flibbidy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"For one thing, a prez. who plans to become a dictator is gonna go after alot more clear obsticles to his/her power (ie Free speech, assembly, press, gun ownership, etc)."Who's to say they haven't gone after these things already? We know they've gone after gun ownership already, and press is questionable. As far as assembly... many peaceful protests have been broken up, at the DNC/RNC or the situation in Oregon where Bush protesters were herded away while supporters were allowed to continue.

flibbidy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The biggest problem remains that we are even in the Middle East in the first place, spending billions of dollars each year, even before the 9/11 attacks or the 93 bombing or even the Iran hostage situation. In fact, we've been there for 60 years now, attempting to keep peace and protect the sovereignity of Israel. At some point, don't they need to learn to protect themselves?Our presence there has only contributed to violence there, which is why we were attacked in the first place.

dgonz26868 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"And what if Obama turns out to be a horrible dictator?"It's possible, though unlikely. For one thing, a prez. who plans to become a dictator is gonna go after alot more clear obsticles to his/her power (ie Free speech, assembly, press, gun ownership, etc).Loosening a few of the restrictions on surveylence (mind you I said loosening, not eliminating as some have implied) might be a warning sign. But is it not a better risk than weakened security that may get thousands killed?

dgonz26868 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"saying they have "credible evidence" and then telling us they can't say what because it's "classified." Then why are they telling us?"Yes that IS a good point, although I think it can be attributed more to incompetence than fear mongering.But what about the other side of the coin? Is it not also fear mongering to make proclamations such as: "We are no safer than before 9/11?"

flibbidy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"we have yet to see a credible case of abuse from it."And what if Obama turns out to be a horrible dictator? I don't think he will be, but you never know. Many dictators were democratically elected and found ways to subvert their country's constitution until it was no longer relevant.

flibbidy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

First of all the terror alert system was a BIG crock of fear-related posturing. There have been many cases of them saying they have "credible evidence" and then telling us they can't say what because it's "classified." Then why are they telling us? It's not like we know what to look for when they are so vague.

dgonz26868 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"If we react with fear the way we have, we risk history repeating itself"What is this fear you say we're reacting with? I'm not sure I understand this whole "fear" argument. How is the gov't spreading fear? And how is it unreasonable?I agree there is potential for govt. abuse of surveylence programs and whatnot. But they've been in place for nearly a decade. And we have yet to see a credible case of abuse from it.Is it possible that the fear of potential abuse exceeds the cause?

dgonz26868 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"Freedom ALWAYS comes with a price and always comes with risk"And just how far are we to push that risk? A building destroyed? A crowd of people? A city? "That democracies are more commonly destroyed from within than by an outside force"Do you seriously imagin that the gov't is watching your every move, care of the P. Act? Are you afraid to go to the library, cash a check or use a credit card? I'm sorry but I believe this fear of the P. Act is more hype than reason.

dgonz26868 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"The first WTC bombing WAS years ago..."True, it was in the early 90's. But 3 attacks within a 10 year period seems (to me) alittle too frequent to be considered not that common, as you said. And given the fact that there have been none since 9/11 & the P. Act, it seems significant to me."could have easily been planned outside the U.S. and/or our jurisdiction"I'm afraid I don't understand how this nullifies the effectiveness of the Patriot act.

flibbidy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Also important to note is that PATRIOT is yet another way to give the government greater power and take away more rights from the American people.This is the point you're missing. That democracies are more commonly destroyed from within than by an outside force. That rights are more often lost gradually than suddenly taken away.Freedom ALWAYS comes with a price and always comes with risk. If we react with fear the way we have, we risk history repeating itself.