What happened during the Communist hunting era? People were accused of being Communists based on what books they borrowed! Those who did faced disgrace, the loss of their jobs, status and so forth.
Wrong, folks were turned for being communists by others. They were investigated, part of that investigation may or may not have been examining the literature of the suspected individual. Private citizens may have turned some in for reading a particular book, but the FBI didnt sit in the libraries taking notes on who checked out what. That wont do that now. They know it would be a waste of time.
Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, being a communist wasnt illegal, The house was investigating whether communism was influencing Hollywood. Folks who refused to answer questions, or lied were breaking the law. To show influence the house needed communists. So they pressured folks to turn in "communists". Hollywood, to avoid the negative impact of having "communists" working for them, blacklisted those who were thought to be communists. There was no round up of communists or any one reading "communist" books.
What needs to happen now is some type intelligence will come into the FBI that a particular person has contacts with a foreign government and may be involved in something. The FBI then goes before a federal judge and gets a warrant. To do that they need to convince a judge. Now the warrant proceeding is kept "secret" because in America criminals could use The Freedom of Information Act to obtain information about current investigations.
So where is the "slippery slope"?
The thing the Clintons were accused of were against the law. Comopletely different then whats described in the link you provided.
was referring to Bush stating that the government shouldn't grow faster than the purse of the citizens. What he's implicitly saying is that he don't mind a growing government - contrary to what he said during the election.
But what does that mean? It doesnt mean the government will expand. The only increase so far made public and in that article refers to
"discretionary federal spending will rise by 4 percent, about the same as the increase in family incomes," Bush said.
Do you know what "discretionary federal spending" is?
Also when replublicans talk of reducing the size of the federal government they dont mean necessarily cutting revenue. Its shown by cutting taxes the Federal Government collects more money. So buy giving a tax break may free up more disposable income. Folks may spend more on products, manufacturers may higher more employees and the Fed collects more money. They dont mean they want less money. Absent 9/11 and the Dept of homeland land security (which a good portion of the citizens wanted) the government wont expand in size.
Bush has yet to outline his budget but the administration has hinted at tax cuts.
So again "republicans are expanding the fed government" is more bs.
FAR too little. Think about 80% went in taxes in one form of another. That's not debatable. It's a red herring fallacy/QUOTE]
Its not a red herring, if you are going to discuss US fiscal policy I liked to know where your Nation stands. Whats scary is handing 80% of your income.
I am not a blind flag waving patriot, theres plenty wrong with these homeland security policies and Bush's economic stance. But The articles you posted show nothing.
I am not even a republican. I am not defending America, I am saying that the message behind your post, given the links you provided mean very little.
