RIGHT TO THE CHIN

That might be because you are a Christian and you are not gay.

Last I checked, even pole-smoking heathens and switch-hitting aetheists still have their freedoms as well.

Michelle-

That makes no sense. 1. Being a Christian has ZERO to do with anything related to my post. 2. The last time I checked, there are states -- SINCE Bush took office -- that have allowed gay marriages and civil unions.

When making a knee-jerk reaction to somebody, the addition of facts, relevance, and truth does much for the cause of your argument.

1) "Enemy combatants" denied the due process of law in secret trials, often without formal charges being filed.

2) Patriot Act allows FBI to check your library records. Don't read anything seditious!

3) Certain types of public demonstration are now classified as "domestic terrorism."

4) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would put permanent ban on gay marriage. Sure, a few gay civil unions have taken place, but if Bush gets his way, there won't be any more of them.

5) Patriot II would "strip even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, allowing them to be imprisoned indefinitely in their own country as undocumented
aliens (Sec.501)" -- http://www.kansasbordc.org/docs/LBORDCFlyer2.pdf

There are your facts, relevance, and truth. You're probably OK; based on your post, I doubt you'll be supporting any "unpopular organizations." But rights are supposed to be extended to ALL citizens. If I go to a rally supporting Environmental issues, will I be stripped of my citizenship? Organizations like Greenpeace are winning lawsuits filed against them right now (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5013751/), but how much longer will that trend last?

Three through five don't exist YET, and 1 and 2 don't apply to me. Remember, I said MY rights.

Point of interest: It takes a while for laws and policy to change and for amendments to be added; often over the span of years -- and administrations. Is it really Bush we should be "worried" about, or the entire governmental entity and process. Or, better yet, should we be more upset with ourselves for a)remaining alarmingly uninformed, b)remaining alarmingly complacent, and c)allowing those who are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US tell us what we can/can't do. If you think about that, the focus shifts away from Bush and to our government, as a whole, during past, current, and future administrations -- even including a possible Kerry administration.

I'm wondering about freedom in regard to what you FEEL like you can do/say?

I honestly DO worry about what will happen to me if I say some of the things I think, particularly about the war, religion, the President, etc.

Is freedom all in the mind or is it about a piece of paper, like the Patriot Act?

Personally, I don't worry about things like the Patriot Act because I have nothing to hide. Even if I don't agree with my government or its actions, I am confident in the fact that I can express my distaste without fear of prosecution as aforded under my civil liberties and First Amendment rights. And if some paper pushing flunky behind a small desk in a Washington Office wants to start a file on me for reading Mine Kampf, or thinks I need special attention because I attend some peace-nick rally, who cares. So long as I can excersize my rights to do those things without hinderance, I'm cool with it. The fact of the matter is that nothing I do as a LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN, from reading a book to owning numerous guns, will ever land me in the pokey. Only my actions, illegal or harmful actions, will ever cause me to become an enemy of the state. I actually take some comfort in knowing that we, as a government, are acting a little more paranoid these days. A heightened sense of awareness and a more watchful eye kind of helps to keep the crooked in line. Bottom line, if you're not breaking the law, you've got no reason for concern.

In my defense, Bill, I would like to say that Bush is TRYING to keep gays from rights.. you can't tell me that Bush would've knowingly allowed those marriages to happen, come on.... so my second point IS valid. Also, I am just saying that Bush (being the God-fearing man that he is) wouldn't take any rights away from a Christian man. If you are not a Christian, I apologize for the offense, but I think I've read you correctly. If you are gay, a woman, any race other than white, and non-Christian..... you might just have something to worry about. Read up on Bush's stance on the issues, eh?

Ummm...States can make rulings that the president has no control over...Read up on your law, eh?

I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about what the president would LIKE to do, Bill. I'm not saying the states can't pass laws without Bush's permission, I'm saying his stance on a lot of the issues prove to be potentially limiting for some people. Including those I listed above. I'm not ignorant.

Yeah Bill, she's not ignorant, just idealistic and naive. Let's stop all this bickering, it makes me feel so ineffectual. Does anyone else need a hug?

Bush would like to do a lot of things, but he hasn't, and I WAS talking about laws.

If I hear one more person characterized as "idealistic and naive" because they care about human rights I'm going to puke.

Chuck: I'm happy for you if you don't care whether or not the government keeps tabs on what you read. The fact of the matter is, there are many people who do care, and democracy is about more than what YOU care about (that goes for Bill, too).

Bill: you may be right to claim that we should look at the government as a whole and not just Bush, but the fact that his underlings (Ashcroft) have pushed these bills and he has signed several of them does put some of the blame on his shoulders. And I think it's ridiculous to bring Kerry into it. He may end up being just as bad, but you can't judge someone on future actions or blame them for things they haven't done simply on the basis that they might do them. That's what this whole issue is about--say I go to the library and check out some fundamentalist islamic literature for research purposes. Well, it would be very easy for the government to make the case that I'm a terrorist waiting to happen. But you're not a terrorist because you exhibit behaviors and tatstes that other terrorists exhibit... You are a terrorist when you commit an act of terror. You can't blame someone for what they haven't yet done... That only works in MINORITY REPORT.

But hey, I guess if we can invade Iraq "pre-emptively," then we can also make secret pre-emptive arrests without formal charges or access to legal counsel as well, right?

Stan, dude, thank you for making my point. This is what I meant when I wrote that I don't care if the government looks at what I'm doing because I'm not breaking any laws. As long as all they do is scrutenize my actions, and there is no actual reprisal or penalty, fantastic. They can knock themselves out looking... at anyone. But I will not abide one arrest, of anyone - not even Michael Moore or that bitch from PETA - unless they have broken the law and threatened my life or the lives of others. See Stan , we're really not that different. We both got to the same point, except I took a right and you took 3 lefts.