I know that you have some sort of deep seated dislike for me, but really, you're just making yourself look silly. This is not what I said at all.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I didn't realise he meant it that way, i don't expect them to "take care of me" in any way.

They pay for my health care and i don't worry about much else, but not because i'm on welfare or something!

I thought he meant it in the sense of trusting them to take care of it; i.e. them not screwing it up, sorry my bad.

Not you; merely your socialist tendencies that force others to pay for your welfare.

And can anyone tell me one massive govn program, besides the military, that is a success?

Varus

USPS - The United States Postal Service (U.S. Postal Service)

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

The only ones that aren't successful are the ones that are underfunded.

__________________

You trust the government to provide you with security? Why, compared to anything else?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

The DEA is an astonishing success, considering its goal of expanding its authority and appropriating more tax dollars to keep itself in business.

But, I'm inclined to agree that any program run by the government could be run more successfully by private enterprise, assuming that economies of scale were the same (and thus not inviting comparisons between Fed Ex and the USPS). I would also include the military in that.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well its interesting. In a seperate thread you were asked what you feared most and you said the loss of your civil liberties because the odds of you being struck by lightning were greater than being in a terror attack right? But let me ask you, what are the odds that you'd have your personaly civil liberties violated? I know i haven't answered your question, but i'll wait for your response firs, else it'll make no sense.

I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure the question is relevant.

Honestly, I suspect that I've probably had emails read and phone calls screened, but mostly because I've (jokingly) placed the phrase "Bush, Bomb, White House, New York, Airplane, Jihad" into conversations with friends. I figure one of those has to be a good trigger.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Well, first off, there's a good chance I would have (or have had) my liberties violated without knowing it. It's unlikely that I'd be the victim of a terrorist strike without knowing it.

And, generally speaking, I couldn't begin to estimate such odds. They depend on the nature of various policy and the application of said policy for starters. Additionally, there are many more ways to have your rights impinged than there are ways to be the victim of a crime because the former is much more nuanced.

Are you going to make a proposition that you trust the government to provide you with security because it's willing to trample on everything else to do so?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Okay so say someone's been tapped..how much help was that to authorities from preventing you from being an attack or anyone else from being in an attack

Not exactly, but the longer we go on without attack the longer somebody would have confidence in safety and their security right? Your question was why single out security, well we've been safe for 6 years right? Or not attacked at least. That would be the short answer. However my overall point would be that the odds that you would wind up in an attack and being hurt or killed may be slim but what would the odds be that sombody would be? And more so than that without the measures taken that you feel encroach on civil liberties would we be as you put it "more likely to be in a car accident than attacked by terrrorists"?

You realize when you do things like that it makes it more difficult to track down actual terrorists don't you? And you wonder why republicans accuse democrats of aiding and abetting the enemy. For every whacked out liberal correspondence that has to be investigated those people could actually be tracking actual terrorists. Hoorah for you.

Varus

Yes we know the liberals answer for everything is to request more money from hardworking tax payers to give it to losers who have no concept of independence and freedom.

Varus

On the contrary compared to other non-government postal services they are far behind.

Varus

Exactly, so its all pretty much relative is it not? How can you blanketly state that the odds are very slim you'll be injuried or killed by terrorists when you don't know what preventative measures (or the specifics of them) are being taken to prevent another attack. And i doubt the person who formulated those odds was a mathematician and was probably a political proffessor as a mathematician would have accounted for mitigating factors as the unknowns which have to apply as constants for the current environment of relative safety to be maintained, wouldn't you agree?