Comments about ‘Letters: Threats justified’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
isrred
South Jordan, UT

No, defending the Constitution is not "recognizably conservative". Conservatives are just as prone, just as likely, and just as historically guilty of trampling the Constitution as liberals. It's not a matter of who is trampling the Constitution, it's a matter of which parts they want to trample.

bodgerdlue
Kearns, UT

How far to the right are we when George W. Bush's former speechwriter, who was also a senior policy advisor at the Heritage Foundation, is accused of writing a "liberal attack on honest patriots"?

We are through the looking glass people.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"And who is "questioning the legitimacy of our government"? No one."

Ask the birthers.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Where was this concern for the Constitution from 2000-2008? Could someone shed some light on this mystery?

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

This all is very much like the 70's for Democrats. Self evaluation is hard. The problem Republicans have today is the center right, and center left are gone. All ready claimed by the Clintons and Obama. Far right and left is all that is still available, and surprise, surprise, when you come full circle on an issue such as privacy they meet and agree. They have to, nothing else is available.

It's one of the things that is so amusing about this thread. When you are standing on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean, Ohio seems pretty far West.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

The funny thing is, does anyone think that David would be writing this had his boy, Bro Romney won the White House? Doubt it. And had here been a major terrorist attack recently, David would be the first in line to blame the president for not doing more to prevent the attack.

Move along. Nothing to see here. David is merely playing political games (as he typically does). More sour grapes from the far right which just seem to not get over the fact that they have now lost 2 elections in a row. Yet... The refuse to look inward and instead prefer to point the finger at the other side.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

A truly "honest patriot" would admit that the Reagan, Bush and Bush years and policies did a lot of harm to the United States. An "honest patriot" can admit that both parties make mistakes and that dems look for the greater good while repubs look at enriching themselves.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Boy... the left_leaning daily_bloggers seem full of self_righteousness this morning.

The one factual statement I read in all the postings so far this morning was, "Self evaluation is hard".

Hard-core Republicans learned this during the Bush years. They defended him to the end even when he made mistakes. And the left attacked him and investigated absolutely EVERYTHING he did... whether good or bad. Now that he's gone, some can see things more clearly now. But while he's in office... it's hard not to just knee-jerk defend your guy. I know... I was there.

Some people on the left are just learning this lesson (they are so used to being on the attacking-the-President side, and they know well it works, so they DON'T like seeing it done to their guy). But that knee-jerk reaction so common to both sides makes it VERY hard to objectively react when you sense your guy is being attacked.

Our politics have become poisoned. It's all about Revenge now days. Democrats attack Bush in Revenge for how Clinton was treated. And Republicans are returning the favor now. It's wrong.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

You know Ernest, It has been said that Conservatives believe that Liberals are "wrong", but Liberals believe that Conservatives are "evil". If your side really believes that the Republicans are evil, then no wonder our country is so divided politically. I mean, if I truly thought your side was "evil", I wouldn't want to compromise with evil either.
Think about it.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Constitution I learned about in school is not the Constitution that the conservatives have reinterpreted. I grew up thinking America was about people and the Constitution was for the American people. I believed that states were just subdivisions of America. I still do.

The war against our national government by the conservatives is not about liberty, justice or those things mentioned in our founding documents. This is a war to control the commercial activities of the American people. The smoke of persecution and scandal are just that.

By their own words and actions conservatives do not want less control over the American people, they just want to change who is doing the control.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

The dangers I see to our freedoms are rooted in a situation in which the allegiance to the Constitution sworn to by congressmen and those in the other departments of government, is sworn ignorantly or cynically.

Partisanship is also a major problem and so is the apparent fact that most of "we the people" do not completely know or believe in constitutional principles orselves. The people seem instinctively, however, to be much closer, in many issues, to the spirit of constitutional principles than does government, but they have not been vigilant in the people they elect and have formerly been all to ready to trust their electees.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Happy: I don't recall using the word "evil".
The most "honest patriots" were the ones who saw the sham of the Iraq war, but they were classified as "nut cakes" by conservatives.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Ultra Bob,
you need to retake your civics course. or take a better one since the one you recall appears to have taught you incorrectly.

When the constitution was ratified, it was to join the states, not the people. The states were not really united as colonies; when the brits were driven from MA, many there thought there part of the war was done.

the articles of confederation was a loose document that did not unite the then "free and independent states" the term "Independent" applied to their relationship with each other, not just England. The constitution was designed to strengthen the central government, but not supplant the rights of the states, as evidenced by the 10th amendment.

Prior to the 17th amendment, the states chose the senators, not the people - the house represented the people and the senate the states.

prior to the civil war, proper grammar was "the United States ARE.." post civil war, it became, "the United States IS.." denoting the difference between multiple and singular.

Things may have evolved to your way of thought, but that is not what the founders intended when they designed the Constitution.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Ernest,
You make it impossible to carry on a constructive discussion when you keep dredging up Bush's mistakes and pretend people called you names. I've never seen anybody call you a "nut cake", but I've seen you call lots of names. I tried to call you on it one day but I was over my 4 posts already, but I counted 8 name calling episodes from you in one topic, cut and pasted them all, just to find out I couldn't post it (over the limit).

Let's not call names. Let's not constantly try to dredge up the best old mistake you can find to drive a wedge of contention. Let's try to be as constructive as possible (both sides).

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

2 bits: when did I call anyone names? My original comment applies, in this state, if you didn't buy in to the Iraq war, tax cuts for the wealthy, the patriot act, etc, you were labeled as non-patriotic. The reality is the best patriots are those who question both parties, not just the dems. I don't recall fox news outraged about the patriot act but now that the other party is in the White House their outrage seems to be never ending.
An "honest patriot" questions all of it, not just along party lines.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

He wasn't making a liberal argument... nor is he a liberal.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...It has been said that Conservatives believe that Liberals are "wrong", but Liberals believe that Conservatives are "evil"...".

"...Said..." by Frank Luntz, messaging guru for the Republican Party...

Repeated by Republicans as part of the daily Republican talking points.

Frank Luntz by-the-way is up for the Goebbels

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

Ernest T. You said that the Democrats look for the greater good, and that Republicans are just in it to enrich themselves. Kind of a blanket generality wouldn't you say? There are plenty of very rich Democrats who have not given in their lifetimes what a very rich Mitt Romney has given in one year. But people like you don't and won't see that in Republicans, you just think we are all selfish and greedy.

Ultra Bob, Really, "the WAR against our national government" The only group that is at war with our government is the terriorists. But then, as I pointed out with Ernest, maybe people like you don't, won't see any good in Republicans/conservatives. Maybe you think we are as bad or worse than terriorists. Thanks for helping me validate my origional point.
There You Go Again, Take note.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

2 bits,

Funny thing is that almost all of the "left-leaning" commenters (not daily bloggers) in this paper are rather middle-leaning. I guess from the far-right haze everything looks liberal . . . and rather distorted.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Ernest,
The name calling was on another topic (a few days ago, can't remember the topic). The point is... lets drop the name calling "nut job", "Un-patriotic", "Repugs", etc. Both sides.

We're actually doing very well today. I was just concerned that your claim that somebody called you a "nut job" would start the usual daily name calling again (which gets us nowhere).

I never heard it, but I guess I was called "Un-Patriotic" back during the Bush days too, because I fought the Patriot_act (on principle). Not because I thought we didn't need it, but because of the possibility that future administrations would probably abuse it (and I was right). And I think much more abuse is in store IF we leave it in place. Not by Obama necessarily but by some future administration (could be either side).

It's just bad legislation, and IMO it's a bad decision to trade our Constitutional Rights for the illusion of security. I think the government should find a way to provide security without trampling guaranteed individual liberties, like the 4th amendment, the 2nd amendment, and the 1st amendment.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments