Holy cow; so many good posts I can't keep them all in my head... my first thoughts...
I don't think you get searched at the airport; I think you get searched as you go on the plane. I've never been searched entering an airport. So I don't quite buy the "searched in a public place" argument you presented to Kentucky, Rupert. I asked myself about getting searched in museums, but you pay to go to museums, so I'm not sure where that falls...
BB, I cited in my earlier post the names of the two main authors of the PATRIOT Act. If you find different info, indicating someone else were the main authors, please post it, rather than saying mean things about me.
I find it odd that anyone would think the Iraqis should be "happy" about our intervention. Whatever Saddam did in the early '90s, 43,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion. Mothers, fathers, children. Do we really think, regardless of what the long-term outcome may be that they are "happy" about 43,000 (and that's a lowball estimate) of their people dead? Whether this Iraq thing will turn out to have been good or one of the US's greatest follys, I don't know. But I don't expect the Iraqis to be happy or grateful for 43,000 dead because of US intervention, regardless of the outcome.
Cajun, I hope at some point you reconsider your voting principles-- the danger in choosing a party and sticking to it is that political parties have a way of going in directions you might not have expected, and by being unwilling to cross a party's line a voter can put people in power who do things with which she disagrees. When the Republican party began, it was the party of liberals-- ending slavery was a VERY liberal move (as was the 8-hour workday, safety regulations, Social Security, votes for women and all the other things that make BB mad. Not all put in place by Democrats, but all pushed for by liberals). Remember, conservatism, at it's core, is about keeping things the way they are- you're conserving. And it's a valid political stance, and if you were a conservative in the 1860's, you'd have been voting Democratic. The parties switched-- Dems became the party of liberals and Repubs that of conservatives, but one finds liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. And what makes one "liberal" or "conservative" changes, too. In the 1950's, for example, both parties were to the left of the mainstream today. Party values are made up of the people who comprise them, but if you choose to vote for someone purely because he wears the label you want, and not because he stands for the things you want him to stand for, then he may wind up voting for laws that you hate and despise. Treating your political party like you do your sports team-- you stick with them through thick and thin-- is dangerous and can lead to zealots of either ilk (left or right) in charge and making decisions for you. If you are unhappy with what your party does, the best way to get them to knock it off is to not keep them in power. Then the party has to regroup and actually earn their votes.
Here's a link to some interesting, some infuriating, some funny editorials by assorted prominent Republicans on why they hope the Democrats win this year. None of them have any intention of giving up on their own party, but they feel the current crop has got to go. Which they won't unless the members of their own party look beyond the title "Republican" and into what they want their representatives to stand for. I promise, the articles are a fun read. And God help me, I even find myself agreeing with Scarborough...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...610.forum.html