"Would you support unrestricted Wire Tapping if John Kerry had won?"

EDIT: Please read the actual paragraph. ~_^

Now, I know the answer from almost everyone here is going to be No, and it's not a serious question I'm posing to you all. Rather, it's a question I have been repeatedly posing to the conservatives I know that still support Bush (and admittedly, they are few and far between lately). The immediate response is usually, "Well, I, uh. . . " and then a long, akward pause. And that's really the fundamental issue here (not to mention the fundamental difference between "them" and "us"). The answer reveals the blatantly partisan foundation for the Warrantless Wiretapping argument. So my question is, why have I yet to hear a pundit or a politician ask that question of the Neoconservative opposition?

not today, not tomorrow, not Kerry, not Bush, not EVER!!!!!!!!!!

after she is elected.

Sends them over the edge.

"What if Hillary wins in 2008? Same answer?" I swear, I could actually HEAR his blood pressure rising.

Ed Morrow said about pushing freedom abroad while compromising it at home ...

Kerry did win ;)

You know, baby steps and all of that.

We were in the Balkans and their had been terrorism so he was obviously a war president so he should really have had absolute power and all of congress should have backed him up nonconditionally so as not to risk encouraging our enemies. (please note the sarcasm but I would have trusted Clinton more than Bush although I prefer a president to a king of any political bend)

Would you support unrestricted wiretapping if Hillary did it? I ask because if she is elected, Bush set the precedent that will give her that power.

Then duck 'cause their head will explode . . .

and watch their heart attacks begin.

It shows a lack of understanding who Democrats are.

Not only that, but all Americans' rights deserve to be protected. That's the difference between us and the RW. They only care about civil liberties when they're the ones being targeted. They don't care about anyone else's rights. But the Constitution protects us all, regardless of ideology.

The answer is Hell No! You expect that kind of thing from a fascist neo-con. Not from a Democrat.

.....understand the meaning of the word "fair". As we are painfully aware neocons/fundies don't view what is good for Bush as being good for everyone else.

BTW, the answer to your question is a flat out NO, not ta, zilch - no unrestricted wiretapping by anyone at anytime.

The Pubs usually give a typical non-answer. You know, answering a question that wasn't asked!

Kerry wouldnt go for that crap anyway!

If John Kerry had been elected, would he have allowed the NSA eavesdropping to continue? I'm honestly not sure. Maybe they wouldn't tell him, or maybe they'd explain it as a necessary part of the "War against Terror." Power, once obtained, is very difficult to give up. My worst nightmare is if a Democrat is elected, & the facism continues.

we encounter.

In fact, I think I am going to make this the focus of my column this week.

Well done!

the constitution is clear: only with a warrant, and then issued only with probable cause.

NOT! :shrug:

I am loyal to my Nation, not my political party.

done by the Bush junta, he's just as bad. Worse maybe, if he's that gutless.

... I'd ask "if Clinton were still president?"

"EDIT: Please read the actual paragraph. ~_^

Now, I know the answer from almost everyone here is going to be No, and it's not a serious question I'm posing to you all."
--------------------------------
And you're right - asking that question causes an immediate & stunning reaction in a conservative! You can almost see the circuits starting to short & smoke!