One thought, do you really think that liberals are inherently less likely to discuss the negative implications of their philosophical viewpoint than conservatives?

“Liberals do not like to discuss the loss of freedom their collectivist ideas entail.”

I think that’s untrue. I rarely hear ANYONE reflect on the potential downsides of their own ideas! I think this is part of the human condition you so graciously copped to at the beginning of your post. After all, it’s not only ideas from the left that can have a negative impact on freedom.

Still, if you look for it, you can find people on both sides of an issue (actually many sides of an issue. . . three dimensions at least) who are not only aware of the dangers of their own proposals but willing to discuss and modify them in order to arrive at a better solution that mitigates those potential issues.

Everyone is free to look at my home state, California, for an example of failing to openly discuss, entertain opposing ideas and, finally, compromise. That way lies madness. Of course, it helps to have an insane 2/3 majority requirement just to pass the damn budget!

I said it was a short answer. We all know the legal arguments are extensive pro and con. we also know prescedent has been set through many Presidents for many years for these actions. And I hope we all realize that no other President had to deal with the instantaneous nature of todays world wide communications. By requiring court approval prior to tap, no information could be gleaned. A review board after the fact to separate the wheat from the shaft prior to questioning the individual tapped could prevent error.

I just think government intrudes on our privacy and freedom in so many other ways that we each experience every day, and for much less salient purpose than national security, that the biggest objection to this program is actually “THAT BUSH DID IT”.

Only about 66% less…

“But I think I share most of the same basic principles of conservatism with conservatives of faith.”

Oh, so it’s about faith then?

Ignoring that you refuse to accept Jesus as the pathway to immortality. Go ahead and tell us there is no heaven, nor hell. Just go ahead…

“There’s more than one way to skin a cat…”

Pure heresy! Okay, let’s just find out. How do you skin a cat, how does someone else? And who will decide damnation? Or can we all just find common ground in cliches?