Obama says we have to chose between privacy and security. However, we were never asked.

[Old Dog 19]

I just finished an editorial about this issue. I found it strange that our President is telling us to make a choice but the choices have already been made for us, mostly in secret it seems. So, in fact, we do not have a choice at all. All we have is a long and hard legal road ahead of us to repeal what has already been passed. My concern has always been that, like the terrorism laws, any new laws granted to our Government can be used to blindside us and used to legally ban all civilian weapons and rights to privacy. If interested read it here and comment back on this forum.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

If every legal US citizen had guns, including automatic weapons, would terrorists be so quick to come here to inflict damage?

 

I do not want the government to protect me, nor do I want the local PD to protect me, I want to be able to do that for myself. But they won't allow that in this state.

 

We are paying millions of dollars per year for how many thousands of government employees and resources that are being used to spy on US citizens. What a business to be in..........

[olderguy 0]

A correction needs to be made, but that just shows I read it:   "Can you say KBG?"

[Duppie 73]

I choose privacy......security of the type this administration is using to justify the violation of my privacy is in my opinion,largely unattainable.

[Soju 153]

“I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.”

 

Who said that? Any guesses?

[olderguy 0]

“I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.”

 

Who said that? Any guesses?

obama

[Soju 153]

Also,

 

Old Dog, can you please stop starting threads just to promote your blog? One thread would suffice. 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

i choose privacy.

[Kaiser7 33]

I'll gladly take dangerous liberty over a peaceful police state. But that's just my cup of tea honestly.

[njpilot 671]

Yeah, as usual, the .p.o.s.o.t.u.s lied to the people to "get them to go along". He said we can't have "100% security" without forfeiting privacy.

 

No way we have "100% security" no matter what.

 

Worthless lying dirtbag.

[Cixelsid 1]

I choose privacy over security. You are much more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist anyhow.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I choose privacy over security. You are much more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist anyhow.

Strong post with no facts to back that one up...internet broscience maybe

[Malsua 1,422]

Strong post with no facts to back that one up...internet broscience maybe

 

400-500 people are killed by police every year.  With the exception of 2001, the cops kill more.  Are many of them scumbags that probably deserve it?  Sure, but the basic premise is correct.

[Melgamatic 66]

I found it strange that our President is telling us to make a choice but the choices have already been made for us, mostly in secret it seems.

Exactly the same choice President Bush presented to us.  I hated it then, and I hate it now just as much.  

[Cixelsid 1]

400-500 people are killed by police every year. With the exception of 2001, the cops kill more. Are many of them scumbags that probably deserve it? Sure, but the basic premise is correct.

Agreed.

Take a look at this: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-14-justifiable_N.htm

 

True if you get killed by a cop it's most likely justified. But take a look at this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/calm-down-you-are-much-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-boring-mundane-things-than-terrorism/5333187

 

There are many other things you are more likely to die from than from a terrorist. So I want my privacy and freedom back. I'll take my chances with the big bad terrorists. If I die from one. That's ok. At least I lived free, in a free society where the government isn't spying on your every move and reading all your emails, logging all your phone calls Etc. apparently the Bill of Rights means nothing in 2013.

[ChadShaft 0]

I was going to write a letter to the President about this, but instead I just called a friend to complain about about it. Two birds with one stone.

[gunguy1960 2]

Be careful newbies, enough of you complain about leos or democrats and the powers that be will do a purge.

[Cixelsid 1]

Be careful newbies, enough of you complain about leos or democrats and the powers that be will do a purge.

God knows the DHS has enough hollow points for it

[1LtCAP 4,262]

i STILL choose privacy. for those "evesdropping" on these threads.....GTFO of our lives.

[Albanian 121]

I'll gladly take dangerous liberty over a peaceful police state. But that's just my cup of tea honestly.

 

The hilarious part is police states are often far from peaceful. They just pretend, under report, and lie while oppressing their citizens. I choose privacy, I choose freedom.

[anactivegrenade 25]

My father, who grew up in Soviet-controlled Poland (and who is also an Obama-supporter... don't ask why), told me today that this country looks Soviet Russia with their spying and what not.

[Pythagoras 2]

I'll take dangerous freedom every time.

[Cixelsid 1]

Here we have another citizen killed this weekend by a police officer. New Jersey police officer in fact.  http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Officer-Charged-in-Deadly-Road-Rage-Shooting-Police--210771031.html  How many terrorists killed US Citizens this weekend?

[brocglock23 4]

Here we have another citizen killed this weekend by a police officer. New Jersey police officer in fact.  http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Officer-Charged-in-Deadly-Road-Rage-Shooting-Police--210771031.html  How many terrorists killed US Citizens this weekend?

Can't get link to open

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I'd choose privacy every time.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Cixelsid 1]

Can't get link to open

 

try this one: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/nj_police_detective_charged_wi.html

[brocglock23 4]

IMO it's unfortunate that the cop made an incredibly stupid mistake. Granted this is monday morning quarterbacking but he should have kept driving or called 911. Also it can't be assumed tht every cop would have done the same thing.

[PM2116 0]

Here we have another citizen killed this weekend by a police officer. New Jersey police officer in fact.  http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Officer-Charged-in-Deadly-Road-Rage-Shooting-Police--210771031.html  How many terrorists killed US Citizens this weekend?

 

What the hell does any of this have to do with the original post anyway?

 

There still aren't enough facts in the incident to even begin to understand why this happened. 

 

Just so I don't make an ass of myself, and assume that you're just attacking police officers:

 

COPS:

Guilty until proven innocent.  No trial, just label the officer a criminal.  Case closed. 

 

CIVILIANS:

Presumption of innocence.  The prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Is that what you are implying?  If that's the case, why have a constitution?  If you are fighting for your own constitutional rights, yet believe that cops or anyone else for that matter should be denied those same rights, you my friend are a hypocrite. 

[Cixelsid 1]

What the hell does any of this have to do with the original post anyway?

 

There still aren't enough facts in the incident to even begin to understand why this happened. 

 

Just so I don't make an ass of myself, and assume that you're just attacking police officers:

 

COPS:

Guilty until proven innocent.  No trial, just label the officer a criminal.  Case closed. 

 

CIVILIANS:

Presumption of innocence.  The prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Is that what you are implying?  If that's the case, why have a constitution?  If you are fighting for your own constitutional rights, yet believe that cops or anyone else for that matter should be denied those same rights, you my friend are a hypocrite. 

 

 

I was merely citing an example from an earlier post in this thread that you are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.  Granted, mostly all of those are justified but the threat of a U.S. Citizen being killed by a terrorist is very very low.  So given the ridiculously low chance that you will be killed by a terrorist, why the round the clock surveillance of phone calls, emails, internet habits etc.. of millions of U.S. Citizens?

 

 

P.S. I am in no way attacking police officers, my personal opinion is that most LEO are good people just doing a difficult job in a difficult world.

[PM2116 0]

I was merely citing an example from an earlier post in this thread that more people are killed annually by police officers than terrorists.  Granted mostly all of those are justified but the threat of a U.S. Citizen being killed by a terrorist is very very low.  So why the 24/7 surveillance of phone calls, emails, internet habits of millions of U.S. Citizens?

 

I'm not arguing your questioning of surveillance. 

 

Terrorism doesn't have a schedule.  It doesn't happen every day, every week, or every month.  That's WHY it's so dangerous.  We don't know when or where terrorists will strike and that's scary.  I don't want to see another 9/11.  I watched it happen from Jersey City and it still haunts me.  I have a few friends that were killed by terrorists in Afghanistan while serving in the Army & Marines.  I have friends who have lost family members because of terrorism.  It may not happen often, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt. 

 

But, I know for a fact that every single one of my officer friends watch their behavior when on duty.  They don't break the law, because they know that if caught, life will be tougher for them than most criminals.  You only hear about the officers that get away with crime.  You don't hear about the majority that get suspended and or lose their jobs because of it.  Why?  Because the first example is more interesting to the press. 

 

Times have changed.  Terrorists are using technology to communicate, plan, and find weak targets.  You need technology to combat that.  I don't have a problem with surveillance of known terrorists.  I don't know the extent of our governments surveillance, but I do know it's been going on a lot longer than this news that has come out.  I'm not worried about what goes on with my phone calls, internet history, etc.  I have nothing to hide.  My problem is with any and all violations of the constitution and those that are pushing for it's destruction.

 

Point being:

Some cops may trample the constitution, NOT ALL

Some politicians may trample the constitution, NOT ALL

Some citizens may trample the constitution, NOT ALL

 

Those who go against the constitution should be grouped together, not labeled by their job description.