I did a quick Google search for wiretap polls, and the only ones I could find that showed 50 percent opposition were asking about illegal wiretaps. As a matter of fact, I recall a Rasmussen poll that the Republicans were crowing about because it showed overwhelming support for wiretaps, and the Democrats were complaining because it didn’t ask about illegal wiretaps. Are there polls you’ve seen that show 50 percent of the country was opposed to any wiretapping of terrorist suspects?

What percentage of Americans polled on the wiretapping question voiced opposition to its use?

Now we could debate the validity of poll results, but I think we can agree that it’s safely half, if not more. Since I felt that Donklephant’s readership was representative of the general population, it was safe to say that at least half would have opposed wiretapping.

Now as to the question if any views had changed …

At the time of the wiretapping discussion, 9/11 was a dim memory to a degree and there were questions as to whether the security threat was real … that is why, given this fresh incident, I wondered if any opinions had changed.

It wasn’t a judgment, just a question.

Denise, you ignorant slut! Bagged-out, dried-up, slunken meat like you and Michelle Malken know the rules. If you want a contract, sign on the dotted line. Oh, but let’s all shed a tear for poor Denise. There was only testimony that she had sexual intercourse over forty times with another man while living with actor Lee Marvin. But I suppose that sort of fashionable promiscuting means nothing to you, Denise, who hops from bed to bed with the frequency of a cheap ham radio. But hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorn, and Michelle Malken, like a screeching, squealing, reptatious swamp sow is after actor Lee Marvin’s last three million dollars. I guess what you and Michelle are saying is that when you’re on your backs, the meter is running. Well, please spare us, gals, and tell us the rate’s at the top. Then we can choose which two bit tarts and bargain basement sluts to shack up with.

If that doesn’t get me banned, I don’t what will.

Can we please stop the “I hit a nerve” BS? This is a common trope, as if the more people who disgree with you, the closer you must be to the truth. The reason so many people, including myself, are responding so negatively is that there were very clear insinuations in your post, and now you’re trying to walk back with this “I’m just asking, is all” approach. Let’s review: You addressed your post to “those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.” Since I don’t recall ever seeing anyone voice that opinion on this board, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask who you were addressing. Since you refer to these people as “you”, the implication is clear that you think people with that opinion are reading this board. So again, who the hell are you talking to? Your post would seem much less offensive if you had the decency to stick to your guns.

Defend your scurrilous insinuations or apologize for them, but don’t waste everyone’s time with this clumsy dance of denial.

It’s certainly your choice in how you internalize what’s posted … Unfortunate though that you’ve taken it in a negative manner and not in the spirit of discussion and debate as was intended.

Why are you so threatened by the question of whether shifts in viewpoint had occurred? You asked for clarification/identification of the audience intended and I provided an honest response — why is this tap dancing?

And there’s that word again … scurrilous …

Since I was put to task apparently it would seem for word choice, let’s check out the definition so I can be clear what you are intending to convey …

scur·ri·lous
Pronunciation: ’sk&r-&-l&s, ’sk&-r&-
Function: adjective
1 a : using or given to coarse language b : vulgar and evil
2 : containing obscenities, abuse, or slander

Now exactly how was this post vulgar, evil, obscene, abusive, or rife with slander?

This is absurd. What you meant is quite clear. Tapdance all you like, no one is in any doubt as to what you meant.

Why don’t you leave that kind of McCarthyism to the real experts like Limbaugh, Coulter and the commentors at DailyKos?

If you have something to say, stand up and say it. Defend your scurrilous insinuations or apologize for them, but don’t waste everyone’s time with this clumsy dance of denial.

instead of responding to those who question her rhetoric she merely attacks those who disagree with her

I’m attacking?! I’d say I’ve been in defensive mode here friend :)

Sincerely, for my own personal betterment, could you give me an example of where I attacked anyone in this post or subsequent comments?

You are the author of this post and I, and a number of others, did not understand who you were refering to when you said, “those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping� and I asked you twice to clarify yet you still refuse to do that.

… and my response back was, again …

The post was meant for all readers to reflect upon their views past and present and to gauge whether events, such as this, would change those opinions.

How does this not answer your question?

I am not going to apologize for asking you to clarify your poor writing.

Hmm … why do I get the feeling that if my views more closely mirrored yours, the caliber of my writing would be deemed more worthy?

I also note that Denise follows the traditional Republican methodology about phrasing a question in such a way that it cannot be answered positively (have you stopped beating your wife yet?), then instead of responding to those who question her rhetoric she merely attacks those who disagree with her.

As mentioned by others, very few people have objections to wiretapping, as long as a warrant comes along for the ride. This is really a non-issue, especially since the country in question wasn’t even the United States. England does not share our Bill of Rights — they’re bound by their own set of laws which I am completely unfamiliar with, and for all intents and purposes, they could outlaw wearing socks on your left foot on Tuesdays and it wouldn’t matter to me (so long as I don’t happen to be travelling in Britain on Tuesdays). I’d sympathize with the Brits affected by that kind of legal lunacy, but patriotism doesn’t require me to be outraged by other countries doing stupid things with their legal system. It only requires that I be outraged when my own country does it. That hasn’t happened in this particular case, so I’m not feeling any particular need to for outrage. Especially since today, the forces of terror really have been dealt a blow, tiny though it may be.

So I find myself agreeing with Justin and Michael. This post was really uncalled for, though I don’t particularly feel the need to be apologized to. You’re entitled to your opinion, as badly thought out as it may be.

I would have actually prefered it if you had name-called or made direct derogatory statements about specific groups or specific people. I find that preferable to implying that those you disagree with hold idiodically radical views.

Actually, I could justifiably say in return that you owe me an apology for calling into question “whom� I meant and clouding the discussion points.

You are the author of this post and I, and a number of others, did not understand who you were refering to when you said, “those who were so vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping” and I asked you twice to clarify yet you still refuse to do that. I am not going to apologize for asking you to clarify your poor writing.

Pretty ironic – eh!

No, it isn’t.

“Would you agree that there’s (definitely) a new risk that’s been uncovered and should be addressed?
Are you willing to wait until the official trial before heightened security measures are employed?”

1. I don’t know if it’s really new, aside from the fact that someone might use a shampoo bomb to hijack a plane instead of a shoe bomb or a box cutter . . . . There will always be a dozen more ways to get around the things that are banned. But, insofar as shampoo bombs, yeah I guess that’s new.

2. I, personally, am willing to wait forever before more security measures are employed. But, that has nothing to do with my comment. I was just responding to your comment to Justin.

Well, Denise, no more, don’t you DARE catagorize me with those “vehemently opposed to surveillance activities such as wire-tapping.�

*chuckle* Ok, ok, if you insist, then I won’t :)

I love wire-tapping (particular days after a true threat is verified), as long as it comes with a warrant, or at least a retro-active warrant � so it can be without a warrant, but they really do need to go back and find out if it is okay.

Now that’s what I was looking for — opinions on whether views had changed or stayed the same given the dynamics of world events.

Denise, the sound the squeals means you’ve hit upon a nerve.

Yup! I can see (and hear) that :)

Yes, many people here are confused as to whom you were referring when you wrote, “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.� As a result, I think it behooves you, as the author, to give examples of the people you had in mind when you wrote that comment.

With all due respect, why has the issue become “Whom, specifically, I meant?”

Honestly, I believe people have ranged in their degree of opposition regarding the surveillance issue, as well as from what “groupings” you are trying to tidily assign them.

Rather than being inflammatory and making it an issue of a specific group of people, I was attempting to make it an open and blanket question to whomever had the inclination (and courage) to state their opinions and if they had changed any with this latest news.

Why, instead of concentrating on the central issue(s), which include changing security and surveillance needs relative to world events as they occur, is the key issue being made to be — “Whom do you mean?”

The post was meant for all readers to reflect upon their views past and present and to gauge whether events, such as this, would change those opinions.

Honest, that was the intention.

I could understand this type of reaction if I had name-called or made derogatory statements, but let’s keep to the issue at hand rather than blanket statements and assumptions about the “types” of people who hold them.

Actually, I could justifiably say in return that you owe me an apology for calling into question “whom” I meant and clouding the discussion points.

Pretty ironic – eh!

Well, Denise, no more, don’t you DARE catagorize me with those “vehemently opposed to surveillance activities such as wire-tapping.” I love wire-tapping (particular days after a true threat is verified), as long as it comes with a warrant, or at least a retro-active warrant — so it can be without a warrant, but they really do need to go back and find out if it is okay.

Denise, the sound the squeals means you’ve hit upon a nerve.

Yes, many people here are confused as to whom you were referring when you wrote, “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.� As a result, I think it behooves you, as the author, to give examples of the people you had in mind when you wrote that comment.

Interesting angle, but the post was an invitation for healthy discussion and debate on a breaking news item and (possible) implication(s) � again, why should I apologize for that?

It is difficult if not impossible to have a healty discussion when the subject of the discussion is not understood by all those involved in said discussion. So it would be much appreciated if you were to clarify your comments and give some expamples of people who are, “vehemently opposed to surveillance activity such as wire-tapping.� Thank you.