This Terrorist attack makes an easy agrument against the Expansion of Police Powers

[The2ndAmendment]

Here is an irrefutable fact: Either the government had no knowledge that this attack was going to happen, or they did have knowledge that it was going to happen --- one of these statements must be true.

However, either statement leads to the same conclusion:

1) The Government had no idea that is going to occur, therefore their Anti-Constitution policies don't work, e.g. Patriot Act, NDAA, Fusion Centers, etc. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

2) The Government did know it was going to happen, therefore they let this happen so they can take more of our liberties away. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

Instead, we should be addressing the CAUSE of these terrorist attacks, in other words, why they are attacking us. These laws and bills do not address the Cause of the attacks, they simply try to control the symptoms and effects.

Sure, basic security and intelligence measures are needed, but there's a point where additional and stronger security measures become ineffectual; so beware, do not continue to trade away your liberties for more security, because the government can only provide a small amount of security, not matter how much liberty they take away.

 

[bucs90]

So....the fact that Iran and N Korea are pursuing a nuke, and that there is still violent terror in Iraq and Afghanistan............both means we should stop increasing our military spending?

Maybe we need to slash our military, since it obviously isn't stopping violence against America and American interests?

 

[bucs90]

But, if you're suggesting that we need to pull our military out of the Middle East, out of Germany, out of Japan, out of Korea, out of Australia.......and well, basically, keep our military in or near our continent, then yes, I agree with that.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So....the fact that Iran and N Korea are pursuing a nuke, and that there is still violent terror in Iraq and Afghanistan............both means we should stop increasing our military spending?

Maybe we need to slash our military, since it obviously isn't stopping violence against America and American interests?

What does that have to do with the increase/decrease of policing powers?

 

[Black_Label]

Here is an irrefutable fact: Either the government had no knowledge that this attack was going to happen, or they did have knowledge that it was going to happen --- one of these statements must be true.

However, either statement leads to the same conclusion:

1) The Government had no idea that is going to occur, therefore their Anti-Constitution policies don't work, e.g. Patriot Act, NDAA, Fusion Centers, etc. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

2) The Government did know it was going to happen, therefore they let this happen so they can take more of our liberties away. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

Instead, we should be addressing the CAUSE of these terrorist attacks, in other words, why they are attacking us. These laws and bills do not address the Cause of the attacks, they simply try to control the symptoms and effects.

Sure, basic security and intelligence measures are needed, but there's a point where additional and stronger security measures become ineffectual; so beware, do not continue to trade away your liberties for more security, because the government can only provide a small amount of security, not matter how much liberty they take away.

You are correct and the right wingers as usual, are leading the charge for bringing more big government and anti-freedom in the name of "safety"

GOP Rep. Peter King On Boston Bombing: "We Need More Cameras" | RealClearPolitics

 

[The2ndAmendment]

But, if you're suggesting that we need to pull our military out of the Middle East, out of Germany, out of Japan, out of Korea, out of Australia.......and well, basically, keep our military in or near our continent, then yes, I agree with that.

Yes, that is what I meant. The Repugs will get mad when they hear this though lolol.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Here is an irrefutable fact: Either the government had no knowledge that this attack was going to happen, or they did have knowledge that it was going to happen --- one of these statements must be true.

However, either statement leads to the same conclusion:

1) The Government had no idea that is going to occur, therefore their Anti-Constitution policies don't work, e.g. Patriot Act, NDAA, Fusion Centers, etc. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

2) The Government did know it was going to happen, therefore they let this happen so they can take more of our liberties away. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

Instead, we should be addressing the CAUSE of these terrorist attacks, in other words, why they are attacking us. These laws and bills do not address the Cause of the attacks, they simply try to control the symptoms and effects.

Sure, basic security and intelligence measures are needed, but there's a point where additional and stronger security measures become ineffectual; so beware, do not continue to trade away your liberties for more security, because the government can only provide a small amount of security, not matter how much liberty they take away.

You are correct and the right wingers as usual, are leading the charge for bringing more big government and anti-freedom in the name of "safety"

GOP Rep. Peter King On Boston Bombing: "We Need More Cameras" | RealClearPolitics

Yes, he's a fascist pig.

You do know that I am neither Repugnant-can nor right-wing, correct?

 

[chikenwing]

So....the fact that Iran and N Korea are pursuing a nuke, and that there is still violent terror in Iraq and Afghanistan............both means we should stop increasing our military spending?

Maybe we need to slash our military, since it obviously isn't stopping violence against America and American interests?

Maybe instead of swinging for the fence,you could ask why a 86 year old grandma has to take her shoes off,to get on a flight . Are we all so much safer looking in old ladies shoes??

 

[bucs90]

It has to do with police powers, because like it or not, the police and military are tasked with the SAME goal: Protecting US citizens from foreign or domestic threats.

So, saying that because the domestic protection failed to stop one threat, and therefore we need to slash it, is the same as saying that because the military didnt stop one foreign threat we should slash that.

In a macro vs micro argument, you'd say that the fact that the Navy SEALS were bullet resistant vests is proof enough that we need to stop expanding their training....since the existence of the vest is proof that their tactics will sometimes fail.

Thats just reality. Just because one got through, is no reason to give up. In WW2, would a battleship stop shooting at planes just because one kamikaze got through?

 

[g5000]

Here is an irrefutable fact: Either the government had no knowledge that this attack was going to happen, or they did have knowledge that it was going to happen --- one of these statements must be true.

However, either statement leads to the same conclusion:

1) The Government had no idea that is going to occur, therefore their Anti-Constitution policies don't work, e.g. Patriot Act, NDAA, Fusion Centers, etc. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

2) The Government did know it was going to happen, therefore they let this happen so they can take more of our liberties away. Therefore, we should not pass more legislation that expands the powers of the police state.

Instead, we should be addressing the CAUSE of these terrorist attacks, in other words, why they are attacking us. These laws and bills do not address the Cause of the attacks, they simply try to control the symptoms and effects.

Sure, basic security and intelligence measures are needed, but there's a point where additional and stronger security measures become ineffectual; so beware, do not continue to trade away your liberties for more security, because the government can only provide a small amount of security, not matter how much liberty they take away.

There really should be a forum contest with awards for recognizing and naming the most logical fallacies each month.

Anyone care to name which logical fallacy this post is?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

It has to do with police powers, because like it or not, the police and military are tasked with the SAME goal: Protecting US citizens from foreign or domestic threats.

So, saying that because the domestic protection failed to stop one threat, and therefore we need to slash it, is the same as saying that because the military didnt stop one foreign threat we should slash that.

In a macro vs micro argument, you'd say that the fact that the Navy SEALS were bullet resistant vests is proof enough that we need to stop expanding their training....since the existence of the vest is proof that their tactics will sometimes fail.

Thats just reality. Just because one got through, is no reason to give up. In WW2, would a battleship stop shooting at planes just because one kamikaze got through?

Um, you ARE aware that the Obama administration is slashing the U.S. military budget by at least $487 billion over the next 10 years, including eliminating 100,000 ground troops, cutting back on drone deployments, retiring navy vessels, etc., etc., etc.?

Check your facts, Vladimir.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It has to do with police powers, because like it or not, the police and military are tasked with the SAME goal: Protecting US citizens from foreign or domestic threats.

So, saying that because the domestic protection failed to stop one threat, and therefore we need to slash it, is the same as saying that because the military didnt stop one foreign threat we should slash that.

In a macro vs micro argument, you'd say that the fact that the Navy SEALS were bullet resistant vests is proof enough that we need to stop expanding their training....since the existence of the vest is proof that their tactics will sometimes fail.

Thats just reality. Just because one got through, is no reason to give up. In WW2, would a battleship stop shooting at planes just because one kamikaze got through?

I have question, you already know that I agree with you on this issue, and you already know that I agree that military spending should be cut ... drastically.

So why are you trying to attack me, when we both agree on these things?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Anyone care to name which logical fallacy this post is?

When one applies rigid logic, one can write it mathematically.

Let Statement A = John is 10 years old. Statement A is either True or False.

Either A is true and ~A is false (~ = NOT), or A is false and ~A is true.

Therefore the statement A OR ~A is a tautology, because the statement is always true.

John is 10 years old OR John is not 10 years old. This statement is always true.

-----------------------------

Now let A = The Government had knowledge of this terrorist attack (before it happened).

The statement: A OR ~A is true, under all circumstances; therefore:

The Government had knowledge of this terrorist attack OR the Government did NOT have knowledge of this terrorist attack.

g5000, now you tell us, is A true? Or is ~A true? One of them must be true, and the other must be false.

Now you were saying what about logic?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Why don't we stop killing Muslims for oil? That might solve the problem.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why don't we stop killing Muslims for oil? That might solve the problem.

Or bombing Libya because they switched to a Gold Standard and rejected the FIAT money of international banks.

Keep adding to the list!

e.g. Afghanistan and Lithium deposits!

 

[Mad Scientist]

This Bombing came about because of Large Capacity Garbage Cans. Smaller cans would have done far less damage.

When is America going to come to grips with it's Fetish for Large Garbage Cans? We need Common Sense Garbage Can Legislation.