i agree. however, the trouble is, most germans werent bothered by the onset of fascism in the 30s. that doesnt mean it was right (though germany in the 30’s was obviously worse, i dont mean to equate the two). most people should be bothered by it.

and plenty of families of the victims of 911 still care about fundamental rights.

I think that to the relative of those killed in 911, that their relatives are just as important as anything in the world.

with the NSA program, I just dont think we are going to hear a big public outcry about it. UNLESS is is being used for non-terror purposes.

the bottom line is most people are not bothered by it.

im sure there were prior abuses of presidential power, and worse ones too, but i dont think this argument stand up either. first off, during WW2 and the civil war our country’s survival was threatened, in the war on terrorism all the terrorists can do is kill x amount of civillians, they cant actually threaten the state. besides that, with the passage of fisa in 1978 theres clear legislative intent to go along with the constitution.

“Some Dems accuse the prez of not doing enough before 911, now he does too much.”

he didnt do enough before 911, and hes still not doing enough. he still hasnt instituted the recommendations of the 911 commission (last fall they gave him a “report card” on readiness and he failed in many areas). and doesnt it give you pause when you realize fema is part of homeland security? as in, if bush really cared about national security why would micheal brown be the head of fema? and we knew about katrina a while in advance. also, the nsa program isnt helping keep you safe–it produces far too many false leads for it to be useful, according to the fbi.

“BUT! if we find out that it is being used to bust drug dealers or child molesters or other “non-terror related crimes, then I do have a problem with it,”

good point, i dunno what they use this program for, but they have bragged about using the patriot act to catch non-terrorism crimes, such as child molesters.

lastly, id like to make a point i read somewhere: our military has been willing to sacrifice millions of lives to protect the freedoms we now have, what makes civillian lives so much more valuable that we are willing to give up those very freedoms when a comparatively very small number of civillians die? or to put it another way, why shouldnt civillians be willing to make a similar (though much smaller) sacfrice to protect freedom? the fourth ammendment is important.

iriseon,
reid might be unethical i dunno, but he wasnt in this instance. and taking money from jack abramoff is not the same as taking money from the tribes he swindled, nor is taking money unethical if its not a bribe .

true true!

but the extreme partisanship prevents that from happening.

anyone that buys into this “culture of corruption” buzzword really has the blinders on. corruption is not party particular.

As for Reid, he’s been very murky, and I wouldn’t suggest you folks trying to stick up for him. This ticket business is peanuts and won’t go anywhere, but Reid himself is deep in it; he’s been investigated by members of his own party as a possible liability. That being said, there’s no reason for him to step down or anything until a real & substantial conviction or inditement occurs, if ever. I’m warning you, defend him for this if you must, but be wary of Harry Reid; he’s taken Ambramoff money too. (Remember Patrick Kennedy D-RI? Supposedly he’s received the most Ambramoff/Indian gambling interests money out of all recipients and now there’s an Indian casnio being debated in RI while he’s going into rehab for the second time in 5 months. Both parties need to clean the scum.)