terrorist could from their fellow countrymen, And they are defending it.

This is orwellian doublethink. People are handing over liberty to their leader in exchange for the protection of their freedoms from "terrorists".

 

Don't worry, next year when there is a democratic president those very same people calling everyone that disagrees with the executive branch a terrorist will be the same people disagreeing with the executive branch

 

Oh, I think there are a number of people with questions for this government.

 

In conclusion, everyone is free to eat, shit, sleep and praise the government as long as they don't mind government searching their house and businesses without warrant, listening to their telephone conversation, record what they read and may be some times imprison them without any charges.

 

If you read the post, he is not saying that there is a pretext of fighting, rather he said the fighting is being used as a pretext to erode rights. These are totally separate concepts. I do agree that the structure of the original sentence could have been better, but the meaning of pretext was clear in the context of the overall post.

You might be able to make the argument that since he put "war on terror" in quotes that he was making a statement that the "war on terror" was a pretext in and of itself. However, there are two reasons that the phrase could be in quotes. The first is that it is a catch-phrase and distinguishes the use of the name "war on terror" to describe a specific situation rather than simply using the words war on terror in a sentence. The second is that it is not technically a war. There was no declaration of war for either Al Qaida or Iraq. One might say that declaring a war and having a war are not dependent on each other, and they would be right. However, war is legally defined as an armed conflict between two nations. The war with Iraq lasted just days. The fighting with insurgents or against terrorist groups is not technically a war. It is the same as the "war on drugs", which also was not technically a war.

I do not argue that we are in armed conflict with various groups of people. Nor am I trying to make the point that we are wrong in doing so. I am simply pointing out that if you are going to make arguments based around the use of terms in another's argument then you better be prepared for the same.

As for terrorist plots being thwarted, I certainly am glad a bomb doesn't go off somewhere. However, I have not seen any evidence that these increased "tools" made available to the government have ad anything to do with any of that. In fact, everything that I have read about plots that have been thwarted have been linked to getting information in the old fashioned way. I certainly don't read everything, so I may have just missed it. I am also willing to accept that there may have been plots thwarted that the details were not released for security reasons. I am simply saying that I have not personally seen or read any evidence that these "tools" have done anything (other than the President telling us it is so).

Here is another example of what I was talking about. Not once does the poster say that he "feels" he is losing rights. He says that he "sees" the eroding of rights. Erosion and loss are not the same thing. Erosion implies the undermining of said rights. Loss implies the rights are gone completely. Where he does mention the word "feel" when he is clearly stating his opinion that if we were to give up or rights then we would be playing into the hands of those who would harm us. Again, by using the word "if" the poster has not said that we have given up rights or that rights have been taken, merely lessened.

I will grant that the poster does not mention how he sees this or provides specific information. That is, however, very different than the argument that you make.

Again, there is no mention of rights that have been lost or sacrificed. The tense of the question in the post (...are you willing to...) suggests a future loss. In addition, many of the "rights" you list are not rights at all. The last time I read the Constitution I did not come across the right to drive or the right to make phone calls. Did I miss the update?

But to further delve into the subject, while the poster did not list any examples of how rights have been eroded, I will list a couple. How about the right of US citizens not to be detained without probable cause or access to legal council? Those rights were eroded in the Patriot Act. What about the right to not be monitored without a warrant? Heck, the current administration couldn't be bothered to follow the guidelines for this process that they put in place. They made the process for doing this in cases where espionage/terrorism was in play even easier than the already very easy process laid out in the original FISA regulations. Even after making the whole process a rubber stamp (no evidence had to be supplied and courts didn't have the right to reject applications for such warrants), the current Executive branch couldn't be bothered to follow those laws. Heck, there is even a stipulation that they could wiretap first and then seek the warrant. They couldn't be bothered to seek the warrant after the fact. Actual rights, actual erosion, both in theory and in practice.