Hedging you bets...will they lose control?

[BVS]

That being said, a true conservative party would stand for "less government".

A true conservative party would also realize that special circumstances sometimes require special action. They would support the president in tapping the bad guys' phones and the phones of their associates in order to help keep America safe.

I hope you realize the contradiction here...

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not for taking away any legitimate rights. There is no legitimate right to take the life of an innocent baby.

i really don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but can we agree that it is a complex issue, one that reasonable people can disagree on, and there are varying perspectives all of which have some degree of legitimacy?

While it is true that one issue is by far the most important for me, I'm not a single issue voter. If the Republicans and Democrats were all prolife, I would still vote Republican. I side with the Republicans on the vast majority of issues. There are very few issues with which I side with the Democrats.

what are the issues with which you side with the Republicans?

 

[80sU2isBest]

i really don't want to get into an abortion discussion, but can we agree that it is a complex issue, one that reasonable people can disagree on, and there are varying perspectives all of which have some degree of legitimacy?





what are the issues with which you side with the Republicans?

abortion, national security, border control, tax issues, just to name a few

 

[80sU2isBest]

I hope you realize the contradiction here...

There is no contradiction, because when people talk about "less government", they're talking about bureaucracy, not "less national security".

 

[BVS]

There is no contradiction, because when people talk about "less government", they're talking about bureaucracy, not "less national security".

No, a true "less government" party would be appalled by the wire tapping power that's given to today's government.

 

[80sU2isBest]

No, a true "less government" party would be appalled by the wire tapping power that's given to today's government.

When people talk about "less government", most of the time it is in reference to the size of the bureaucracy, not to national security.

I was not contradicting myself.

But since you seem to want to talk about it, how would "not spying on terrorists and their associates" provide "less government"?

 

[Irvine511]

There is no contradiction, because when people talk about "less government", they're talking about bureaucracy, not "less national security".

are you bothered by all the spending that's gone on the past 6 years, totally unrelated to national security? having gone from surpluses to record deficits?

 

[BVS]

When people talk about "less government", most of the time it is in reference to the size of the bureaucracy, not to national security.

You are confusing too many issues here. When people talk about less government it's not about beaucracy, it's about the power the government has over the individual.

And the idea that security at the cost of civil liberties is definately off the list for 'less government" folks.

This is exactly why Republicans have no right really calling themselves Republicans these days.

But since you seem to want to talk about it, how would "not spying on terrorists and their associates" provide "less government"?

A true definition of a terrorist would be a good start, right now anyone can be spyed on. Please take a closer look.

 

[diamond]

i think only internet porn addicts need be afraid of being spied on or others that indulged in illegal and illict activities on the internet.

dbs

 

[80sU2isBest]

are you bothered by all the spending that's gone on the past 6 years, totally unrelated to national security? having gone from surpluses to record deficits?

I've never paid as much attention to the spending as I should have, to be honest. However, if I were to have all the info I need and could actually understand it all, and found that the spending was unnecessary, yes I would be bothered.

However, I do know enough to know that not all the pundits agree that there were these huge surpluses the Clinton Admin bragged about.

 

[BVS]

i think only internet porn addicts need be afraid of being spied on or others that indulged in illegal and illict activities on the internet.

dbs

Yeah it couldn't possibly be used to wire tap opposing campaigns, get trading tips, or any other legal activities by simply defining the "potential" of terrorism or treason.



Ignorance may be bliss, but it will also destroy your libertites.

 

[80sU2isBest]

And the idea that security at the cost of civil liberties is definately off the list for 'less government" folks.

I don't put much value on protecting the rights of terrorists and their associates to have "tap-free" phone conversations.

A true definition of a terrorist would be a good start, right now anyone can be spyed on. Please take a closer look.

Do you think they have the time and manpower to spy on people who are not involved in terrorism?

 

[BVS]

I don't put much value on protecting the rights of terrorists and their associates to have "tap-free" phone conversations.

So are you a terrorist? For it's your rights I'm concerned with.

Do you think they have the time and manpower to spy on people who are not involved in terrorism?

Absolutely, it's already been used to spy on anti-war protestors, busting marijuana pocessions, and other non-terrorist activities...

 

[melon]

Do you think they have the time and manpower to spy on people who are not involved in terrorism?

The government does not have a great historical track record. Why do you think that there were rules in place to ensure that the FBI and the CIA not communicate? Because the system was abused, and while we're to believe that these measures are going to be used solely for "anti-terrorism" purposes, it could very easily be used for political motivations. Indeed, this is what happened the last time around, and I don't see any reason why human nature will change that.

Melon

 

[AEON]

The government does not have a great historical track record. Why do you think that there were rules in place to ensure that the FBI and the CIA not communicate? Because the system was abused, and while we're to believe that these measures are going to be used solely for "anti-terrorism" purposes, it could very easily be used for political motivations. Indeed, this is what happened the last time around, and I don't see any reason why human nature will change that.

Melon

I agree. But I also feel that warranted eavesdropping is an essential component of fighting terrorism.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

gas prices are dropping, unemployment is steady, the economy is in decent shape...

to a large segement of the population, this is all that matters.

i think it's more likely that the republicans keep both as opposed them losing both... but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they lost one of the two

 

[BonosSaint]

Tapping's fine--with judicial oversight and safeguards. And if time was of the essence, government had the 48 hour grace period before they got court approval. How often was the government denied court approval for wiretap? Not often.

Like has been said over and over, no oversight leads to abuse.
Hell, even oversight won't prevent all abuse.

Like Reagan said, Trust.....but verify. Or paraphrased, give what authority is necessary and watch them like a hawk.

 

[deep]

Congressionall Approval at Historic Lows


A new Gallup Poll finds "only 23% of Americans saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. Additionally, just 30% say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country at the present time. Both measures are low from a historical perspective, creating an environment that may benefit the Democrats in November."

 

[A_Wanderer]

i think only internet porn addicts need be afraid of being spied on or others that indulged in illegal and illict activities on the internet.

dbs

Porn is protected speech and it is not illegal.

 

[diamond]

Porn is protected speech and it is not illegal.

Not all porn.

 

[Irvine511]

I agree. But I also feel that warranted eavesdropping is an essential component of fighting terrorism.

i think everyone agrees with this. it is the Bush administration that doesn't.

 

[Irvine511]

as for an actual prediction, i have no idea.

it looks like the Dems will win the House, and be within a seat or two in the Senate as well as win back the majority of governorships.

but the GOP has more money and a highly respected "ground game" -- they know how to get their numbers out.

and electronic voting still concerns me.

i'm voting absentee so there's a paper trail.

 

[verte76]

I'll wait and see. We don't know for sure, but life has been rough for the Republicans of late. We'll know on election day.

 

[diamond]

I'll wait and see. We don't know for sure, but life has been rough for the Republicans of late. We'll know on election day.

safe answer.
5 days left to vote/predict here.



dbs

 

[diamond]

1 day left to vote/predict.

This just in:

http://online.barrons.com/public/ar...PXls_20061121.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features

 

[Irvine511]

^ they're saying it will come down to money, which might be true, but everyone on the panel on Meet The Press this morning predicted the Republicans losing 20 seats in the house, and the Senate breaking mostly even.

they did note, though, that while Harold Ford Jr. should win in Tennessee, there seems to be a bit of a "black tax" on candidates -- african-americans tend to do about 5 points worse in electoral outcomes than they poll because many white people, especially conservatives in red states, who would never tell a pollster that they would never vote for a black person, once they get in the booth, racism rears its ugly head, and it turns out that they would never actually vote for a black person.

i still think the House is going to go Democratic, but the Senate will either be divided or stay barely Republican.

 

[diamond]

^

i still think the House is going to go Democratic, but the Senate will either be divided or stay barely Republican.

your prediction is duly noted.

dbs

 

[Dreadsox]

Republicans will retain control of both, but by a slimer margin.

 

[anitram]

Republicans will lose the House (Zogby says 20-25 seats, but I think it'll be less) and will lose 3-4 Senate seats but not enough to lose control.

 

[yolland]

A "slimer" margin--now, that sounds ominous.