Anyone not receiving phone calls from suspected terrorists has nothing to fear. President Bush makes a very good point in saying that if terrorists are calling someone in the United States, we want to know what they are talking about. So far 5 of the 11 circuit courts - including the 9th which arguably the most liberal in the country - has stated the president was given the authority to listen in to such phone conversations by congress after 9/11. Judge Taylor who recently struck down that right is associated with the ACLU and was chomping at the bit to strike at Bush. The fact that the case ended up in her court was not coincidence. The plaintives were flagrantly guilty of judge-shopping. Her ruling will almost certainly be overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I feel nauseous. Trust Bush, he may be ignoring the constitution but he has our best interest in mind... :nope: I'm glad you guys aren't in charge of regulating the country. How can you have such a lack of foresight? Even if Bush does have our best interest in mind, a future president who has the support of less than half the country and refuses to consider any side of any point but his own while pushing his own agenda may not have the country's best interest in mind. There is a real need to draw up guidelines to safeguard our freedoms. Though security must be considered, it doesn't mean that freedom can be ignored. Eventually it does come down to a matter of trust, but trust (safety) and freedom (guidelines) must both be considered. If the Bush administration is doing that, they need to do a much better job of communcating it. This country is so polarized I'd say whoever is in charge isn't doing a very good job of uniting the country. And I really don't think we are significantly safer now than we were before Bush took over the presidency. One reason is that there are so many holes that anything close to total security is an illusion.
Listen to yourself. I'm defending the Constitution and the law of these here United States and your are defending George Bush.
I just saw that and read that this was a small sample of mainly democrats. Red, would you vote for Hillary even though we don't know who the Republican canidate will be?
Your can't-see-ahead opponents still don't understand this part. It's not about terrorists or George Bush, it's about consolidation of executive power. I don't want to see a democratic administration with this power to operate without Consitutional checks and balances either. Not even a moderate administration, if one existed. We can't have Presidents breaking the law. Any president, any time. Presidents are not above the law. Laws have to have meaning.
I can promise you that every president has broken some law in their time in office. Besides, how was the British terror plot that is now increasing your delay time at the airport?....wire-tapping. The Clinton Administration claimed that increased wire-tapping authority was needed to protect "national security" from a "terrorist threat" and that was when terrorism was at a 25 year low. So, what is the difference between the two.
I don't think Hillary is ultimately electable because women won't vote for another woman. They'd vote for Sir William of Smooth again, but not for Hillary. But SabanFan is not paying attention when he says "Hillary Clinton doesn't have a remote possibility". She has a real shot to be the Democratic candidate because she is a moderate democrat and closest to the center of any of the Democratic rivals. I think both parties are going to move to the center in 2008 because the country is tired of partisan bickering and wants some people in charge who are willing to work together for the good of the country rather than the good of their party. This is why the republican front-runner is McCain, a moderate Republican. If McCain runs, I'll probably go with him. I've followed him a long time, i supported him in 2000, and he is pragmatic and a realist with as little idealistic dogma as I've seen in a politician recently. But if the Republicans run another Neo-con, I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat. I'd vote for Pauly Shore if the alternative was another Neo-con Republican administration. But you never know when a surprise Democratic candidate like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton is going to come out of the woodwork and take the middle away from the usual suspects. A true moderate could take the inside track from Hillary, win the Democratic nomination, and be a serious rival for a moderate Republican.
Oh, come on. "Everybody does it" is a schoolyard excuse for breaking the law and it has never washed.
Another neo-con like say, Reagan? You'd vote for Reagan? I doubt it. Go ahead, tell everyone you voted for Carter and Mondale with the other 2 people in the country.
