Would you give up your liberty to be safe from terrorism?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 23-1-2010 @ 01:19 AM by SuperSlovak
reply to post by Darky5K



you might wanna check the link.



reply posted on 23-1-2010 @ 01:42 AM by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by FortAnthem



haha i posted all those odds some where in a thread forget which one it was pretty amusing you have a better chance of dying on the toilet or in the bathtub by a big percentage, i ask do you want the gov to protect you from that too? lol


found it

Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1

Odds of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1

Odds of drowning in a bathtub: 685,000 to 1

Chance of dying in a terrorist attack while visiting a foreign country: 1 in 650,000 thats just in a foreign country im sure its like 500,000,000 to one or better here in the US


Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1

Odds of fatally slipping in bath or shower: 2,232 to 1

Chance of dying from a car accident: 1 in 18,585

Chance of dying from any kind of fall: 1 in 20,666

Chance of dying from accidental drowning: 1 in 79,065

Chance of dying from exposure to smoke, fire, and flames: 1 in 81,524

Chance of dying in an explosion: 1 in 107,787

[edit on 23-1-2010 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]



reply posted on 23-1-2010 @ 01:54 AM by SuperSlovak
reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE



I never thought of it that way. makes you wonder what all the fuss is about.


reply posted on 23-1-2010 @ 02:48 AM by harvib
reply to post by SuperSlovak





"it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism."


LOL. Let me see if I got this straight. So the "terrorist" want to destroy our way of life and take away our "freedoms". So in order to protect ourselves from people who wish to take away our "freedoms" we must give up our "freedoms"?





reply posted on 23-1-2010 @ 04:14 AM by calstorm
Originally posted by harvib
reply to
post by SuperSlovak





"it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism."


LOL. Let me see if I got this straight. So the "terrorist" want to destroy our way of life and take away our "freedoms". So in order to protect ourselves from people who wish to take away our "freedoms" we must give up our "freedoms"?




My thought exactly.
second line.


reply posted on 31-1-2010 @ 06:19 PM by ripcontrol
Originally posted by Copperflower
Perhaps they just forgot some Civics classes, and are confusing civil liberties (sacred) with personal liberties (optional, like searches at the airport).

Without a distinction, it's become an instinctive response to a well-worn question in circulation since 9/11.

Not to be difficult, but after that incident, America was found to have the most liberal boarding procedures of any major nation, btw. So increasing our security to the levels of most developed nations was a major change, from extra easy to much more vigilant. This caught a lot of people by surprise, but airports in foreign countries? Not so much.

Maybe that's what people thought was being referred to. I hope!


I must respectfully disagree with your classifications.

ALL LIBERTIES ARE SACRED!!!

You rights end five feet from my nose and mine begin. I never agreed to those checkpoints so they are not what I feel is necessary. Nor do I consider them ok or legal.

When you begin to divide liberties as you have you begin the walk down the slippery slope of tyranny. All liberties are personal.

Is the private space in between your bed sheet a personal liberty. Does the government have the right to view there to insure no one is committing a crime.

The logic can not be applied from one case to another. After all some people do horrible things in between their bed sheets so to secure your safety we must install new security procedures in your bedrooms.

For our freedoms to continue we must not allow this present set of attitudes to prevail.

You must have freedom for all or Freedom for none. The laws and rights of this land must apply to all or they apply to no one.

Franklin was right 100% on the issue of liberty in the quote.

I mean this as no insult I just completely disagree with any form of apologetics or any compromise on this issue. It must forever be all or none at all.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 5 days ago with 10 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 8 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags