I Support the President

There's been some division among conservatives over what stance to take with Obama. Republicans have always been willing to respect a President that they didn't like - at least, much more than Democrats are.

I believe I agree with Rush - I WANT Obama to fail. Some say this is un-American. Maybe they're right. But he stands for socialism, pure and simple. So I absolutely 100% want him to fail. If he succeeds, his AGENDA also succeeds. I don't want that to happen.

what you have just said, Ifon, has got to be a fucking joke. Republicans more willing to respect the opposition? are you kidding? yeah, they sure were respectful of bill clinton. And speaking of Rush, calling chelsea clinton "the white house dog", really fucking respectful.

Honestly, i am one of the more conciliatory liberals out there, but after the way you conservatives have destroyed the wonderful country i live in for 8 years, i couldnt care less if you idiots have ZERO representation in our government.

You say "maybe this is unamerican" and are comfortable with it? when all your party has been doing is getting after democrats for being unamerican and unpatriotic?

For Obama to fail is for America to fail, as weve seen with Bush, so fuck you for wanting him to fail.

"Even before the war started the anti-war crowd started chanting the mantra "We support the troops, but we don't support the war." This, of course, was their way of committing treason while pretending to be patriotic."

So you're saying that we have to agree with everything our government does, or we are treasonous? I'm so TIRED of the neo-conservative rhetoric. It's MY COUNTRY TOO, and I can disagree with the government if I damned well please, and STILL love my country. Asshole.

Oh, and Ifon, Republicans NEVER respect ANY president that isn't "their own" so peddle that shit to someone who believes it, like your own party members. And guess what, hoping the president fails is EXTREMELY un-American. If he fails, we ALL fail. As much as I hated Bush, I NEVER hoped he'd fail. Good God! He thinks he succeeded! LOL

And Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

"For Obama to fail is for America to fail." Is not accurate. For Obama to succeed means remaking the country into an even more socialist nation where those able to produce and provide are constrained from doing so.

And, for the record, the conservatives didn't destroy the country. Liberal republicans did that. Conservatives cringed at legislation passed by a supposedly republican congress that got us deeper in debt. Bush was not a conservative. He was a republican, not a conservative.

Finally, "It's MY COUNTRY TOO, and I can disagree with the government if I damned well please, and STILL love my country." What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

"For Obama to fail is for America to fail"

No, not really. For Obama to fail is for America to be saved from socialism. All we can HOPE for at this point is that he tries nationalizing health care and opening the borders and that the entire thing IMPLODES. That might allow us to get back on track in 2012 with a proper leader.

(The "f*** you" comments from our guests here really demonstrate well the differences between conservative and liberal debate. Thank you, both.

For more "respectful" conduct to a president that isn't "their own" one will note liberal's jeering, mocking behavior during Bush's exit two days ago.)

This is hilarious.

Liberals have torn Bush apart in the most vile, disrespectful way imagineable over the past 8 years.

Their websites have shown him having sex with animals, t-shirts have called for his assassination, they've thrown stuff at him in public - the list goes on and on.

And now we get our chance to ORDERLY say that we dislike Obama, we didn't vote for him and we don't want his agenda to succeed. And now the crying starts.

Priceless.

I dont like being insulting over proper debate, but these claims you guys are making are just ridiculous. Respect from republicans? Are you joking? The republican party is dominated by neo-conservative intellectuals, the liberal wing of the party is basically non-existent.

You complain complain complain about Obama and socialism, but Bush ushered in the biggest government in US history. Obama hasn't even been president for 3 days. I waited until after Afghanistan to lose my faith in Bush, out president at the time.

You can disagree with every single thing he says or does, but he is your president just as much as he is mine, and you should respect and root for him as such.

"You complain complain complain about Obama and socialism, but Bush ushered in the biggest government in US history"

True, which is why I didn't vote for him in 2004 and why I didn't vote for McCain in 2008, given the fact that McCain is Bush 2.0.

"but he is your president just as much as he is mine, and you should respect and root for him as such"

I will respect him certainly. I never said otherwise. But I will never ROOT for him or hope that he succeeds. Those are two, wildly different, things.

Obama unquestionably stands for bigger government. He stands for open (or openER) borders. He stands for nationalizing health care. I believe that those things, and others, will DESTROY this nation. I therefore cannot root for him.

In his article Fennoman has made reference to the logical fallacy of supporting the troops but not their mission. he does not, however say what type of logical fallacy it is. This is because (assuming he did research on what a logical fallacy is) it is not a logical fallacy.

But don't worry, there are plenty of logical fallacies in this article to go around.
For instance, the author opens his post with, "Even before the war started the anti-war crowd started chanting the mantra 'We support the troops, but we don't support the war.' This, of course, was their way of committing treason while pretending to be patriotic." This in fact is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. This is when two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several. In this case the two statements are, either you support the war and the military, or you are guilty of treason for wanting our soldiers to die. It is perfectly possible to not approve of the war and not want Americana soldiers to die.

There are also quite a few false premises in this post. They include the assertions that not supporting a war makes you guilty of treason, that the purpose of an army is to wage war, not supporting the war means you want the troops to lose. Not supporting the war is a right we have as Americans, not a crime punishable by death. The purpose of an army is to protect its country and its interests, not to wage war. And just because someone thinks that a certain war should not be fought does not mean they want that war to be lost.

What bothers me most about the post is the author's definition of patriotism and treason. Patriotism does not mean blindly supporting your president or your military or the actions of your country. That is nationalism and militarism which were two major causes of both world wars and the holocaust. Patriotism is wanting what is good for your country. On the other hand, treason is not being unsupportive of the president or even the troops. It is an action taken to overthrow the government. Patriotism is not a virtue and treason is not a vice. Patriotism for a wicked country is wicked and treason against a wicked country is good. Of course no country on the planet false strictly into the categories of good or evil. This is why we must move beyond patriotism for our country and do what is right for everyone in the world.

I agree with the sentiment that Repubs should respect the Prez but not necessarily hope his agenda succeeds. But that same logic means it is equally possible to respect the troops but oppose whatever conflict they are part of.

Also to Ifon, you seem to be arguing with the wall instead of Steven. what Steven is saying is that despite your disapproval of Obama's policies, you should hope that they succeed in making a better country for you and your children. He is not saying that you should cheer for policies that you don't predict will work.

"Despite your disapproval of Obama's policies, you should hope that they succeed in making a better country for you and your children."

IF Obama's policies were able to make a better country for me and my children, then we could support them. However, based on historical facts, it is unlikely and improbably that his policies will do what he wants. I think Obama wants what is best for the country--that I don't doubt.

But wanting something and getting are two different things. He will not get what he wants if his policies are implemented. They won't work.

"Despite your disapproval of Obama's policies, you should hope that they succeed in making a better country for you and your children"

That doesn't make any sense. If I disapprove of his agenda, why would hope they succeed?

Let's carefully think this through...

Obama might make me and my children FEEL good through his warm rhetoric in a down economy. But that isn't success. That's propaganda.

Real success - for me and my children - is a country with a SMALLER government, significantly fewer taxes, a reduction in entitlement spending, no national health care, a strong military, and a strong defense against terrorism.

How is Obama going to cause THAT kind of success for me and my children?

Is there anything in his agenda that demonstrates he's heading in that direction?

No, I didn't think so. Therefore, I hope he fails.

To support the troops without supporting the war is to support people - to wish them a safe return from the conflict they have been thrust into - without supporting the immoral conflict itself. To support the war in Iraq is to say that you support the decision to retaliate against, to invade, a sovereign nation that had absolutely nothing to do with an attack on our soil. This was a decision that was made on high, not by the troops themselves. Disagreeing with policy (the war) is simply not treasonous; it is the most basic right of the participants in a Democracy.

To support the president without supporting his policies is exactly what you should be doing if you disagree with him. I desperately wanted Bush to succeed, I just thought the way that he chose to go about trying to succeed was inherently flawed. When he did manage to do something right (ex. supporting the efforts to reduce AIDS cases in Africa), I applauded him. When he did something wrong (ex. just about everything else), I could only shake my head and wait for the next election. When he decided that he was above the law, and could shirk his responsibility to uphold the Constitution and America's responsibilities to the international community (ex. authorizing torture), I wrote my representatives in congress asking for him to be prosecuted - the same treatment I would request for any other criminal. I will extend the same support to Obama, and the same conditional support to his policy decisions.

Having a base level of necessities provided by the government, while still allowing private entities to provide the same goods and services, is not socialism; it's called having a choice. If it were socialism, then all public schools should be shut down, all roads left to be cared for by...someone, military disbanded, government subsidies to all industries revoked, prisons closed down, etc.. It is possible to provide for the well being of our citizens without dismantling our economic structure, one does not preclude the other.

The bottom line is that we are all in this together, and any support that you can provide to your brothers and sisters in America, and all over the world, can only help to strengthen the human race. Someday you and I will be dead. We need to be making decisions based on what is best for future generations, while tempering those decisions with our current needs. We don't need to be making policy decisions based on fear, anger, and ignorance.

The stupidity of the liberals on this blog is so glaring that its very difficult to see the oxymoronic drivel they promote. Their reversion to vulgarity proves their unrefined inability to express their thoughts logically. Truth and history have no place in a liberal defense of ignorance.

@ JP:

Clearly you have the ability to write claims (or at least dictate them to someone else to write for you), but can you support your claims?

"Having a base level of necessities provided by the government, while still allowing private entities to provide the same goods and services, is not socialism; it's called having a choice."

No, it's not. It's socialism. The Constitution of the United States of America severely limits the powers of the Federal Government. Since the early 1900's those limits have been pushed, stretched and finally completely destroyed. There is no Constitutional authority for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, mucking about with education and a whole huge list of things that the federal government currently does.

And the Constitution is clear as to what the purposes and "necessities" a federal government is allowed to provide. Beyond that, it has no authority to do so. Yet, almost everything on Obama's agenda exceeds those Constitutional limits.

Not only that, but we have history to teach us. Roosevelt *caused* the depression to go on longer than necessary by doing many of the same things that Obama has proposed to do. We can learn from socialist governments around the world that increasing government involvements in the markets do not improve their economies, but harm them. This is true in Europe, Japan and it destroyed the USSR.

Obama's socialist agenda is already a failed agenda--there isn't a place on earth where it has worked.

"Real success - for me and my children - is a country with a SMALLER government, significantly fewer taxes, a reduction in entitlement spending, no national health care, a strong military, and a strong defense against terrorism."

This is not success. These are policies put in place by people in order to yield certain results. Success would be if you were happy, wealthy, safe from unlawful or foreign threats and have all your rights as a citizen intact. All of which are possible and intended outcomes of Obama's policies. He is trying to make YOUR life better and you want him to fail at this?

"No, it's not. It's socialism."

No, Socialism would be if there was no private option. If the only option were a state sponsored/run institution then you would have a point.

"Obama's socialist agenda is already a failed agenda--there isn't a place on earth where it has worked."

Really? take a look at the list of the nations of the earth with the highest quality of life, per capita income, etc. It is topped by Scandinavian nations, all of which have socialized health care, education, housing, etc.

What exactly is your definition of "worked?"

@ Jake

You say "Success would be if you were happy, wealthy, safe from unlawful or foreign threats and have all your rights as a citizen intact"

Since you supplied the words "happy", "wealthy" and "safe" as the definition of success, I'll use those exact words.

I would be happier if the government were much smaller because it would provide me peace of mind. Big government implements big control. Governments that are big enough to give you everything are big enough to take everything away. Doesn't peace of mind about your future make you happier?

I would be happier if I had to pay fewer taxes and significantly smaller amounts. Aren't you happier with fewer bills to pay?

I would also be wealthier if I had to pay fewer taxes and significantly smaller amounts. Don't you agree that people who save more of their money are wealthier?

I would be safer if Obama wanted to fight terrorist where they lived rather than fight them here at home. Would you rather fight Islamofacism in the Middle East or on your next airplane flight to see grandma?

We know that socialism doesn't work. Ask a Swedish citizen if they're happy with their government. Sweden and Finland both have high suicide rates. Do you agree that people who commit suicide are generally less happy?

Ifon, a few points

1: What you are describing is a perfect world (at least from your point of view). It doesn't work that way.
2: Being happy because of peace of mind is foolish. Stuff happens. There is no more telling what Obama's policies will do than there is what McCain would have done. to tell the truth I got those words from reading what was important to you. I could care less if I was safe or wealthy
3: yes fewer taxes make us happier in the short term but then we have to think about what will happen to several public services we all take for granted.
4: I do not feel safe with US troops in the middle east. There are cheaper, more efficient, more humane and less deadly ways of combating terrorism. People who think the only course of action is violence demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the middle east situation.
5: Why do you think that they will follow us home if we leave the middle east. And while your thinking about that one let me know why you think they wont attack us at home if we stay.
6: Islamofacism is not a real word. its a buzz word made popular by the bush white house to oversimplify the situation in the middle east.
7: Wanting everyone to have a job, education and medicine for their kids is not socialism, its common decency.

@ Jake

2) "I could care less if I was safe or wealthy"

Then why did you say those were attributes of success? If those things aren't success, what are?

3) We have to think about what will happen to several public services we all take for granted."

The government spends about $7 billion per DAY to operate. There aren't enough wealthy people to tax in order to pay for all the public services liberals dream up. Given a limited supply of wealthy people, the only option is to tax the middle class. Which public services are worth $7 billion per day?

4) "People who think the only course of action is violence demonstrate a gross misunderstanding."

There is no such thing as freedom through peace. That is a lie spread by so-called "progressive" education. Can you name me one country, throughout all of time, that won their independence without violence?

5) "Why do you think that they will follow us home if we leave the middle east."

Because they have more than 20 times in the past two decades. We only occupy the parts of Saudi Arabia that the royal family has invited us to. We occupy Germany, Japan and other nations because of treaties that are decades old. Why did Osama Bin Laden attack us on 9/11 when we did not occupy Afghanistan at the time? He said we were occupying Saudi Arabia but we were invited to by the Saudi royals. The Saudis LIKE that we're there. The INVITED us there in the first place. Furthermore, the same Saudis KICKED OUT Bin Laden 10 years before.

6) "Islamofacism is not a real word."

Feel free to call it whatever you want. I'm not partial to that one. Anything that denotes that we are fighting MUSLIM extremism will do.

7) "Wanting everyone to have a job, education and medicine for their kids is not socialism, its common decency"

Yep, and you know what? The only thing that has every successfully accomplished that has been capitalism. Socialism has failed, to the chagrin of academic elitists and tyrants, over and over against. It's ironic, isn't it, that Karl Marx's desire that "the laborers should share in the fruits of production" was ONLY realized by rejecting socialism.

If I could just throw this out there- Jake, I think what you mean to say is "I COULDN'T care less..."

thanks Maria that exactly what I meant

"Why did Osama Bin Laden attack us on 9/11 when we did not occupy Afghanistan at the time? He said we were occupying Saudi Arabia but we were invited to by the Saudi royals. The Saudis LIKE that we're there. The INVITED us there in the first place. Furthermore, the same Saudis KICKED OUT Bin Laden 10 years before."

You sort of answered your own question here but allow me to elaborate. Bin Laden wasn't really kicked out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden believed that American influence in Saudi Arabia was poisoning the royal family and therefore wants to end that relationship. to do this he committed acts of terrorism inside Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government, instead of tracking him down, banished Bin Laden and PAID Al Qaida to go have their shenanigans in someone else's country. after this, Bin Laden's strategy changed from destabilising the Saudi government to establishing our control over the region by drawing them into a prolonged conflict that they cannot possibly win. he really just wanted us to attack Afghanistan but Im sure he was excited to hear that we attacked Iraq as well and he's probably on the edge of his seat to see what we do in Iran. If you don't believe me ask the CIA. Yes we are going to be attacked again if we do nothing but the military tends to cause more problems than it solves. And while you assert that there is no freedom without peace, I disagree. Look at Gandhi or Nelson Mandela or Dr. King. All practised and preached peace, all achieved freedom. Great Britain after Years of war finally did away with the monarchy in a bloodless coup. I assert that there can be no freedom without peace.

i meant to say destabilising our control over the region instead of establishing, sorry for the typo :/

Jake said:

Look at Gandhi or Nelson Mandela or Dr. King. All practiced and preached peace, all achieved freedom.

I maintain that the circumstances he cites were exceptional. Would Ghandi's strategy have worked if he were opposing, say, Alexander the Great or Tamerlane or Genghis Khan? Not hardly. Ghandi KNEW that the British would not machine-gun his supporters because they had stopped machine-gunning the Zulus in South Africa, which Ghandi had visited.

Dr. King knew that the whites would not wipe out the blacks as they had wiped out the native Americans because times had changed.

The case of Mr. Mandela is the most interesting. The whites were losing a civil war. They were unwilling to exterminate the blacks, and might not have been able to do so had they wanted to because of logistics and international opinion. Rhodesia had become Zimbabwe. The whites read the handwriting on the wall, realized they were losing the civil war, and cut the best deal they could. Mr. Mandela won a civil war; there was plenty of violence in SA until the whites capitulated.

Look further into the past; most losers were wiped out. The war which resulted in the unification of Japan exterminated the losers, for example. That was the custom until quite recently.

What history books are you reading?

"Great Britain after Years of war finally did away with the monarchy in a bloodless coup"?

Huh??

For centuries, the Kings fought to maintain control. Ever heard of Oliver Cromwell? He got rid of the monarch and installed an early version of the Parliament with the Lord Protector. Then, after his death, the monarch gained control AGAIN. Furthermore, Great Britain was wrung dry with so many wars in so many places in the world that they HAD to stop fighting. Great Britain is about the last example you should use as a nation of peace. Good grief.

You say Bin Laden wasn't kick out of Saudi Arabia and then say that he committed acts of terror in Saudi Arabia to get himself kicked out. Wow. Nothing I can add to that.

Dr. King achieved freedom? WHAT freedom? Blacks were free 100 years before he started marching.

Stop reading the leftists blogs. Their understanding of history changes every day to fit some new agenda.

Its true that the vast majority of freedom struggles are achieved by killing a vast number of innocent men, women and children. There is no arguing that what Sam said is true, all of the cases I provided including the one he didn't address were exceptional circumstances. That doesn't mean that we can't repeat them or even do better. Furthermore, major conflicts do not lead to peace and freedom. they just lead to peace and freedom for the winner. The loser is left economically, and emotionally crippled by the loss and devastation and is often so disenfranchised with the result of the conflict that they do things like fire rockets into Israel or blow themselves up in cafe's or fly planes into buildings. War does not yield peace, only more chaos.

Ifon,

first of all, after Cromwell military state failed they reverted to the monarchy. after lasting a few years the monarchy peacefully yielded control to parliament

Second, if you think black people were free in 1950 then every history teacher you ever had has failed you to a degree that I can not begin to repair by arguing with you on some web blog. That statement is ignorant and offensive.

Third, I don't read leftist blogs and I hate listening to Air America almost as much as I hate listening to Bill O'Reily. Don't assume my knowledge of history is distorted just because my views differ from yours.

Peacefully? They hanged his son and then dug up Cromwell and posthumously executed him.

Blacks WERE free in 1950. Discrimination is not equal to slavery. Discrimination, of that kind, is wrong. Is it equal to not being free? Hardly. To hear many blacks tell it, they STILL are not free even today.

You seem to be picking and choosing what the words "peaceful" and "freedom" mean just as you were with "success".

Wrong again. They weren't able to vote or speak freely or get an education, or live where they please, or prosecute the murderers of their families... the list goes on. Now tell me if you would feel free under those restrictions. Just because someone doesn't have shackles on doesn't mean they are free. This returns to the logical fallacy of dichotomy where you say someone is either enslaved or free. Well the problem with the equation Discrimination is not equal to Slavery is that things like freedom and discrimination and slavery aren't numbers with discrete values, they are words and symbols and ideas. The Bush White House has come up with a lot of great euphemisms for some terrible things they did and caused, but even they wouldn't have the guts to call that free.

It would seem from your explanation that "freedom" then is meaningless. There IS no real, single definition. It's entirely within the eye of the beholder.

You said "[blacks] weren't able to....get an education".

The black community says the same thing is true today, given how whites control education funding.

If that's true, blacks STILL aren't free and Dr. King never achieved anything.

If all we care about is long-term peace, then what you want is not merely war, but TOTAL war. The war between Carthage and Rome ended - the Carthaginians were wiped out to a man, the women enslaved, and the war was OVER. Rome never had to revisit the issue; permanent peace ensued.

More recently, something very similar happened in North America regarding the American Indians. We don't have a surly, violent remnant because there pretty much are not enough of them left to get anywhere with violence; they avail themselves of the courts and political process peacefully.

Is this the right way to go about resolving conflict? It certainly seems pretty brutal. But history shows it works. Does that make it right?

Well, is this permanent war between Israel and the Palestinians any better for anyone?

There probably is no good answer. But don't be so quick to dismiss the other solutions until you've come up with a better one.

"It would seem from your explanation that 'freedom' then is meaningless. There IS no real, single definition. It's entirely within the eye of the beholder." If you believe that then you also believe that evil and love and beauty are also meaningless. Also, just because something isn't quantifiable does not mean it is in the eye of the beholder. And about that last ignorant statement about MLK, just because one oppression hasn't halted yet doesn't mean he didn't gain freedom for his race.

"If you believe that then you also believe that evil and love and beauty are also meaningless"

I DON'T believe that freedom is in the eye of the beholder. I believe that freedom is actually a very simple thing which EVERY person in the United States has, regardless of their color (and has had for 100 years). I also believe that inequality is common to all societies and shouldn't be automatically attributed to the rich being evil.

My point was that YOU must believe freedom is relative, given the unraveling of your comments.

MLK didn't achieve freedom for his race. A white, spindly guy by the name of Lincoln did that.

The interesting thing is that the modern Black community has wondered so far away from MLK's vision even while invoking his name for campaigns he would want nothing to do with. If MLK "freed" blacks at all, it was so that they could compete on their own merits.

Freedom IS relative. If you have more freedom than you fellow citizens, which, by the way, you do, then you fellow citizens are an oppressed people and are not free. Freedom is NOT simple. It is a complex thing that must be fought for constantly paticularly in the last 8 years.

The only citizens with "less" freedom are prisoners, and this is by design. And, possibly, illegal alien.

How does any citizen of this country have less freedom than any other citizen? Any citizen can own a firearm, write what they like about the government, start a business, move where they like, work where they like, worship (or not) as they like. The list goes on.

Maybe you have a different definition of freedom. Or, maybe you have a confused definition of rights.

And, for the record, no citizen lost Constitutionally guaranteed rights in the last 8 years. You have the same rights today as the day President Bush was elected. Tomorrow, however, you may not, if you're we're all not careful and vigilant.

So Lincoln gave blacks some freedom, Rosa Parks gave them some freedom, MLK gave them some freedom, Obama might give them some more...

In your opinion, when are blacks free enough to be called "free"?

I make a lot of money. Since the government unfairly takes a higher percentage of tax money from me than 90% of everyone else, should I march on Washington about not being free? Should I THEN ask for reparations for the period of time spent under that bondage?

No, see, it all becomes silliness and a waste of time.

You can be more or less free than someone, with respect to your personal political persuasions, and that's fine. Everyone has the right to FEEL how they want so long as they aren't wasting someone else's time or money.

But the GOVERNMENT should only see people as free or not with respect to specific, well-defined laws. Either you are free by those laws or you are not.

"You have the same rights today as the day President Bush was elected."

Really??? I had the right to not be spied on and wiretapped before he was elected, and now I don't. I call shenanigans!

Um, unless you're talking to someone in ANOTHER country, Connie, you aren't being spied on.

The NSA wire tap program requires that either the originating or receiving phone call be located in a FOREIGN country.

Any phone conversation between you and someone else in the US is not tapped.

Connie,

That's the best you've got? How has your freedom been restricted? Have YOUR conversations been listened to? How has your life PERSONALLY been impacted by this?

Constitutionally, you don't have a "right to privacy". It's not there. However, there is a right against "unreasonable searches". The Courts have recently decided that the so called "warrantless wiretaps" were conducted within the law.

I'll grant you that it depends on who's in power as to how safe you'll feel. Personally, I felt much safer with Bush in office than with Obama and those he would appoint or hire.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html has some interesting reading, too.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ will give you the best discussion on the Constitution. Granted, it was written over 200 years ago, but it all still applies.

You're all pretty deluded if you think they limit themselves to foreign calls only.

Connie,

You ignored all of my questions. And, how about this: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/obama-sides-wit.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090116-fisa-court-upholds-warrantless-wiretap-authority.html

Now... the truth is that I don't think wiretapping US citizens in general (without probable cause and without warrant) is Constitutional. I don't support it, either. However, the burden of proof remains on those who claim to be harmed. I have not heard of any US Citizen not doing something illegal that has had any rights abridged because if it.

The whole issue is part of the anti-Bush rhetoric that we've heard for the last 8 years. What are you going to say now that Obama has sided with Bush?

No, we're not deluded. We just don't get our "facts" from leftist blogs and Comedy Central.
You know, the same places that said Bush would never relinquish control peacefully and was going to declare Marshal Law and stop the Obama transition? Talk about deluded.

Bush was ready to relinquish power as early as 2005 or 2006. He had realized by then that he was a blathering, bumbling, political joke to the entire world.

I wish i was exaggerating

Things like the patriot act, warrentless wire tapping and the proposed, national ID do undermine our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. They do not however do away with them. But let's not forget the freedoms we haven't gained; the freedom to buy alcohol whenever I want without religious restrictions on Sundays, the freedom to take whatever drug my doctor thinks will improve my quality of life, the freedom to marry whomever I choose. weather you agree with these rules or not, you are less free because of them. In the case of warrentless wire tapping, the issue is not weather or not they listened in on US citizens, It is weather or not they have the power to do so. It was trivial under this program to listen in on private conversations that had nothing to do with terrorism or crime. No one should have that power.
As for calling African Americans free, there are a large number of them who have attained freedom. Obama is an excellent example of that. But there are people alive today of all colors who were born into poverty that have very limited choices when it comes to where they live and what kind of education they get and even how much say they get in the government.