I’m not yamering, nor am I whining about anything. And I am certainly not about whining because no one answered a challenge that has never been made in this thread. I don’t recall issuing a challenge to anyone in this thread. This mysterious challenge is your misguided fantasy.

I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of those making the ridiculous argument of “prove to me how you are personally effected by ACLU attacks on public religious displays” or else be quiet, and yet they themselves all of sudden don’t think you need to be personally effected by NSA wiretaps of phone conversations between alQaeda terrorist both here and abroad in order to argue against the wiretaps.

In the case of the NSA wiretaps, the only ones being personally effected are those who are collaborating with terrorists, no one in this thread, would be my safe bet. Arguing against the wiretaps is to ensure that the enemy can continue in covert ways to plan for our destruction.

In the case of liberal attacks against public religious expression, it is in no way necessary for some one to have to show personal damage in order to be against those attacks. I can be against slavery without having been a slave myself.

As for your “specifcs and names please” claptrap, I have better things to do with my time than research every single liberal by name who has been fighting against our country’s attempts to wage war and defeat the Islamo-Facist terrorists whose main mission is to either kill us or convert us into submission. Your a big boy. Leftist peace nics and anti-war protestors and pundits have had plenty of media exposure.

If you want to know who, it would be; anyone for cutting and running in Iraq, anyone for not allowing us to monitor terrorist communications into and out of our country (If we had been doing that earlier, 9/11 could have been prevented), anyone who thinks this can all be solved if we just abandon the Middle East and ignore Israel then the terrorists will leave us alone, anyone who thinks we can reason and negotiate with our enemy and they will back down.

That’s who is another threat to the U.S. An inside threat.

Make no mistake, the terrorists aren’t just after Israel. They have their eyes on conquering Europe. They also have their hate aimed at Westen Civilization’s biggest nation, the U.S.

Anyone who heard their message to us a couple of days ago to “convert or else” should have been paying attention.

Second, the earlier discussion of surveillance was a general discussion. This “meatbrain” does not seem to read with any care. The “chilling effect” of this case was the claim by the ACLU that it was the public disclosure of this PARTICULAR surveillance program that chilled communications between the plaintiffs and suspected terrorists. You might benefit by reading my essay again and then reading the judge’s decision.

Finally, the term “whisked” does not relate to the number of pages but the superficiality of the analysis. I might suspect a youngster who would have read that word in context might have taken it literally in its simplest meaning but most adult readers will have understood the connotation here. Had you studied and analyzed the 9 pages you refer to you would see how poor the analysis was assuming you have spent some time studying legal opinions.

That the judge cites pages of case law because she must distinguish this case from others that would have required a different result and in doing so her analysis is just plain thin or poor amounts to “whisking.”

The proof of course will be in the pudding. We will see what happens on appeal when the case is briefed far more extensively and the courts are more inclined to look at the law as opposed to what they want the law to be. That of course is not a given but the odds are at least better.

Once again you see the same liberal gadflies do an about face on the whole “how are you personally affected” tactic, and try to defend their view point from a different angle.

One word comes to mind: hypocrite.

They demand proof as to how you are personally affected by ACLU attacks on the public expression of religion, yet expect us to pass on the obligation to show personal oppression with respect with NSA’s wiretapping of communiques between al Quaeda terrorists and persons within the U.S.

Commenters like Camanintx were all about demanding specifics when it came to the ACLU and liberal attempts to squelch 1st Amendment protected religious expression, yet now don’t want to reciprocate in their outrage at the Patriot Act.

The ever twisting spinning from the left is proof that they don’t really have a case that they can make, just a desired direction for the country.

Keep on posting. You are doing an excellent job of exposing the weakness of the left’s arguments.

While it doesn’t look too good right now for the Republican Party (which it deserves), I shudder at the thought of life under a Democratic congress, with it’s “cut and run” appeasment policies.

The left’s love affair with the Euro-left’s appeasment policy just might very well be the undoing of the U.S.

Congress holds the purse strings and can deprive the executive branch of money. They can also censor or impeach the President. He is immune to being voted out as he has served the maximum number of terms, but that is another way to control elected officials.