George Bush on illegal warrantless wiretapping

If we got down to actually discussing policy I wonder how different everyone's opinions would be. I'm thinking we wouldn't be as polarized as it seems. One thing everyone should remember is that when living in a society compromise is a very important tool; everything can't always be your way or the highway.

 

I agree with you. The one question with the program I want to ask Bush is: "What about the program precludes the NSA from getting a warrant within 72 hours of the tapped call?" I don't know, and probably no one does except Congressional members, the NSA or Bush himself. I'd be against the program on the face of it if the answer is something like "the hassle of it."

But unlike others on this board and in the media, I am willing to wait for the answers as are the courts before I attack Bush again. The program is still in effect even though a liberal Carter appointee struck it down.

But on your original "your way or the highway" comment. I would do what I think is right and then not look back on the decision. Leaders cannot constantly make a decision and then when things go wrong in the short term, head the other way. Make adjustments but overall stay the course.

 

Yes. But in Oklahoma City, we never thought that the City would be subject to a terrorist attack. Home grown domestic type or radical Muslim type it's all terrorism.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

There is no such thing as a conservative Kennedy. John Kennedy had a good foreign policy, but domestically he was very liberal. The first president Bush was a moderate conservative and the current president is more of a mainstream conservative, despite the spending increases. While I think he could have - and should have - put more of a break on expenditures, the war is the prime reason for the deficit spending. Anytime there is a war there will be deficits. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

 

The word conservative gets thrown around way too much. There's a big difference between a Republican and conservative. Bush is a Republican and so is a guy like Richard Baker. Reagan was a conservative. There's a distinction there. Bush is more liberal than conservative. He's a Connecticut Republican........him and his New England daddy.

And your wrong about Kennedy. Kennedy sought the biggest domestic tax cut before Reagan. That's domestically conservative in my book. Before Kennedy's death, everyone voted Democrat. Republican's have won 5 out of the last 7 presidencies. That's because they are the new Democrats.

The current Democratic party has been hijacked by the unions, radical left/ex-60's hippies and homos.

 

Here is the whole comment. That little section was a bit out of context.

 

I think maybe those who oppose the president oppose what he considers the necessary tools, not that law enforcement shouldn't have the necessary tools.

I agree with Bush that we need to stay the course in Iraq. Whether we needed to go into Iraq is debatable, but Saddam was regularly mocking an international effort at peace, something which many who oppose the war seem to forget. We probably could have had a much better plan going into Iraq; the effort does seem to have been extremely bungled.

Are we really on a war on terror? Do we want to be a nation always in a state of war? I guess considering how vulnerable we truly are to attack, being constantly stressed out about our safety is reasonable, but that's the same as the threat of being mugged or some other domestic unpleasantry. You don't end muggings by killing all would be muggers - it is a much more complicated issue. If we have a war on drugs, maybe a war on terrorism isn't so bad, but we also need a war on ignorance and a war on social shortcomings. What we really need is a war on the division of our country, and Bush could be doing a better job of it considering he is leader of more than just those who agree with him. And those who disagree with him are a pretty substantial number - you think he would respond to that in earnest instead of just in the interest of winning future votes for the republican party. Our leaders have to lead, but when there is so much opposition to his decision-making the man really needs to give more creedence to what the opposition is saying instead of deafly pushing on. He's the president - he has a lot of resources to pull from to ease the concerns of the people he is serving.

 

That may not be a practical solution...but it would definitely work.

 

Maybe the answer is to kill all the poor, uneducated people in the world. If you don't have a college degree by 30 we grind you up and fertilize the crops with ya.

 

Help me understand this comment. Because of the war, we have to pass huge domestic spending programs? We have to increase pork spending?

I fail to see how the war has anything to do with domestic spending. If anything, you'd think we would tighten our belts to pay for the war, not increase spending.

A good rule of thumb for a fiscal conservative is to not pass any domestic legislation that Ted Kennedy supports.