How about this one? Or maybe this? Maybe this is better for you? I’m no expert, but this doesn’t look very good to me.
Like me, many many people have simply given up on trogs like you and Ryan. How does one expect people to attempt substantive conversation with empty heads like the two of you?
Thanks for your opinion on the matter though! Means the world to me, honey.
Sam
But you fail to grasp milroyj’s subtle and brilliant position on this issue.
He tends to take the position that if you, personally, have not suffered a direct deprivation of liberty, then there is, in fact, no danger to liberty. Providing examples of other people who have been deprived of their liberties, or other instances in which liberty is generally threatened, is, for milroyj, insufficient to prove your case.
The only way you might convince him if is you could show that you had been taken into custody without cause, and were now posting from Guantanamo. But then, of course, that would make you a terrorist, and therefore an unreliable source.
Well, no, it’s not just that you, personally, have not suffered a direct deprivation of liberty, but the fact is, practically no one else has, either.
Were not 99.9% of the current residents of Gitmo captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan fighting against Americans? People who take up arms against Americans and only have their liberty deprived, ought to count their lucky stars.
And let’s see who else has had their liberty deprived. Moussouai? Reid? The Lackawana idiots in Buffalo? How about the guy trying to run a jihad camp in Oregon? Those Muslim “charities” in Chicago that gave money to the killers of David Boim? Saddam Hussein’s liberty has been deprived, of late, but I submit he’s better off now than he was in his hidey-hole. So, just whose rights am I supposed to be concerned about again?
I know that amongst the loony-left, there will be people who will claim that even Osama Bin Laden has rights. Of course, they would be wrong.
To the people who have disagreed with the O.P.:
I suspect strongly that President Bush (43) is a well-meaning man who sincerely believes that what he is doing is protecting freedom by providing adequate security that free Americans (and free citizens/subjects of other countries) can go about their daily business without fear. IMO, he honestly does not see the subtle, slow erosion of human rights of which Lib and matt have spoken, as being anything of real concern. And his supporters (again IMO) see any criticism as an attack on him.
Therefore, I’d like to ask Brutus, ryan and any other people who took issue with the O.P. to put aside rhetoric directed at those claiming that Mr. Bush is heading towards tyranny, and direct their attention to the question of the allegations of Fabian statism eroding freedoms held dear and guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights. I presume you can reconcile the Bush Administration actions with a sense of preservation of freedom – I would like to understand better how you do so.
This is not an invitation to put your neck on the chopping block, though I’m sure a few strong anti-Bush posters would welcome the chance to take a verbal swing at you. It’s a sincere desire to understand your positions on the sorts of issues raised in this thread. I look forward to reading what you have to say.
Actually, it doesn’t look to me like the OP is attacking people resisting gun control laws, but rather wondering how people who have fought so fiercely to protect their freedoms in one setting have so willingly handed them over in another.
I’m refering to the fact he called me a Tory when I am in fact a Labour supporter, but the thing is, just because the Tories are right wing doesn’t mean they want to trample on civil liberties, in fact its been proven to be usually the other side of the political field which has usually trampled on human rights.
What tyranny!?
Please tell me how the patriot act bullshit has affected you personally and I might actually give a toss.
Doesn’t anyone ever remember World War two and the suspension of civil liberties in that regards of freedom of information and press coverage? Anyone?
I believe that if you think President Bush can engineer a stomp on civil liberties, a war against terrorism, and try and bring about an economic revival whilst acting a completely stupid manner that so many anti Bush people say, then they are contradicting themselves.
Ah, that would explain a lot. Blair, Blunkett et al are a bunch of authoritarian arseholes too.
You are quite amazing. Do you ever vote (if you have ever voted) on any issues whatsoever that might affect people other than you?
You’re the most bizarre Labour supporter I’ve ever encountered. The opinions you’ve expressed on the boards mesh with perhaps the more extreme authoritarian policies of Blunkett and Blair, but the rest of the cobblers your spout is more UKIP or BNP. I suspect that your knee-jerk support of Bush is due to similar reasons to your knee-jerk support of Labour: you don’t really think much.
I’m not sure I understand what this means. Are you saying that Bush can’t be the dimwit he is made out to be while doing the things you list?
If so, that may or may not be. However, it’s not even remotely related to the question asked by Polycarp, to which you were apparently responding.
No every other country does not have it.
Ryan how did you get to be so bigoted and so jaded?
If you advocate Tony Blair as Prime Minister, you are a Tory.
Tony Blair, PM = I’m Tory Plan ‘B’.
I already outed you on that. You’re supportive of Labour like Judas was supportive of Jesus.
None of your fucking business, oh pimple on Bush’s ass. I should enumerate for you the vestiges of liberty like I should lob pearls into a swineherd.
You’re so deep in quickshit that your eyes stink. Not only do you treat freedom like a syphilitic whore, you compare the nobility of brave men who fought Hitler to the shamefulness of cowards who send the sons and daughters of their neighbors to fight Bush’s War on Americans I Mean Terror. There ought to be a national registry for defenders of despotism so that good men can avoid you like the plague you are.
Have a nice fucking day.
Since we’re on the subject…
Virginia Bottomley = I’m an evil Tory bigot. 
And
Ryan Liam = I am lyar ‘N’
(OK I concede that’s shit).
Man, that’s one fucking scary article.
One nitpick - flying isn’t a constitutional right. Free interstate commerce does not require flying on airplanes… you have only a right to freely cross state lines which is guaranteed by the Constitution. That is the one place the ACLU has oversteped. All the rest of the concerns raised are incredibly valid. [/nitpick]
On with the pitting! 
Brutus - this is the pit. I wouldn’t come here for rationed discourse, really. I come here for the Gladiator games…
As to the OP - yes, this is freedom.
It’s what you get when your commander in chief elects to cancel all training for ‘nationbuilding’ forgetting that US soldiers are in fact trained to kill and survive, not act as policemen and women…
Scary, isn’t it…