And where we differ, bud, is that I feel it's neither good for FDR, GWB, or HRC, or BHO, let alone JSM, to have such powers. Fourth Amendment and all that.

Even if I might be some fraction of a percentage point safer, what sort of a society would I be living in?

The world may yet give you a President Hillary Rodham Clinton with unrestricted powers of domestic surveillance. "Be careful what you ask for," eh bud?

...in better words than I can muster, this:

It's not that I think the government is keeping tabs on me in particular. I'm not that arrogant. I'm sure I'm of no importance to the government whatsoever, being a minor blogger with a small readership and all. That's not the point [...] it's not that the government is actually spying on me, or you, or anyone else; it's that the government can spy on any of us, if it wants to -- if it decides to cause us trouble for any reason, or for no reason, or if it decides to make an example of us.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-you-dead-yet.html

This is where we part company, Shooter. You trust in the inherent goodness of Bush and his people, but fear the dastardly Clintons. I reject any sanction for such powers, in whatever hands, by their very nature. As did the Founders.

The Fourth Amendment says nothing about people "show[ing] that they have been harmed or even affected by the surveillance."

Believe me, if I thought Obama was at all left - let alone far left - I might actually support him. I understand that anyone to the left of Joe F*cking Lieberman is considered a leftist in this country but, please.

red diapers or not, Barry O is no far-leftist.

Elephant, please.

If you're going to goad us, at least be a little creative. The ACLU, for goodness' sake?

Say what you will about Rove, at least “liberals want to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” has a little pizzazz to it.

It's like you're not even trying. It kind of hurts my feelings.

...who wrote an editorial supporting Obama now supports Obama?

WTF is your point, man?

In classic right-wing authoritarian fashion, Mr. JerryDampf attempts to draw an equivalence where none exists:

Why is it repellent to note associations with Communists, but not associations with Nazi's?sic?

Allow me to grasp that nettle, as no one else seems willing to.

Neo-Nazi groups have been convicted of numerous hate crimes in the United States, are involved in racketeering, conspiracy, and civil rights violations. Their organisations, such as the Order and Aryan Nations, recruit with great success in the prisons of this country. Despite their absence of any redeeming social virtue, the free-speech rights of Neo-Nazi Americans have been repeatedly upheld - as indeed they should have been, under our Constitution.

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), on the other hand, played a pivotal role in organising the labour movement in the United States, and championed the rights of African-Americans, Jews and other minorities through the dark years of the last century. Despite massive repression by the U.S. government, the CPUSA never committed or sanctioned any act of violence.

Was every member of the Party pure and angelic? By no means. Some individual Communists spied for the regime in Moscow, though secret papers released after the fall of the Soviet Union showed far fewer numbers of spies with far less effect than had been assumed.

However, the average American Communist (of which there were tens of millions in the last century) was an idealist who wanted the best for his family and his country, in a time when workers' rights were frequently violated and minorities had no voice.

The average American Nazi was, and still is, a thug and a racist.

That, Mr. JerryDampf, is exactly why your equivalence is "repellent."

did Barry O really say anything about "bombing" Pakistan? The relevant quote that I've seen is

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

which, thogh it certainly leaves open the meaning of "act," to my reading seems to suggest cross-border raids from Afghanistan more than anything else.

UT has been infested with pseudo-Jewbaiting anonymice for some time. They are provocateurs, trying to make this place look like a hotbed of anti-Semitism... primarily because there is the occasional post somewhat critical of Israel.

People tend to ignore them for the same reason you don't swat at every mosquito you see: you're not going to get rid of them, and it's not like they care, anyway.

FZ is never OT.

Imagine what a different country this would be if he had been elected president...

It is really "psychologically exhausting" to come up with new ways to ridicule these clowns.

Fortunately was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.

Imagine: an individual with utter disdain for a writer, who nevertheless waits breathlessly for the writer's latest work to be published and rushes to be one of the first people to post. "Oh look, the writer has once again written something I can't stand!"

The self-sacrifice! Greater love hath no man than this: that he reads stuff he knows he won't like, then bitches about it to people who don't care.

My hat is off, sir.

Remind me again... how do you "win" an occupation?

I have been watching with grim amusement the construction of another "stabbed in the back" narrative about Iraq. The only tool this Administration (and as far as I can tell, the next Administration) has is a hammer. Once we have to inevitably bring the troops home, it'll be the fault of everybody that suggested that Iraq was not a country of nails.

he did that which was completely above board.

and then lied about it.