That's the rub, isn't it. I think that this can easily be explained by the fact that, in the parlance of modern US politics, Bush is actually quite liberal (with the only notable exception being wedge issues). Bush and the neocons that he has allowed to guide his policy decisions favor increased domestic spending, increased government scope in the name of 'security', hegemonic and interventionist foreign policy, and the idea that the rights of the individual are secondary to the rights of the state. All of these policies, endorsed by the Bush administration, are decidedly 'liberal' (i.e. supported by left wing democrats or 'socialists').

So, partisans on either side become confused. You have 'liberals' vehemently opposing a paternalistic war (probably mostly because it was 'conservatives' who ordered it) and you have 'conservatives' who used to parrot Reagan on the evils of government tripping over one another to cough up their civil liberties.

It's an odd state of affairs. Personally, I consider myself to be a "classic liberal" (or in more modern terms, a 'libertarian') and I have a lot of trouble with people calling themselves 'conservative' while defending a President who has consistently and thoroughly increased government intrusiveness in the lives of citizens.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Once we've given up our basic rights, why bother "defeating the enemy"? What do we have to fight for?

And, general philosophical statements aside, the "war on terror" is an inherently endless and futile proposition. We will never win, we will always be in a state of emergency, and we will never get our rights back (unless someone stops this nonsense). Basically, this is like declaring a war on crime, throwing miranda and habeus corpus out the window, and then assuring the citizens that once the war on crime has been won, they'll get these rights back.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Tis true

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

There is no right to privacy in the constitution, in my opinion. The act of joining with others to gain mutual protection means that you have to give up some freedoms. Its only logical. This is why the constituion does protect the basic right to move freely and choose your leadership. Which is why I do not fear the govt. Once they step out of line they get booted. In addition, the govt is made of AMERICANS, and is run by AMERICAN representatives of AMERICANS, who have the same wish to not return to fascist dictatorships. This is why it is unlikely that the paranoias that everyone fears will ever come true. Everyone watches everyone and is a check on power.

In the end, we still have our guns, and are not shy about using them. So you guys can fear the govt all you want, but I think the real enemy is the terrorists, and that we should do what is neccesary to take them out.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Given up our basic rights? Exactly what "right" has been violated? There is absolutely no right to privacy mentioned in the constitution.

I agree we should declare war on those who are engaging in these terrorist acts; namely Muslims.

Until the liberals allow us to bypass this pc crap and recognize the enemy for who they are Republicans will continue to be lambasted for anything they do regarding this enemy, especially by the media. This enemy is not constrained by borders therefore we can't declare war on a specific nation. And liberals have made it abundantly clear they have no intention of confronting the enemy.

As I said I agree we should just declare war on Islam.

Varus

Someone told me that the abortion clinic bombers and timothy mcveigh were christians.


Can we declare war on Christianity too?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

HA! Might as well

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

The problem I see with this whole idea is that there's no way you can possibly tell if a piece of mail is from a terrorist. Therefore, the only way to be sure that you catch them is to open up every single piece of mail that comes into this country from abroad.

That's lunacy, and it wouldn't surprise me if it required a completely new government agency to be able to complete the task...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I think that you overestimate what it would take to turn the US into a fascist state. States such as that aren't created overnight from free and happy societies. Almost invariably, a state of "national emergency" is called with no definitive end in sight. This is then followed by a series of small acts of power consolidation within government (eliminating checks and balances, for example). Then, more egregious acts of power consolidation are carried out, with anyone who opposes branded as a traitor and with lots of nationalist propaganda. This is almost exactly what happened to bring Germany from the Weimars to the Third Reich.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't believe we have a Reich of our own developing here, and the people who compare Bush to Hitler or our government to the Nazis are just going for shock value. What I am pointing out, however, is the attitude and perspective that encourage fascism. It's a series of seemingly moderate concessions that add up to a big loss of freedom. I don't worry about Hitler taking over, but I do worry about the trend, since 9/11, of trading liberty for the promise of security with seemingly little opposition or consideration.

I realize that there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. That has been established, over the years, through case law and jurisprudence, and I value it in the extreme. Not to be crass, but would you oppose legislation allowing FBI agents to videotape you having sex in the name of national security? It's not in the constitution, so why not, right? I realize that this is extreme, but it's to make a point - we shouldn't be in a hurry to give up freedoms that have been granted over the course of time. And, when it comes to our privacy, the question isn't whether or not government agents will abuse their power, but when, how often, and how badly.

I'd personally trade a heaping portion of ostensible security for a guarantee of my freedom.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

So, to use my example above, you would have no issue with the FBI video taping your wife in the shower for national security? It's not in the constitution, right?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, wait until there are bathroom cams in airports to make sure there is no contra hidding in your crotch and arse.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

I guess the fact that FDR used before validated and maintained the use of censorship into ww2 went over everyone’s head....I see..well peace out.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

And that somehow makes it OK now?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

FDR wasn't going through our mail and tapping our phones.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

Probably not. Today's "right-wingers" are some of the biggest cowards on the planet who would give up anything and everything for the sake of "national security."

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.