I see Obama,Clinton and McCain were absent. doubtless too busy seeking power then to take a break and vote on our security..

Also Lindsey Gramnesty was MIA? and as usual the idiot Amy Klobutcher from My state screws up again. shhheesh

"74% -- 35 / 47 -- Democrats for weaker approach to war on terror"

What hard hitting commentary. Ironic too.

74% -- 35 / 47 -- Democrats for stronger limits on government surveillance of citizens
0% -- 0 / 47 - Republicans for stronger limits on government surveillance of citizens

100% -- 47 / 47 -- Republicans for weaker limits on government surveillance of citizens
26% -- 12 / 47 -- Democrats for weaker limits on government surveillance of citizens

Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave. But you just keep shouting "small goverment!" and "don't trust the government!" with a straight face.

From 1929 to 1933 Henry Stimson served as Secretary of State under President Herbert Hoover. In 1929 he shut down MI-8, the State Department's cryptanalytic office, saying, "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail."

The outrage about privacy on the left is blatantly opportunistic. It's "yay, a club we can hit conservatives with" because there is no credible way to make the argument that the left protects privacy. The left CAN NOT make a claim about itself in this area.

That's not saying that the right protects privacy. But pointing out that the right doesn't protect privacy does not, somehow, make a relevant point about the left.

What also makes the opportunistic nature of the outrage clear is looking at the history and technical evolution of our communications abilities. The rules as they exist were made for a time before satellite communication and before a time when signals bounce from overseas, through a US based server, and back overseas again. Ta da! Now we have a domestic call rather than a foreign one and different rules apply.

The outrage is for outrage sake.

Further proof of that is that there are no ideas to solve the technological problem coming from the left. If they SOLVE the problem they lose their Bush bashing club... and that would be bad.

Of all the government imposition on my privacy the fear that the government is going to come down on me for terrorism is somewhere off in an unwritten fantasy novel. The chance of government interfering in my life, however, is very *very* high.

If I mess up my taxes, my privacy is worthless.

If someone, anyone at all, decides to be "concerned" about my children for any reason whatsoever, my privacy is worthless.

The threat to privacy (and if you're not breaking the law, no need to be worried, right?) comes almost exclusively from the "we're here to help you" left. For the greater good.

Should I fear my signal getting picked up in some overall sweep by number crunchers and pattern watchers? Or should I fear my local public school nurse? My neighbor? Or maybe the emergency first responders in Colorado who sent the swat team after an 11 year old who's parents felt competent to monitor him after a head injury... broke down a door, threatened a family with weapons, and took a boy into custody only to send him back a day later with instructions to put ice on his head and take Tylenol. Privacy? Which side supports the jack-booted thugs my friend. Which side.

Realistically I know who I should fear and it's not some faceless computer program or nerd in the basement of a government building.

Synova -

I gave up expecting the left to actually solve problems after Carter. I don't anticipate any change to that considering the current crop of "I'll tell you ANYTHING to get elected, and forget it after getting into office" political pinheads.

Both sides depend on touting 'solutions' to problems to get people to vote for them. Therefore - why solve something that can be used for election fodder later?

And Brian you guys keep yelling "Govt is great!" and yet you don't want it to do the one thing it's meant for - defense.

Nice try though. Not.

One might think that a Jew would think twice before offering slavering support for the implementation of Fascism, but that appeasrs to much to hope for from spineless lovers of authoritarian rule.

Yup, preers taht way..

Wut JOO?

Ak barrak em al!!

I think we don't need the anti-semitic note at #9.

I can pretty much only concur with the above comments.

Kalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded to get critical information. Foreign intelligence is gathered over telephone lines. Great. What expectation of privacy does someone have over a telephone line? The internet? If you think that you have privacy through digital mediums, you are living in a fantasy world. Accept it. Learn it, love it, live it.

Privacy, however, should be allowed for say... hmmm.... Private property? Eminent Domain is not something to be used to take a private residence and hand it over to another private citizen so a city can bring more taxes in. That is intrusion of privacy. How about smoking bans? That is an invasion of privacy. You could make arguments about that one, but ultimately it takes a personal freedom away. How about banning trans fats? more freedoms removed.

Government interference with my life is a problem. Everytime my taxes are raised, it invades my privacy. Many people in this country earn money so that they can have a good life. So they can give their children a better life. Taking someone's money via the government, just for having an income, invades that privacy.

Conservatives are afraid of big government because of the things they take away, not the things they protect us from. The sad truth is that liberals see a bigger problem from Global Warming than the war against Islamic Fascism. Global Warming is intangible. You can't see it, smell it, touch it, have your head hacked off by it. It cannot be proven. It is an infectious idea that is passed along. Islamic Fascism is quite the opposite. You can see it. You can have buildings blown up by it. You can get your head hacked off by it. It is tangible. It is proven. All you have to do is open your eyes, read some news, listen to them. They are telling you that you are an infidel and want to kill you. To me that threatens my privacy and it threatens my way of life.

Oh, goody. Can we talk about fascism now?

Who requires re-education? Why, the left! Show that you're not sensitive to the right people in the right way and you may well be required to attend classes to teach you how to think properly. This is real. This happens now.

Who promotes government authority over our private lives? Why, the left! We've forced the acceptance of homeschooling on the educational establishment but you'd better believe they only took it kicking and screaming. If they had their way no parent would have the right to direct their own child's education.

Who is most likely to use the power of government to control or punish speech?

Who is the most likely to feel entitled to having a say in the private lives of other people?

Tolerant? There is no tolerance, only approval, which isn't tolerance at all. It is not respecting privacy to allow those things, like homosexuality or abortion, that are *approved* of. Respecting privacy, and tolerance, is allowing those things one disapproves of. And what we see from the left is that disapproval is a crime that requires re-education on how to think properly.