Phone-Records Surveillance Is Broadly Acceptable to Public (ABC Poll)

ABC News ^ | 5/12/06 | Mikey_1962

[WhiteGuy]

Here's my source, go whine to them.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr110199.html

Regardless of the accuracy of the quote attributed to Mr. Franklin, the words are true.

[muawiyah]

No, the words are not true. In fact, the surrender of a bit of your liberty for the sake of public order makes civilization possible. Absent such action we would live in a state of nature with every man's hand raised against every other, and life would be brutish, nasty and short.

[zook]

I'm satisfied that we are in a state of war. The Senate sanctioned the President's authority to carry out this war and to do what was appropriate to protect national security. As you must know, the Constitution does not *require* a formal declaration of in order for war to be waged. The WWII public was not "made aware" of all steps taken to protect national security, nor should they have been.

President Bush has used his authority appropriately, reasonably, and apparently effectively, as we have not been attacked since 9/11.

[zook]

"I thought that we didn't believe lying polls, especially from a source such as ABC/WaPo. ;-)"

Rather than jump to cheap shots, use some logic. Are you suggesting that ABC rigged its poll to show support for President Bush? Actually, it's more likely that support for W on this is much higher, given the anti-Bush bias of most polling.

[zook]

"No, the words are not true."

Excellent response.

[WhiteGuy]

You can justify anything you wish if you try hard enough.

Believe what you will.

[alnick]

Everybody's forgotten Benjamin Franklin I guess.

I'm as free as I've always been. It's a lie that we're sacrificing our freedom for protection.

I'll tell you how we'll sacrifice our freedom: by allowing the terrorists to win. You do understand that their goal is literally the destruction of Western civilization, don't you?

I insist that my government protect my freedom by watching the terrorists so they can be more effective in their fight against them.

[Denver Ditdat]

Rather than jump to cheap shots, use some logic. Are you suggesting that ABC rigged its poll to show support for President Bush? Actually, it's more likely that support for W on this is much higher, given the anti-Bush bias of most polling.

I'm not suggesting that the poll numbers are rigged. I just think that it's ironic that a large contingent of Freepers jump on the poll bash bandwagon whenever a poll reports results they don't like, but "good" poll results are accepted uncritically.

[zook]

Sometimes even a rifle with a bad sight can help you shoot a bear.

[alnick]

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

As I posted earlier, we've sacrificed no freedom, yet. Those who take the position that we should cripple our attempts to fight our real enemy (Islamic terrorists) rather than their imagined enemy (The Bush Administration) are the ones trying to sacrifice our freedom to Al Qaeda types.

[Denver Ditdat]

Any positive news reported about the President can be savored, especially when we know how the media is gnashing their teeth in despair even as it goes to print. Even so, I really loathe the present poll-driven focus of modern reporting. I wouldn't mind seeing poll results taken out of the daily news cycle. One of the many downfalls of the MSM is the day opinion left the editorial page and started substituting for hard news.

I try my best to ignore polls altogther. They're noise disguised as fact.

[alnick]

Maybe more people should be. If for no other reason than the White House and Congress will not always be controlled by, ahem, trusted Republicans.

That's right. If those of you who want to hamstring the government from fighting our very real enemy have their way, it will eventually be controlled by AL QAEDA!

People have been lulled into forgetting what this is all about.

[In_25_words_or_less]

Sorry, from all I've heard and read, this is settled law. And legal.

In other words, "Sorry, you lose"?

A lot of people may have lost and don't yet realize it.

[zook]

I agree about polls, and I do mostly ignore them. But given the media bias, it's "news" to me when a positive poll slips through their greasy hands.

[antiRepublicrat]

I'll tell you how we'll sacrifice our freedom: by allowing the terrorists to win.

The terrorists can win simply by making us destroy ourselves out of fear.

I insist that my government protect my freedom

I insist that my government protect my freedom from itself. Unfortunately, that is sort of the fox guarding the hen house.

[noncommie]

Remember the furor over the Clintons and the 900 FBI files? Imagine that 900 multiplied by, say, 33,000.

Yeah, and if Hillary had her finger on the nuclear button she might bomb Crawford, Texas too. But disarming the United States of America is not the solution to that particular problem.

[WhiteGuy]

We are all welcome to believe whatever we wish.

Likewise we can chose to trust or not to trust those who claim to represent us.

It is my opinion that the constitution is quite clear regarding the right to privacy. So apparently, we disagree.

But just ask yourself, would you be so quick to capitulate if the president were named clinton?

[antiRepublicrat]

In fact, the obverse of this statement has as much validity as the original:

In a fascist state maybe. This country was founded on the ideals of liberty, not security. The Declaration of Independence mentions security once, in the context of securing our freedom from an oppressive government. The Constitution mentions our security in the context of securing our liberty.

In other words, by insisting during wartime on total privacy over matters such as phone records, etc.,

Not total privacy. The Constitution explicitly stated where and how the government can intrude on our privacy.

[mtntop3]

Are we to understand that the Democrats, if in power, would not have a national telephone database?

That they, for instance, would not want immediate access to calls made by a person utilizing a cellphone to set off a murderous explosion in a subway?

That they would not want to monitor international calls by terrorists and suspects to persons and groups in the U.S.?

It would be suicidal to place our security, our families' security and that of the nation in the hands of the present generation of Democrats.

[noncommie]

Rather than jump to cheap shots, use some logic. Are you suggesting that ABC rigged its poll to show support for President Bush? Actually, it's more likely that support for W on this is much higher, given the anti-Bush bias of most polling. I'm not suggesting that the poll numbers are rigged. I just think that it's ironic that a large contingent of Freepers jump on the poll bash bandwagon whenever a poll reports results they don't like, but "good" poll results are accepted uncritically.

No truth is absolute, and if you were stupid enough to think someone always lied, you'd be laughably easy to manipulate.

It's not a question of whether polls are inherently good or evil; it's a question of which you trust more: a poll, or the voices in Chris Matthews' head.