Here, we've got the insufferable Shooter and Brave, Brave Sir Anonymouse as the lone voices in the wilderness, courageously speaking out for the transformation of our government into an authoritarian system. Let's quickly dispense with that nonsense, and continue with an intelligent discussion.

The crux of their argument seems to be this: only a paranoid delusional would worry about a government's ability to track Americans' phone calls. We're fighting the Islamofascists for our very survival, and you guys are worrying about someone tracking your phone call to granny?

First, worrying about a government that can track domestic communication is supported by history. Throughout history, most if not every regime with this ability has used it to spy on their political opponents. Them's just the unfortunate facts. In fact, FISA was enacted as a direct response to the Nixon Admin's practice of doing precisely that. Now, we all know that you guys are fine with the government spying on their political opponents, so long as those opponents have a D next to their name, and those doing the spying have an R. But that simply reflects your cowardly, unprincipled nature. It has no bearing on the actual argument. To those of us who value the American style of government, we realize that such abuse by the party in power (whichever one it is) would tremendously damage the whole representative government thing that was started 200+ years ago. I understand you guys are fine with that. If you could just muster the courage to express this viewpoint openly, rather than hinting at it with these bizarre arguments, you'd have a much easier time and probably receive less ridicule.

Second, while I do believe there are terrorists in the world who wouldn't mind seeing me dead just for being an American, I acknowledge that the chances of me encountering one is somewhere far south of my chances of being struck by lightning. On the other hand, the danger of an abusive government to dismantle the freedoms that Americans have enjoyed for its entire history is clear and present; the PATRIOT Act, this NSA spying thing, the legitimization of torture, the politicization of the Dept of Justice, and signing statements (in no particular order) are clear examples of a very strong intention to change the US government in a distinctly non-egalitarian direction.

The argument I just made above is not revolutionary. Many other commenters have said the same thing. The fact that your argument can be so easily dismantled, Shooter and Anonymouse, is indicative of your pure, raw stupidity. Feel free to prattle on in the same manner, but keep in mind as you do that it's very much like sticking a sign on your own back that says "I AM A DUMBFUCK."

Perhaps it's beyond your abilities to understand that we aren't talking about wiretapping or eavesdropping? I'd also be interested in hearing how computerized tracking of an entire networks worth of linkages goes back into history.

I never suggested that computerized tracking of networks goes back into history. Read it again, this time more slowly, and bring someone to help you with the big words. I said "tracking domestic communication" has gone on through history, and the regime that does it has generally used it to keep tabs on its political opponents. You can't refute that. While the current discussion, yes, revolves around monitoring of the network rather than wiretapping and evesdropping, it is undeniable that we do not know the full extent of this program. Preventing us from knowing the full extent is the precise purpose of BushCo's push for telecom immunity. Remember, this program used to be about tracking the phone calls of a handful of terrorists, and always with a warrant. Then it turned out there were no warrants. Then it turned out that they were tracking the phone calls of hundreds of millions of Americans. So, you need to accept that this program could well go beyond network tracking.

But let's assume that's as far as it goes. There is clearly an intelligence value to that tracking, or else they wouldn't be doing it. Right? So, if they directed this tracking at, say, Democratic candidates or particularly investigative journalists, logic dictates that they would derive this same value. And, given the current legislation, there would be no way to know how this was being abused.

Am I going too fast for you?

The question here is whether seeing the patterns of one random number (phone number) interacting with other random numbers, is a loss of his freedom.

Again, Shooter, these patterns are clearly of value to our intel services, or else they wouldn't be tracking them. If our government is gathering valuable intel on its citizens without a warrant, that is a loss of freedom.

Way to go guys. Maybe you can successfully expose every legitimate method of surveillance America has,

Shooter, this method is not legitimate. For that reason, BushCo is clamoring for telecom immunity. You don't need legal immunity for behavior that is legitimate. What part of that don't you understand?

Please, Shooter, I invite you to prove your banal stupidity once again.

Something about Mama McCain's comment reminds me of situations I get in with my 2-year-old.

She's basically saying that John has worked hard and waited his turn, so now it's his go to be president.

Occasionally I get in that situation with my son when he's waiting to get on the swings. Some kids can sit on the swings all day, and others like to cut in line, especially in front of a 2-year-old. Occasionally this requires a bit of parental involvement.

But we're not deciding who should be the most powerful man in the world. For that, having your mama try and instill some kind of playground etiquette is profoundly lame.

Personally, I'm loving this. The GOP looks increasingly lame as each hour passes by. Come November, I can imagine the nominee's campaign speech will probably consist only of crying and begging.