Franklin D. Roosevelt more conservative than Dumbya Bush, eh?! Now that is really funny, big foot-in-the-mouth. As Bruce Gorton already pointed out in the previous post (#266), FDR was responsible for most of the social programs, such as Social Security, that today’s neoCONs lament so much. You must have been living on another planet if you’ve never heard, for one, how the neoCONs want to do away with or drastically change Social Security.
FDR, unlike George Bush, also knew how to run a war. Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, his administration set up intensive Japanese language schools, mostly on military bases, to increase the number of intelligence officers capable of interpreting that language. Although Japanese, like Arabic, is a difficult language with an entirely different writing script, the best of the students became capable even of cracking military codes within a few years. By contrast, almost 6 years after 9/11 (more time than the American participation in WWII), the US is still sorely lacking in interpreters of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and other languages used in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And to be back on thread, the warrantless wiretapping you so strongly support won’t do much good without the means to render the intercepted calls/e-mails into English promptly.

FDR is the originator of most of America’s social programs, believed in high taxes for the rich, and did not make a big deal about his religion. His economic phylosophy was Keynsian as opposed to the more conservative Moneterism.

He was also behind many of the regulations the rightwing seeks to overturn on American business nowadays.

He was a stone cold liberal, a mile to the left of both Kerry and Bush.

JFK is the most overrated president in American history, remembered chiefly for the Cuban nuclear crisis and getting shot.

What nobody mentions of course, is that the Bay of Pigs and similar attempts at invading Cuba launched by JFK just happened to give Castro very good reasons to call for Russia’s nuclear help.

Kennedy is also the chief originator to the fiasco in Vietnam.

Further his nepotism with his brother, who was not qualified for his position under Kennedy, sent some very poor signals for the future of the American state.

Truman, in his day would be called a conservative, however his views on religion would make him a liberal today.

Comment by ronjazz — August 5, 2007 @ 8:46 am”

Sorry, buddy, but you are simply wrong. Lots of words in your diatribe, very little actully said.

First off, the fact that you are unable to debate without juvenile namecalling either denotes your actual age, or your maturity level. In either case, you are unqualified by your very words to be taken seriously.

The United States was founded on a “Classical Liberal” philosophy, which in no way equates to what is called liberalism today. The term “liberal” been hijacked by people such as you to describe a minor political movement that the founders would find completely foreign to them. A movement they would find dangerous to a truly free country. A movement thay would discard out of hand.

Classical Liberalism equals Modern Conservatism. The words have changed, the basic principles have not.

ronjazz, you need to go back to school.

Today, on the American stage, Modern Liberalism, when either promoted or discovered, is still relegated to a position of minor, bit player on the political scene. In short, the only time Liberals are elected to office is when they either hide their liberalism, or when they are percieved as the lesser of the evils.

Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy were all more conservative, using today’s definition, than either George W. Bush or John Kerry. Given the choice, I would have voted for either of the three aformentioned rather than either of the two aftermentioned. However, we must deal with reality today, rather than “what if’s.”

US intelligence agencies are still very short of staff capable of translating Arabic, Urdu, and other languages spoken in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

You are right, of course, in your post, IMO.
And the above quote says to me that the reasons they give for needing this “permission” is false. As Martin states above:
We should just do solid intelligent police work, and get on with positive, constructive living.

I believe it is part of the larger picture called the unitary presidency. More and more power with less and less oversight. BushCo has gone way beyond Nixon in that goal. And this has been Chany’s dream from the 70s. Though his presidential ambitions were cut short by health factors he is doing the same thing from just behind the curtain.
(Chainy cranks the handles and Bush’s voice booms from the media putting fear into the nation. Yes, “The wizard of Oz” is alive and well.

First, I didn’t realize that getting a warrant from the court meant broadcasting our surveillance efforts to the world. Could you please explain how this is broadcasted?
Second, an important point that tends to be forgotten by supporters of warrantless surveillance is that the various US intelligence agencies are still very short of staff capable of translating Arabic, Urdu, and other languages spoken in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is already a backlog of hundreds of thousands of hours of taped conversations that have yet to be rendered into English. Without competent interpreters, the backlog will only grow, and the increased wiretapping will be almost meaninglessand ineffective unless it is actually to be used on English-speaking opponents of Bush–not real terrorists.

Terrorism is a big political and media beatup. Taking a big picture long-term view, even terrorists dropping a few nukes, wouldn’t be important.

It’s time for someone to take leadership and spread a positive, constructive outlook. Screw the terrorists! We should just do solid intelligent police work, and get on with positive, constructive living. Letting terrorists change our liberties is insane.

Keep in mind that silence is the same as consent. No reply, (as BushCo is, and has been doing,) and you are guilty (in our minds) of censorship and your blog’s reputation will take a step toward its own demise. That censorship “fact” will then be spread like feathers in the wind.

So the bottom line is that we, your commenters, need to know your position on censorship of political comment, and why you are taking it.

You (TP) hold an important position in the political arena. Many Progressives, and I am one, look to you to be honest and straight forward in your dealings with us. We have had enough of the secrecy and news management that comes from BushCo and the MSM. We need this forum for open debate and any censorship detracts from that important goal.

I would appreciate your comment on what your policy is regarding censorship of political comment.

I was not able to post a comment as long as I included a quote from Hillary Clinton. Removing that quote allowed the comment to appear. Posting just the quote was rejected as well.

I don’t believe I was violating your rules here. It appears that you are censoring the comments to suit your own political agenda. In other words, any comment that might appear, or is negative to Hillary, is simply banned.

Here is the comment that was not accepted by you. Please tell me why you have chosen to ban it.

I have omitted the “offending” comment I sent to them so it posts here.

End of comment

Very strange. Maybe I should try posting it in parts. Let’s see if that works.