I'm more worried about people who think like you than I am of Osama bin Laden or his cronies.

Ditto.

I'm not really scared of terrorists. I'm not really scared of bin Laden or al Qaeda or any other current crazy people with guns. They're no worse than any of the other crazy people with guns throughout history.

I am scared that the country I want to live in the rest of my life will turn into a place no longer worth living in.

I am scared that my friends and family may get comfortable with the idea that we can change people's minds by dropping bombs on women and children, or that we can protect the country by controlling citizen's personal lives.

I can see no fundamental difference between that mindset and that of al Qaeda, different words for the same things.

At an editorial board with the Plain Dealer Kucinich told them that he has four candidates running against him for the House race and two are viable candidates with money. So Dennis can't afford to keep hanging on to the presidential race and then lose his House seat.

Well surprise surprise, neither Clinton or Obama bothered to take time off the campaign trail to stand up for our Country and Constitution. What a shocker!! I guess that would of meant taking a stand on an issue, something they are so scared to do. It might come back to haunt them. Those mean repugs might accuse them of being "soft on terror". Too bad Edwards isn't still in the Senate, I know he would of done the right thing and supported the Dodd's filibuster. By all means dems, lets put Hillary or Obama as our presidential nominee. Two candidates that stand for absolutely NOTHING. If they won't stand up for our Constitution now, what do you think they'll do if they become president? You think they will do anything worth while? If you do, you are in for huge disappointment. Obama and Clinton are two sides of the same corporatist-DLC coin. If either one gets the dem nominee, I know they will lose big time. Definetly if the repugs put up McCain, he will be our next president. Edwards is the only one that can beat McCain. So all you Obama and Clinton supporters, go ahead and vote for either one in the primaries. You are really voting for the repugs to win the presidency. You'll get what you deserve.

but their vote today on tabling the Judiciary bill wouldn't have made any difference. There is still support of Dodd and that could make a difference.

tea time?

He/She can teach a lame goat to lay chicken eggs?

He/She would be too smart for us dummies and say, "let's name a basset hound from the dog kennel, Karl Rove?"

He/She may have the finger and thumbs tattooed to look like yellow roses? Tulips?

Yea. That troll goes to a place of worship in a pair of soiled baby diapers?

Yea. Those kinda' trolls are addicted to pink cotton candy fluffy stick-wads?

Yea. Maybe that troll thinks it's cool to have black widow spiders tattoos on the cheeks?

Yea. Maybe that paid-creep preaches toes are more sensual than

a stray lost kennel dog's penis?

No need to try to offend anybody?

So- let's all pledge to respect the truth!

How can a person respect a lifer-hell-bent on promotion of deadly LIES and condone the war murderer? heh? huh. thank somebody I gotta go read a book to a real smart beautiful toddler.

children?

Yea. How many have you killed?

Oh, never mind answering that!

Ask the neoconservative possums.

[repteyve]: "[Glenn said]: Listening to this 'debate' is enough to make one become a revolutionary."

It hardly took this debate to get you there - reading your article, it is not hard to decipher the fact that you would gladly revolt against this government....

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Glenn's ideological forefather.

... What strikes me as more disturbing is the apparent desire to give in to those who would wish us harm to assuage some ridiculous guilt that you feel.

How's Glenn "giv[ing] in to those that would wish us harm" here? We're all for snooping terrorists. But that's not against the (old FISA) law. We're no friends of terrorists. But we're for doing it lawfully. Like getting warrants (where specified) and showing that we're going for "probable" terrorists. And not just anyone the gummint looks on with disfavour ... on their own say-so.

Let's see - you refer to Senator Rockefeller as AT&T's personal senator - much like you are the ACLU, trial lawyers and the quick to sue personally aggrieved individuals everywhere personal correspondent....

If the ACLU's handing out many thousands of dollars to Glenn and friends, where's my check?!?!?

... AT&T is better company than your cohorts.

Ever tried disputing your bill?

You spend a ridiculous amount of space railing against Rockefeller and others with his view - without detailing what it is that the telecoms apparently did - and why their cooperation with FISA is so harmful to the nation....

Oh, nonsense. They broke the freakin' law by tapping people without warrants. That's why they want immunity. If they didn't break the law, then no immunity is needed.

... You barely mention it, with the few exceptions of the oft-repeated canard that any cooperation with a government agency is tantamount to despotism.

Huh?!?!? No one has said that here. Look, "repteyve", a good dose of Haldol should help alleviate your hallucinations.

Your update (number 2, I believe) that accuses Rockefeller of contradictory statements is idiotic. "On the one hand, he claims that telecoms did nothing wrong because they were "compelled" by the President's orders to cooperate in his warrantless surveillance programs and had no choice. On the other hand, he claims that without retroactive immunity, telecoms won't cooperate in the future." Spoken like a true lawyer - yes it makes sense - if you are being sued, or even threatened of being sued, it is immaterial whether the action for which you are being sued is wrong - you are highly unlikely to repeat the action even if you are in the right.

Hey, doofus: Glenn's pointing out that Rockefeller claimed the telcos could not refuse the gummint ... and then saying that, without immunity (which was the case previously), they would refuse the gummint. If I were you, I don't think I'd pretend not to understand that; no one wants to admit to room-temperature (Celsius) IQ.

I am tired of people like yourself who would much rather mire our agencies in legalese and hearings than tracking down those who threaten the nation....

No one here minds people tracking down "those who threaten the nation". Matter of fact, where's bin Laden?!?!? We're just of the opinion that the gummint should be doing that, rather than snooping on whoever they want, without any oversight, while pretending to be finding bin Laden. Matter of fact, where's bin Laden?

... It amazes me how people like yourself - who undoubtedly argue for more government intervention for social programs and the like, are in turn so opposed to the same government trying to protect its citizens by monitoring illegal activities.

We allow for wiretaps to gather evidence of illegal activities. It's called Title III and it works. It requires a warrant.

This issue is a no brainer - not only are the majority of cases involving activities and telecommunications OUTSIDE the country where rights are not and SHOULD NOT be extended,...

And FISA doesn't require warrants for such.

... but the information being requested is much less than what is given to marketing companies in daily data mining.

That's a lie.

... When are people such as yourself going to stop treating our security as some kind of gotcha game, remove the politics and instead allow our children to grow up without fear of terrorists having more rights than you would grant the average conservative? (It's always about the children!)

Look, doofus: It's not the terrorists' "rights" we're asserting. It's ours! If there's "probable" cause to suspect that a person is an "enemy agent", a FISA warrant is a piece of cake. There is no such reason for us, and thank you, we'd like the laws to say that the gummint can't snoop on us whenever they want (and they have no right to). Capece?

Cheers,