Amazon.com Widgets
  • Without freedom, there is no safety

    "Security" is becoming a vague term used to justify acts of censorship and the trampling on of personal rights and liberties. This can include security from terrorists, security from others, or security from ourselves. No matter what the threat is at the time, no amount of protection will keep the people totally secure. It is better to for one to be free and face the consequences of freedom than it is to be safe and have no choices over one's own life.

  • "If a government is big enough to give you everything you have it is big enough to take everything you have"

    Look at Nazi Germany as a case study. After the Reichstag fire Hitler proposed authoritarian decrees that led to a totalitarian state in the name of public safety. We are in a slow transition that sees us giving up more and more liberties. No fly lists, search and detainment without arrest, constant surveillance, the list is slowly getting bigger. And they continue to fuel fear with propaganda. A democracy requires effort and sacrifice on behalf of all its citizens.

  • IDK. It's whatever.

    I got assigned this in history class. I looked on this site for opinions and stances but its all pretty bad. And you fucking pansy discussing this stupid shit is smart as the nuts on your fucking ancestors stop discussing this and enjoy life you sad piece of shits DAMN

  • Words from high school student!!!!!

    If you want safety over freedom your basically giving up your right to live as you please because they (whoever corresponds) will be able to manipulate your position or maybe even privacy to make sure you are "safe." BUT if your have freedom then you will be able to arm yourself as the second amendment grants you, as well as you can dictate where is safer for yourself. That was you have the peace at mind that you have done everything you could to protect yourself using the FREEDOM granted to you.

  • Yes it is more important ok

    Who wants to be locked up nobody so freedom is way way better than security who wants to be a sell out and nobody cares about their opinion so suck it up freedom is better what did blacks fight for then they were beaten for years so that we can be free

  • L g g

    K g g g g g g g g g g g g h j j j j jj j j j jj j j j jj j jj j jj j jj j j j j j j j j j jj j jj jj j jj jj j

  • Freedom is more important but, order is necessary

    Without order would be chaos. But without freedom we would have revolts and the U.S. would pretty much fall apart. I would post on both sides, but i can't. I'm pretty torn. This is like choosing torture or death. Without order would be torture and without freedom would be death.

  • Y e s

    I3 3os d w w d d d d d d d d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ddd d d

  • Yes yes yes

    Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

  • G g g

    G g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g

  • Secure our freedoms

    Without measures of security, Our freedoms we value so much are in jeopardy. The social contract implies a responsibility from us as citizens - a quid pro quo - giving up some of our rights to protect those rights. The balance has to be achieved in order for all of our freedoms to be protected. Security applies to our rights - it encompasses more than just our physical safety. We want to be secure in our travel, In our finances, In our freedom to express ourselves, So when in times of conflict especially, Some have to be limited so in the long term they are all protected.

  • Safety is more important to society

    Without safety there can be no freedom. Would you rather be safe than free? Most people would want to be safe. Looking at the gun right debate, "anti-gun" individuals want to restrict freedom to hopefully increase safety with reducing deaths in mass shootings. Regarding H. L. Mencken, Safety is what society wants, It doesn't means they necessarily have it currently, It is just idealized, Rather than having personal, Economic, Or political freedom.

  • Its just not

    I frikced ur mom, Just cause i could, Your dad watched. And I think he liked it. Yup. Yup. Yup/. Ypu. Ypu / yuo skajfd sd f sd fs f sdf sa f a sd f ag asdfasd f asdf ds f sf sdf d. This whole 50 word thing is dum.

  • Thomas Hobbes' Writing

    If you read the basic foundations of modern political science, You would understand that humans exist in the state of nature as inherently free, Independent and individual entities. To some, This may seem a dream. But, As Hobbes describes it, Life under this state of nature with complete freedom is poor, Nasty, Solitary, Brutish, And short. Indeed — freedom without the security of a ruling state is not a life I would like to live. "I would rather die a starving freeman than a fat slave. " No, Thanks! I'm fine with being a normal citizen, With laws to follow and duties to fulfill, In exchange for security. We must strike a balance with the state -- ensuring we have enough freedom to replace the government if necessary, But not so much that we are made unsafe.

    This is the continual debate in US politics: freedom versus safety (equality). It is not an either or. . . But in the modern political scene, I'll vote for safety, Because the parties calling for liberty are in reality calling for a brutal, Harsh, Cold, Capitalistic state of nature in which the strong rule the weak. Pass!

  • Security is more important

    The amount of security in a country could be a life or death situation for many citizens and if that situation comes to be, which would you rather have more security and alive, or less security but because of the reduced amount of security you are dead and most likely many others.

  • Safety First and Always

    Security is more important than Freedom because imagine yourself as a person in a country where there is war. You have a family and you want to get out of the country. Just because you want to flee the country for freedom doesn't mean you are going to leave the country safely. In fact, there will only be a 0.01% chance in you and your family leaving the country. So if you lose your family while you flee the country, you just lost everything you had to live for.

  • If you're not safe, you might be dead.

    Look. We could easily have a country with no laws, total freedom, and no government. But would we be safe? No. We would be in a world where chaos reigned, and anyone could kill or rob. But there would be total freedom, right? Actually, here's the issue. You might very well be dead because there is no security. Thumbs up me for a free imaginary hug!

  • Without security our freedom goes away

    If we do not have security there are no laws and we will have a permanent purge. With the purge going on people will be too afraid to leave their houses or everyone will be killed off. That would then be the end of the country as we know it.

  • Without security there would be a permanent purge.

    If the country had full freedom and no security there would be nothing stopping people from killing each other. We would have a Purge for the rest of the country's life. Which would not be long at all. We may want more freedom, but I would rather be alive than dead.

  • By the numbers.

    Lets run this by the numbers. There are 30 confirmed cases where significant terrorists events were thwarted due to the authorities granted to federal agencies as a result of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 and other post 9/11 acts. Specifically, the authorities granted under Title VII, section 702 were extremely instrumental in these efforts. 30 situations that could've resulted in a significant loss of American lives. I'm talking attacks on the order of 9/11. So, what's the argument against that? If you want to debate, then debate. I don't care about what you "think" or what you "feel." It's absolutely irrelevant. What are your facts to the contrary? Facts, not gibberish derived from your liberal echo chambers. I mean what facts substantiate that the measures taken to safeguard our citizenry (30 attacks averted) were unjust and in any harmed the people of this country? If you can't provide facts, and can only come back with useless comments, then you're only demonstrating your complete ignorance of the situation and are quite frankly wasting your time. It's better to remain silent and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove yourself one.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.