CNN poll finds that majority of Americans do NOT think Bush has restricted civil liberties too much

[davebg 0]

Most Americans do not believe the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terror, a new CNN poll released Thursday suggests.

 

While 39 percent of the 1,013 poll respondents said the Bush administration has gone too far, 34 percent said they believe the administration has been about right on the restrictions, according to the Opinion Research Corp. survey. Another 25 percent said the administration has not gone far enough.

 

Asked whether Bush has more power than any other U.S. president, 65 percent of poll respondents said no. Thirty-three percent said yes. Of those who said yes, a quarter said that was bad for the country.

 

Seventy-two percent of poll respondents said they believe the size of the federal government has increased in the past four years. Twenty percent believe it has decreased, and 8 percent had no opinion.

 

Fifty-eight percent of poll respondents said they would not want their son or daughter to grow up to be president. Fifty-six percent, however, said they would want their child to grow up to be a member of Congress.

 

The last three questions were asked of a half sample, or about 507 people.

 

The telephone poll was conducted October 20-22. The sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points for questions asked of the full sample and plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for questions asked of the half sample.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

Discuss.

 

And if you fall into the 39% who say that Bush has done too much to erode civil liberties under the guise of the war on terror, please provide examples of how your civil liberties have been curtailed.

[hoytdwow 202]

examples of how your civil liberties have been curtailed.

My right to apply sunless tanner and a fake beard, and go through the security checkpoint at the airport clutching a backpack and muttering "Allahu akbar" has been seriously curtailed

[frank 2,345]

A lot of people believe in UFOs and ghosts too. The average american is a drooling, backwoods retard. Ask 5 random people on the street to define "civil liberties", they won't know what the hell that means.

 

Anyone who thinks the government should restrict civil liberties more doesn't understand the question and/or should be put out of their misery.

[Medicated 0]

Anyone who thinks the government should restrict civil liberties more doesn't understand the question and/or should be put out of their misery.

 

 

agreed

[davebg 0]

A lot of people believe in UFOs and ghosts too. The average american is a drooling, backwoods retard. Ask 5 random people on the street to define "civil liberties", they won't know what the hell that means.

 

Anyone who thinks the government should restrict civil liberties more doesn't understand the question and/or should be put out of their misery.

Well, since I posted this nobody (except for hoytdwow) has been able to post a single example of how their civil liberties have been curtailed, so couldn't the same be said of those who think that Bush has gone too far?

 

Also, while I share your lack of faith in the average American, the sad truth of it is that they can all vote. So, whether you think their opinions are legitimate or not, you can't just write them off as retards and ignore them.

[MDC 7,881]

OK, for starters the President has declared that he can deem anyone, even US citizens, an enemy combatant and imprison that person without access to counsel or a trial indefinitely. This hasn't actually happened to me but it's a pretty egregious expansion of executive power IMO. How's that?

[davebg 0]

OK, for starters the President has declared that he can deem anyone, even US citizens, an enemy combatant and imprison that person without access to counsel or a trial indefinitely. This hasn't actually happened to me but it's a pretty egregious expansion of executive power IMO. How's that?

You get partial credit. It's a legitimate gripe, but since your civil liberties haven't been curtailed, you failed to accurately answer the question.

 

ETA: Although, I think that there is some merit to the Pres being able to do this. I mean, look at how that traitor Lynne Stewart got off pretty much scott free. That fatass terrorist lover should be rotting in jail right now. If only Bush had declared her an enemy combatant and imprisoned her indefinitely...

[Isotopes 1]

You get partial credit. It's a legitimate gripe, but since your civil liberties haven't been curtailed, you failed to accurately answer the question.

 

So it is ok until it actually happens to you? It is really hard to tell what the admin is doing since they are so secretive and they seem to think they can do whatever they want without oversight.

[MDC 7,881]

You get partial credit. It's a legitimate gripe, but since your civil liberties haven't been curtailed, you failed to accurately answer the question.

 

That's convenient. If I had been thrown in prison I wouldn't be posting this right now, would I?

[davebg 0]

That's convenient. If I had been thrown in prison I wouldn't be posting this right now, would I?

I guess you could always hire Lynne Stewart to smuggle a message out to the Geek Club.

[frank 2,345]

Well, since I posted this nobody (except for hoytdwow) has been able to post a single example of how their civil liberties have been curtailed,

 

I am concerned about civil liberties being curtailed even if I am not directly affected.

 

The government (long before Bush) has a habit of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

 

helmet laws

 

banning online poker

 

DWB (driving while black)

 

trying to introduce prayer in schools (I believe my high school still has a pregame prayer at football games)

 

for that matter, requiring school children to say the Pledge of Alligence, sounds like something the Nazis would do

 

you can drink all the alcohol you want and smoke tobacco, but can't smoke pot

 

many, many, more...

[davebg 0]

So it is ok until it actually happens to you? It is really hard to tell what the admin is doing since they are so secretive and they seem to think they can do whatever they want without oversight.

That is not what I said. MDC got credit for making a legitimate response to the topic, but not for answering the question posed to him.

[D_House 0]

You get partial credit. It's a legitimate gripe, but since your civil liberties haven't been curtailed, you failed to accurately answer the question.

 

ETA: Although, I think that there is some merit to the Pres being able to do this. I mean, look at how that traitor Lynne Stewart got off pretty much scott free. That fatass terrorist lover should be rotting in jail right now. If only Bush had declared her an enemy combatant and imprisoned her indefinitely...

The poll question didn't ask what you are asking.

[Isotopes 1]

That is not what I said. MDC got credit for making a legitimate response to the topic, but not for answering the question posed to him.

 

Well most if not all of us have not been directly affected, as far as we know. It doesn't make what they are doing right and it leaves the door open for them to keep pushing the envelope further and further.

[davebg 0]

The poll question didn't ask what you are asking.

Never said it did. If all I wanted was to poll the Geek Club, then I would have created a poll.

[tony hardware 0]

A lot of people believe in UFOs and ghosts too. The average american is a drooling, backwoods retard. Ask 5 random people on the street to define "civil liberties", they won't know what the hell that means.

 

Anyone who thinks the government should restrict civil liberties more doesn't understand the question and/or should be put out of their misery.

 

I don't believe in ghosts. I don't believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, the Boogie Man, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, or the toof fairy. I am even suspicious of God in some respects.

 

I do, however, believe that the government has not done enough to restrict civil liberties with respect to immigration and national security. I would like to see random inspections of places of employment where illegals may be found. I would like to see more stringent requirements for obtaining licenses, voting and immigrating into the country. I would like to see more secure borders and greater restrictions on those entering and exiting the country.

 

I would like to see greater efforts made to use intelligence and clandestine efforts to seek out terrorists within our borders and abroad, including most tactics required, i.e. wiretaps. You want to utilize American airwaves and airspace to conduct terrorist operations, you better damn well know the that US will be listening. I would like see more interrogation of detainees and prolonged detention. I would like to see intelligence operatives placed into mosques to see what is taught there (its open to everyone, why not the government?). I would like to see more targetting of those cultures that are responsible for the death of 3000 Americans on 9/11 and, not coincidentally, previous attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole and US embassies abroad. The Portugese are not conducting these attacks, it's individuals of Middle Eastern decent. They want to live and scheme in the US, they should have to come under scrutiny. You're not doing anything wrong? Then you have nothing to hide and should support these efforts.

 

I wish the ACLU would go on a gay cruise across the North Atlantic and strike an iceberg and subsequent sinking.

 

If you can't respect my opinion, then you're attempting to restrict my civil liberties and that goes against everything you believe. Hypocrites.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Discuss.

 

And if you fall into the 39% who say that Bush has done too much to erode civil liberties under the guise of the war on terror, please provide examples of how your civil liberties have been curtailed.

 

 

See, that's the logical fallacy herein - and one of the more insidious aspects of it all; People are generally self-centered: If their own individual rights haven't been curtailed in a very overt way, people generally have no problem with things. Most Germans loved Hitler. It didn't matter what he did to the Jews, the immigrants, the queers.... But then, the list of 'enemies of the state' kept growing and pretty soon, folks who thought Hitler was great found their friends, loved ones or themselves on that list! Fascism doesn't happen overnight, but occurs gradually. And, by the time you realize your rights have been curtailed, it's too damn late. It's not enough to say "my rights haven't been violated, so everything's fine". Historically, that has a way of biting folks in the butt.

 

- Just something to think about. If you interviewed somebody who mistakenly was put on the "no fly list", they'd have a different view than most of us.

 

The only real overt problem I have with GWB is his arrogance in refusing to follow the protocols of the wiretapping program. I mean, the system we have in place is pretty liberal. - You can tap someone's calls without permission and get a warrant after the fact! Congress set up FISA for a reason. When a President can just override Congress & the Courts on a whim, that by definition is a dictatorship. There's no solid reason that the Prez can provide to not follow FISA - he just doesn't want to. Uh-uh. That ain't good enough.

[D_House 0]

See, that's the logical fallacy herein - and one of the more insidious aspects of it all; People are generally self-centered: If their own individual rights haven't been curtailed in a very overt way, people generally have no problem with things. Most Germans loved Hitler. It didn't matter what he did to the Jews, the immigrants, the queers.... But then, the list of 'enemies of the state' kept growing and pretty soon, folks who thought Hitler was great found their friends, loved ones or themselves on that list! Fascism doesn't happen overnight, but occurs gradually. And, by the time you realize your rights have been curtailed, it's too damn late. It's not enough to say "my rights haven't been violated, so everything's fine". Historically, that has a way of biting folks in the butt.

 

- Just something to think about. If you interviewed somebody who mistakenly was put on the "no fly list", they'd have a different view than most of us.

 

The only real overt problem I have with GWB is his arrogance in refusing to follow the protocols of the wiretapping program. I mean, the system we have in place is pretty liberal. - You can tap someone's calls without permission and get a warrant after the fact! Congress set up FISA for a reason. When a President can just override Congress & the Courts on a whim, that by definition is a dictatorship. There's no solid reason that the Prez can provide to not follow FISA - he just doesn't want to. Uh-uh. That ain't good enough.

+1

 

Just to throw out another example from a war that neo-cons love to compare the Iraq war with, I would hazard to guess that if Americans were polled durring WWII, a lot fewer people than 39% would say that FDR was going too far restricting civil liberties, although I bet thousands of Japanese Americans would have thought he was.

[wiffleball 4,797]

OK, for starters the President has declared that he can deem anyone, even US citizens, an enemy combatant and imprison that person without access to counsel or a trial indefinitely. This hasn't actually happened to me but it's a pretty egregious expansion of executive power IMO. How's that?

 

 

ETA - This one too. - Scary shiot when they start suspending the most basic principle we have, Habeus Corpus. - Our forefathers left England in part because the King could just throw you in prison for no reason, for as long as he wanted. - Hmmmm...... Sounds familiar.

[tony hardware 0]

I am concerned about civil liberties being curtailed even if I am not directly affected.

 

The government (long before Bush) has a habit of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

 

helmet laws - for the safety of all on the roads. If I hit you while driving a motorcycle and you get a subdural hematoma and suffer a brain injury because of it - then my insurance pays out the nose. If you had been wearing a helmet, you would have had a bruised knee

 

banning online poker - the government needs to regulate the gambling in the country to ensure that it is properly taxed so we can pay for your kids school books.

 

DWB (driving while black) - this is a local government issue

 

trying to introduce prayer in schools (I believe my high school still has a pregame prayer at football games) - cover your ears

 

for that matter, requiring school children to say the Pledge of Alligence, sounds like something the Nazis would do - children should learn to respect this country and why they're so lucky to be here

 

you can drink all the alcohol you want and smoke tobacco, but can't smoke pot - you want Pablo in a Pot truck at your son's middle school? Ringing the bell saying, "Hey kids, come get your dope." Like it even matters, you can get pot wherever and whenever you want if you try

 

many, many, more...

 

I'm sorry to hear about your infringed "civil liberties." Let me know when your government doesn't let you wear what you want, go out in public or speak your mind. (See former Iraq)

[D_House 0]

Never said it did. If all I wanted was to poll the Geek Club, then I would have created a poll.

Well, since I posted this nobody (except for hoytdwow) has been able to post a single example of how their civil liberties have been curtailed, so couldn't the same be said of those who think that Bush has gone too far?

Here you linked your question and the polled question. I think that Bush has gone too far, even though I have not directly been affected by the measures I oppose.

[GettnHuge 2]

I don't believe in ghosts.

 

 

you sure focken will if you ever encounter one and you definitely won't forget it.

[tony hardware 0]

And Frank, if you think most Americans are drooling idiots, wouldn't YOU then think that the government should do more to protect them? An idiot without a helmet would kill himself and the government will pick up the tab (medicare/medicaid). An idiot gambler will be impoverished and the government will pick up the tab (welfare). An idiot drug user will be a drug abuser and the government will pick up the tab (welfare). We pay taxes. Therefore, idiots cause you and me to pick up the tab. Therefore, you and I should demand idiots be restricted in what they can do.

 

An idiot with an assault rifle, or a muslim idiot who gets through airline security can do a lot of damage.

[edjr 6,898]

What's a Civil Liberty? a kind of car?

[davebg 0]

Here you linked your question and the polled question. I think that Bush has gone too far, even though I have not directly been affected by the measures I oppose.

I read an article about a poll. I posed a question that was related to the poll and it's results in order to start a discussion.

 

As I said, if I had just wanted to compare the results of the poll w/what those results would have been if it had been posed ot the Geek Club, then I would have created a poll.

 

This is not a difficult concept to understand, as a number of posters seem to be engaging in the debate.

[hoytdwow 202]

"Warrant-less wire tapping"

 

although, there's no way to tell if it has affected me or anyone else.

 

[D_House 0]

I read an article about a poll. I posed a question that was related to the poll and it's results in order to start a discussion.

 

As I said, if I had just wanted to compare the results of the poll w/what those results would have been if it had been posed ot the Geek Club, then I would have created a poll.

 

This is not a difficult concept to understand, as a number of posters seem to be engaging in the debate.

That's not what I was saying. You responded to frank's assertion that the people that don't see the threat to their civil liberties are stupid and should be "put out of their misery" by saying that because Geek Club members aren't able to list how they have personally been affected by the reduction in civil liberties, that the 39% that think that Bush is restricting civil liberties too much are also stupid, etc. It's a logical fallacy, as already pointed out by wiffleball and others, and still not addressed by you.

[Uh-huh 0]

And if you fall into the 39% who say that Bush has done too much to erode civil liberties under the guise of the war on terror, please provide examples of how your civil liberties have been curtailed.

Weak.

 

This is like saying, "If you are part of the 99.9% who believe a fall from a 20-story building can hurt you, please provide an example when you personally threw yourself off a tall building and got hurt as a result. "

[wiffleball 4,797]

I'm sorry to hear about your infringed "civil liberties." Let me know when your government doesn't let you wear what you want, go out in public or speak your mind. (See former Iraq)

 

Of course, they can't do that in CURRENT Iraq now either, but luckily, the Gubmint's so ineffective, it's just the murderous death squads that are kiling people for speaking their mind, practicing their faith, running a business that Mohammed wouldn't like and/or not dressing in such a way as to not arouse the young men's wieners.

 

 

Weak.

 

This is like saying, "If you are part of the 99.9% who believe a fall from a 20-story building can hurt you, please provide an example when you personally threw yourself off a tall building and got hurt as a result. "

 

[frank 2,345]

And Frank, if you think most Americans are drooling idiots, wouldn't YOU then think that the government should do more to protect them? An idiot without a helmet would kill himself and the government will pick up the tab (medicare/medicaid). An idiot gambler will be impoverished and the government will pick up the tab (welfare). An idiot drug user will be a drug abuser and the government will pick up the tab (welfare). We pay taxes. Therefore, idiots cause you and me to pick up the tab. Therefore, you and I should demand idiots be restricted in what they can do.

 

 

Fine, lets outlaw smoking, alcohol, running with scissors, banging skanky chicks, staying up late, and shaking hands.

 

Let's require jogging, eating healthy, taking vitamins, brushing your teeth, wearing a helmet at all times, and praying, just to be safe.

 

Laws that protect you from others =

 

Laws that "protect" you from yourself =

[tony hardware 0]

Laws that "protect" you from yourself =

 

You obviously think people can care for themselves. Therefore, you cannot think most Americans are idiots.

 

As for your examples of those things that should be outlawed, they are currently regulated and rightfully so:

 

outlaw smoking - regulated (give yourself cancer)

alcohol - regulated (you know anyone killed by a drunk driver?)

running with scissors - regulated in schools (let your kid get stabbed)

banging skanky chicks - regulated (prostitution - you want this place to look like Africa? everyone with the HIV?)

[frank 2,345]

You obviously think people can care for themselves. Therefore, you cannot think most Americans are idiots.

 

As for your examples of those things that should be outlawed, they are currently regulated and rightfully so:

 

outlaw smoking - regulated (give yourself cancer)

alcohol - regulated (you know anyone killed by a drunk driver?)

running with scissors - regulated in schools (let your kid get stabbed)

banging skanky chicks - regulated (prostitution - you want this place to look like Africa? everyone with the HIV?)

 

 

Wow, you're dumb.

 

 

Good day to you sir!

[akaoni 0]

You get partial credit. It's a legitimate gripe, but since your civil liberties haven't been curtailed, you failed to accurately answer the question.

 

ETA: Although, I think that there is some merit to the Pres being able to do this. I mean, look at how that traitor Lynne Stewart got off pretty much scott free. That fatass terrorist lover should be rotting in jail right now. If only Bush had declared her an enemy combatant and imprisoned her indefinitely...

 

I disagree, I think he exactly addressed your question. If the President can uniformly declare me an enemy combatant, detain me indefinately, and deny me the right to a trial before my peers, than my whether or not it happened to me, my constitutional rights are violated. This is in voilation of the most basic tenant of our democratic system and rule of law. The right to a trial and day in court. It's undemocratic and unamerican...

[Toro 3]

I disagree, I think he exactly addressed your question. If the President can uniformly declare me an enemy combatant, detain me indefinately, and deny me the right to a trial before my peers, than my whether or not it happened to me, my constitutional rights are violated. This is in voilation of the most basic tenant of our democratic system and rule of law. The right to a trial and day in court. It's undemocratic and unamerican...

 

Can he do this to an American citizen and if so, can you point out an instance of this happening (other than an American citizen being captured fighting for the other side)?

 

Thanks.

[davebg 0]

That's not what I was saying. You responded to frank's assertion that the people that don't see the threat to their civil liberties are stupid and should be "put out of their misery" by saying that because Geek Club members aren't able to list how they have personally been affected by the reduction in civil liberties, that the 39% that think that Bush is restricting civil liberties too much are also stupid, etc. It's a logical fallacy, as already pointed out by wiffleball and others, and still not addressed by you.

Are you my wife? Because she likes putting words in my mouth when she doesn't agree w/me too.

 

Either that or you have me confused w/someone else, as the closest I came to calling anyone stoopid in this thread was when I agreed w/Frank that the majority of my fellow Americans are drooling backwoods retards.

[davebg 0]

I disagree, I think he exactly addressed your question. If the President can uniformly declare me an enemy combatant, detain me indefinately, and deny me the right to a trial before my peers, than my whether or not it happened to me, my constitutional rights are violated. This is in voilation of the most basic tenant of our democratic system and rule of law. The right to a trial and day in court. It's undemocratic and unamerican...

itsatip that reading comprehension

 

Nowhere did I discredit his statement, it just didn't answer the question posed to him.

[akaoni 0]

Can he do this to an American citizen and if so, can you point out an instance of this happening (other than an American citizen being captured fighting for the other side)?

 

Thanks.

 

The President has reserved the right to classify anyone, even a US citizen, an enemy combatant. Once one is classified that, under the recent law passed by Congress, that person no longer has Habeas Corpus rights. Even if an American Citizen is captured fighting abroad, they should still have the right to trial, for treason, if for nothing else. They are an American Citizen and should always be granted those rights. We are innocent until proven guilty. A trial is necessary for that proof.

 

As I was arguing above, rule of law is central to a democratic system, once a loophole is created it doesn't matter if it's used or not, that right to a trial has been violated. Since individuals deemed enemy combatants aren't allowed legal council, etc, there's no way we would know if someone had been denied their rights....that's why it's a violation of all of our rights, whether or not it's used.

[parrot 789]

Can he do this to an American citizen and if so, can you point out an instance of this happening (other than an American citizen being captured fighting for the other side)?

 

Thanks.

Jose Padilla.

[ArnieBragg 2]

Wow, you're dumb.

Good day to you sir!

 

And on top of that Tony is a lawyer! (at least he plays one when posting on the Geek board).

[D_House 0]

Are you my wife? Because she likes putting words in my mouth when she doesn't agree w/me too.

 

Either that or you have me confused w/someone else, as the closest I came to calling anyone stoopid in this thread was when I agreed w/Frank that the majority of my fellow Americans are drooling backwoods retards.

Yes, I'm your wife.

 

A lot of people believe in UFOs and ghosts too. The average american is a drooling, backwoods retard. Ask 5 random people on the street to define "civil liberties", they won't know what the hell that means.

 

Anyone who thinks the government should restrict civil liberties more doesn't understand the question and/or should be put out of their misery.

 

Well, since I posted this nobody (except for hoytdwow) has been able to post a single example of how their civil liberties have been curtailed, so couldn't the same be said of those who think that Bush has gone too far?

The italicized quote is what I was talking about (bolded is where I thought you were referring to the 39%). This is where I thought you were confusing things, because as has been stated, restated, and re-restated by myself and others in this thread, it doesn't matter to many of us that we ourselves have not been affected by restrictions in civil liberties, but rather that they have been restricted at all. It's a slippery slope argument, and it's a valid one, as history has shown that it is difficult to retrieve rights ceded to governments.

 

Sorry if I misinterpeted anything you said or meant to say. I didn't expect such catty responses, and didn't think it was a big deal. Just wanted to point out that one can think that Bush has gone too far in restricting civil liberties without being personally affected.