[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Sorry, but you explicitly stated (“Heck, I’ll admit it now” were your words) that you had no problems with targeted assassinations and extraordinary renditions.[/quote]

And now for the full quote:

[quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations[/quote]

Heck, I’ll admit it now.[/quote]

Not exactly “no problems” with it, and certainly not “support” of it.

Now that we are in violent agreement about the civil liberties issues, let’s get back to developing a solution.

So how do I, or anyone else, defend the Constitution in this situation?

Don’t vote for Obama? So who do I vote for – Perry?

Vote for a sure-to-lose third party candidate, or not vote at all?

So I don’t know how exactly to solve this problem, but I do know that it couldn’t hurt to educate the public.

[quote]What do you think Murrow would say about Gitmo? Patriots I and II? Warrantless wiretapping?[/quote]

Probably the same thing people like Maddow and and Olbermann have said about them (regardless of what party has been in office.)

The question more relevant to the current situation: What has Limbaugh, et al. said about Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc.?

(Now you can go ahead and use the word “support.”)

True, there are no Murrow equivalents today. I’m certainly not claiming Maddow and Olbermann are anywhere near his standard as a journalist. But there is one group that at least “gets it” when it comes to this fundamental American value: We don’t compromise civil liberties for security, and certainly not for ratings.

But for some reason, you just lump them all into the same “equivalent” group. “The Maddows are as bad as the Limbaughs.” You brush off the the size, reach, and influence of the Fox media machine, the Republican party, and their coordinated message (which you claim is the opposite of your values.) You ignore the fact the Rick Perry has a dismal civil liberties track record, and has said nothing in opposition to torture, Patriot, etc. (seriously, where do you think he stands on these?)

But you almost always bring up civil liberties issues when we are talking about Obama.

The reason for these inconsistencies? I’ve tried to understand your explanations, but honestly they just don’t make sense anymore.[/quote]

Pri: First off, my apologies on the “I’ll admit it now” quote: I misread that, and thus your intent.

As to the remainder of your posting, I’ll address your erroneous statements and incorrect suppositions.

As I’ve always tried to be clear, offering a criticism of one side does not imply explicit support for the other. When I conflated Maddow with Limbaugh, it was not as simple as you make it. I simply said that Maddow, like Limbaugh, is an entertainer and I also pointed out that Maddow (and Olbermann) were nowhere someone like Murrow. All of these things are true. However, you’ve spun this into a Left versus Right debate and further added the massive reach of the Fox News party organ. I’ve never opined on this, since the topics we were discussing centered on the present sitting president.

Which leads us to Obama and Perry. I don’t debate that Perry supports all of the wonderful little programs inherent to the National Security State. Obama, however, does NOT and there is the key fallacy in your argument as to my “inconsistencies”. There is a HUGE difference between someone of Perry’s beliefs and Obama’s, hence your assertion that “one side gets it”, while the other (presumably) does not.

Further, Obama CAMPAIGNED vigorously against these programs and even issued an Executive Order (which you proffered as proof of his intent and beliefs) which directed the closing of Gitmo. You cannot have it both ways, pri, but you’re trying to. You cannot argue that one side gets it (although they do nothing about it) and the other doesn’t, and then try to hide behind an “inconsistencies” argument and the Obama “hating” meme. While I’d expect a dullard like Dubya to not fully understand the deleterious effect these programs have on our great Republic, I would CERTAINLY expect a Constitutional Law professor like Obama to, and hence my forlorn and misguided hope that he would follow up on his campaign promises and roll these programs back.

Side note. Not only has Obama NOT done so, he has expanded said programs in some instances and, further, has taken to prosecuting whistleblowers to an extent not seen in decades.

Lastly, your vote for President is not what I was talking about in terms of defending the Constitution. If you’ll recall your high school Civics course, you know that there are steps ranging from writing your representative to writing op/ed pieces to even writing the Supreme Court. A simple vote for President is no panacea, nor was it what I was advocating.

Of course, I come from a background that advocates, “Don’t bitch, DO”.