₦airaland Forum

@savanaha,

Someone made the comment of the day. All the people crying about abortion being wrong should adopt all the orphans in orphanages. Maybe then it will make sense to the pro-choice people why they should have an unwanted child and give it up for adoption.

How clever. Why not ask people in this era of 'personal responsibility' according to Obama, to take responsibility for their actions. If you can't take care of a child, don't have one. Our experience as humans reveal that we are all subject to the laws of sowing and reaping, cause and effects etc. If you can't take care of a child, don't have one, otherwise you become a murderer.

And for those of you who care so much for the poor, why not donate 100% of your income to the govt to dole out welfare programmes? As for adopting orphans, I am quick to point out a staunch pro-lifer in the person of Michelle Bachman. She is a member of the House representing MN. She is a proud foster mother of 26. As conservatives, we put our money where our mouths are. Same cannot be said of the liberals.

I must add that I am shocked by the lack of morality you guys are displaying here. Life to you is disposable for economic reasons. Do you realise that is your stance?

@TOH,

Um No cos they are not trying to force anyone to support it, they are stating that a woman should just have the right to options. It's that simple.

They are not? One way to ensure they are not forcing their decision on others (other than the baby they are killing), is to insist that abortion should by no means be subsidized by the govt. At least, the burden of their murderous acts will not be shared by those who disagree. What say ye?

Btw this thread should be about pro-life and not about Bush cuts or whatever offtopic garbage

That became relevant only because bawomolo is claiming that conservatives do not care for the poor or the minority. Unfortunately for him, the facts provide eloquent testimonies against his position.

@topic,

Jesus paid taxes. So should our Pastors.

@bawomolo,

I can see how you keep dodging all the points I make while perpetuating in your mind, the mirage that as liberals, you care more for the poor than the conservatives. I know you liberals always imagine the world to be different than what it really is, so I am not surprised by your delusion. Studies have proven over and over again that conservatives give more of their money to the less priviledge than liberals.  I know there is no way I can win an argument with you, but let's see if the facts provided here will get in the way of your delusion.

•Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

•Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

•Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.

•Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

•In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

•People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

In 2000, brows were furrowed because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals conveniently understand that word.
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17032146.html

Perhaps those poor will stand a better chance if you guys just pick up the 30% slack in your giving, even though you generally earn more.  But of course you will not. Your idea of social justice is just a means to keep the poor, poor and to perpetuate a voting block for generation.  Come discuss with me after you guys have put your money where your mouth is.  Stop trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy' with other people's money.

By the way, regarding minority schools, you might want to read the following article - http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/9229, which claims Obama just cut Bush's $85 million dollars in funding to minority schools. Coulde it be that Obama does not care for the minority as well?  I guess Bush too must have hated Blacks even though he gave more money to Africa than any previous US Administration.

@pres-elect,

If we are gonna be tied down on semantics, let me state clearly here also that I am pro-choice. Going by the logic you are presenting, we can also infer that Obama considers those who disagree with him as anti-choice if hew will like to be refered to as pro-choice. So let us try and reconcile the two by saying I am pro-choice and anti-abortion, but Obama is pro-choice and pro-abortion. Are you happy now?

I assume you are in London, right? When exactly will you be in the US and what city will you be staying? What course are you studying as well?

@TOH,

and some people disagree. That's life. Get over it.

Can those people also get over the fact that more people in the US do not support abortion? By the way, when does life begin in your opinion?

@TOH,

I am not forcing my opinion on you, and I don't believe you are doing the same to me.

With regards to the timing, I mentioned earlier that my life is not more precious today than it was 30 years ago. Human life, as far as I know is not valued based on time.  It is just sacred by its being, its existence. Qualifying the quality of life based on time opens up a can of worms where human life can be valued based on transient issues.  You really don't want to go there.

I am of the opinion that life begins at conception. Those who do not believe same cannot provide a definite answer. Obama admitted same by declaring at the Saddleback Church that determining when life begins is above his pay grade. Doesn't common sense then dictates that we ere on the side of life?

@TOH,

Let me provide an analogy explaining my stance about a woman's right over her body.

I have a right to keep my body clean. Infact, bad hygiene is detrimental to my health. To keep clean which is my Right, I cannot go dip myself in the community pool of drinking water. I have a Right to keep clean, but my Right must not violate other's Right to safe, drinking water. That is just my point with respect to a woman's Right over her body. I am for it so long as it does not violate the Rights of others.

@pres-elect,

now this is what the president was preaching about. ''demonising'' opponents.

I hope you are listening now o.  Don't turn around and start demonising Hillary or Rush anytime they express contrary opinion to yours.

separate the political protesters from the real catholics.

My understanding is that the real catholics will follow the teaching of the church which is contrary to Obama's stance. If that is the case, then I suppose the political protesters must be the real catholics.

smoking is still legal. that analogy u made was inappropriate. smoking was taxed to ''discourage'' it, while banning abortions is ''illegalising'' it. they are 2 different things.

There is nothing inappropriate about my analogy. The issue is on what people can do with their bodies and how far they can go with that. If smokers can be taxed because of the effect on others, why let the abortionist go free despite the fatal consequence of their action on another?

NB: the president is not pro-abortion. I am not.

He is not? Is he anti-abortion? You guys just want to muddy the line.  It aint gonna work.  Tell me, when Obama denies help to a child that survives an abortion attempt, is that another way of being pro-life?

but my policy is, in a democracy like the US, let God be God. I dont want to play God.

Now we are talking about God as if he will come down in person to stop the evil. God, like Satan works through human agencies. Complacency, bordering on complicity is the author of statements such as "let God be God".

while i hate abortion like toshman, i dont want to impose my religious beliefs on all women.

This is not about religious beliefs. It is about what is the unalienable Right of every form of human life? Can a human life be terminated beause of inconvenience to another's body. And by the way, the life came to be through a voluntary action of those who want to terminate it.  I just can't reconcile those extremes.

let the women make their own choices. as for the unborn babies, really sad. i wish it never gets to this.

I strongly believe that a society is only as developed and strong to the extent that it protects the weak and vulnerable. We claim to seek justice oversees and send our finest to die for the cause of freedom in strange lands. It's so funny that we look away from the needy and most vulnerable within our borders.  We watch them being led to the slaughter house everyday in their thousands and do nothing about it.  Human life is meant to be safe and secure in the womb, but that is not what obtains.

@Bastage,

Sorry. But that is just a pathetic argument.

The women who make those choices do so because it is their body and therefore their right.
Who are you to claim that they have no right? What right do you have to decide what a woman does with her own body?
Your statement is just pure hypocrisy.

As for having the baby grow up to make a choice? If they did that, there would be no abortion would there? An adult cannot be aborted. It's a purely illogical argument.

What is pathetic is your inability to understand when the exercise of your right is limited. Put simply, your right ends where another's begin. A woman has no right to do anything to her body if it violates another's right, in this case a baby. As I mentioned earlier, I don't care what they do to their body in terms of plastic surgery because the effect is limited only to the woman. However, when abortion is concerned, another life is involved.

I am ammused by the hypocrisy of the liberals when it comes to a person's body. You guys are taxing the hell out of smokers claiming what they are doing to their body affects others. So why is this different? Why shoudl smokers be punished with taxation for what is clearly an abuse of their body? I guess principled stance is never a strong forte of the liberal.

@bawomolo,

when is it considered life? 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 4 months?  What if the woman's life is at risk or the woman doesn't want the damn crumbsnatcher.

Life is not subject to time.  I am not more alive today than I was 30 years ago. I have the same life. It has not degenerated nor has it been enhanced by time. So your attempt to qualify human life based on a time frame is mute.

in the animal kingdom, mammals tend to take care of their young through extended families.  The parents aren't left to do it alone.  That's where welfare programs come in.  Something you conservatives call unnecessary handouts for children you want to force women to have.

So the State is now your extended family? Your attempt to justify your untennable position is getting absurd by the minute.  As I have said, if you believe so much in the superiority of the State, why don't you turn over 95% of your income to it. The individual is sustained by the family, and not the other way round. Same is not true with the State. The State needs the individual for sustenance.

blah blah blah

Of course. Liberals know how to put other people's money to use. They lose coherence when their money is the one in question.

Oh really, you mean welfare programs ballooned under Ronald Reagan? please.

See your warped logic. You think the best thing to do for the poor is to put them on welfare. You help the poor by making them see that those who are making it out there are no different than them. They have the same opportunity and God-given talent. But political expediency makes the liberal keep them on welfare.

who cares, nah my pikin

If no be your pickin, why the phony sense of obligation to take care of it through the community? 

yes , he cares about life so much but doesn't worry about taking it.  Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One is an innocent life and the other is a guilty one. One has done no one any harm while the other has taken another's life.  The law of justice of modern nations is based on the principle of "no cruel and unusual punishment." It is cruel and unsual to kill an innocent baby. It is not cruel and unusual to kill a cold-blooded murderer. I'm sure a liberal mind like yours can grasp such a noble concept.

@JeSoul,

I'm pro-life but I don't think women should be forced by the govt. to make that choice.

I believe the extent to which I can exercise my right is limited only to the extent that it does not violate the right of others.  I have no problem with women getting a face-lift or a boob job because it only affect their bodies. Those actions do not violate the rights of others. I cannot in all good conscience say the same in the case of abortion.  It violates other people's rights. Govt, as far as I understand and as envisioned by the founding fathers, exists only to ensure that people's rights are not violated. It's job is to make sure the strong do not violate the rights of the weak, or the rich the poor. To that extent, I approve of govt intervention in this matter.

Women have a choice to have sex or not to do so. To the extent that this action was voluntary, they must be held to account and be responsible for the consequences of that action. Unlike Obama, I do not think becoming pregnat is a punishment for that action.  It is only a natural expectation of the deed done.

@bawomolo,

The babies have no choice.

According to who? The babies have life, human life. Since when did any human being cease to have a right to life?      

Who would take care of the babies.

Common sense dictates that the parents should.  We can learn that much even from the animal kingdom. Last I checked, aint we supposed to be higher animals?

The taxes you whine about paying.

I can see that you pay 90% of your income to the FG. Come to think of it, arent all the liberals out there dolling all their hard earned money to the govt?

There are lots of children abandoned in foster homes with no one to adopt them or folks like you who consider their tax money too precious to provide welfare for them.

The last I checked, Conservatives like me give more of our money to help the downtrodden more than so-called compassionate liberals.  What we are against is the abuse of the welfare system that kills the initative of the poor.  Welfare should be structured to make the recipients self-sufficient, and not to make them life-long dependents on other people's labour.

Let the woman determine what's best for her.

And the child?

It's funny you care about life but aren't against the death penalty.  What changed?

Of course I care about life and support the death penalty. I believe in personal responsibility and justice. No one is more innocent than the unbor, and yet we kill them in the thousands everyday. If you murder someone in cold blood, it is not cruel and unusual to deprive you of your life as well.

@TOH,

You can disagree without being disagreeable. That is my point.

@TOH,

When did you become so nasty? Who have you been e-walking with? I need to take you back!!!!!

bawomolo:
Just because someone is pro-life doesn't mean they out to make choices for other people.

So why are those women forcing their choices on the babies? Why not let's have those babies and let them determine when they are p\old enough whether they want to be killed or not. Why should others sentence them to death without their input?

@toshman,

Isn't Obama a class act? He talks about the need to reducing a need for abortion in Notre Dame.  How do you reconcile that with the following obtained from the article I posted above: With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures

You want to reduce the need for abortion but yet expanding its availability beyond your borders! You said abortion has profound consequences but refuse to ere on the side of life!  You hate abortion but do not favor the need to bring in a second Doctor to help keep alive, a baby born alive through botched abortion.  Cutting the bull-crap out of the rhetoric, this is nothing but political grand standing.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:
Roe vs Wade is here to say.

social conservatives especially in the Bible Belt need to let it go. ironically the rate of Abortions in the bible belt states are some of the highest.

Is it really here to stay? Public sentiments has shifted in favor of the pro-lifers. Heck, even the famouse Roe in Roe v Wade is now pro-life.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995. - http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=273768.msg3885640#msg3885640 date=1242669267]Lol
If you embark on CAPITAL intensive projects, that means you are a CAPITALIST. If you embark on social projects like Eyo festival, okonko or argungu, that means you are a SOCIALIST; if you embark on Community services, that means you are a COMMUNIST. I learn a lot from Nairaland. [/quote]

Naa. These are all products of random chance. Now what are the chances of that?

@Poster,

Yep! An example will go a long way in helping us understand the particular issues you are having.

In this I support Obama.  Releasing those pictures serves no good.

@pres-elect,

Forget that story about the House impeaching Clinton. We all know impeachments don't matter until both Houses approve it. That did not happen. Besides, he was impeached not for obstruction of justice as you claimed, but for perjury.

Una don start your story again about the enhanced interrogation stories. First you guys claimed it did not yield any information. The you said the info could have been obtained in other ways. Now you are beginning to change story. Perhaps Obama should release all the memos. This selective release is only to hide the whole truth.

@pres-elect,

Bill Clinton impeached? In this world or the next?

@sleek_p,

Why would you say I hate the guy?  I don't.  I have tabled my reservations not based on his person, but on his actions. If I was White now, I'm sure you would have accused me of racism. This is why debates are difficult these days. Any opposition is accused of anything but the issues thay are bringing attention to.

Tell me, will you support Bush if he does the same things as Obama, and will you support Obama if he did exactly the same things that Bush did?

@adconline,

Now we are getting somewhere. You are offended he likened Obama to Al Capone. Maybe if you put it in context, you wouldn't be so offended. He didn't call Obama a gangster or a criminal, rather he said he bullies just like Al Capone. If I say you have compassion like Jesus Christ, does that mean every Christian should accuse me of blasphemy for putting you and Jesus in the same sentence? It's funny how you ignored all the things he mentioned but seized on that statement to vent your bias.

Question is, looking at the examples mentioned, did Obama bully these people or not? Eveidence suggests he did. His unrepentant supporter, Warren Buffet suggests the same as well. So what is your point? That the AIG Execs who were wrongly villified on national TV by the President are just too sensitive? Please be clear so we know where you stand!

@adconline,

Classic diversionary tactics. We are talking about issues, you are here beaming your searchlight on the person. Show me a perfect person on the right or left of the divide if you can.

As for who to listen to, I find it fascinating that Democrats and Liberals are always eager to point others in the path they should go or who to listen to. I post issues here that interest me, and you either strike down my points or butress them as you deem fit. This someone is better than another person mentality is rooted in the class warfare that liberals are igniting.

Like it or not, Rush is an intellectual, regardless whether he has a college degree or not. I suppose Dick Cheney is also one of those street people he is targeting, right? I'll just like to look beyond personalities and deal with th issues here. You have not done that so far.

@bluespice,

tayo-D as much as strive to make sense most times while upholding ur mouthpiece of what american politics (read obama's administration) should be, i have a question . . .
dont u think its high time u stopped listening to the words of a deranged man experiencing mid-life crisis who deals with his moods by exhibiting his partial psychosis by broadcasting disinformation on air ?

Let me ignore your tirade against him for now. Can you please point out the misinformation here? Is it true that Obama has been bullying private citizens? The answer is an undisputed YES. You may want to read my previous entries here to see the facts.

hey just a thought . . .

You ever think about addressing issues without attacking personalities?

seriously if u would get over the obama's what's wrong with america notion and look at the american situation for what it really is,
dont u accept that he sure is on to something and he deserves a bit of time?

Of course he is up to somthing. Like transfering wealth from the private sector to the public sector. Whatever a record deficit? Yeah, he is up to something alright. In his words if I remember correctly: "We live in the greatest nation on earth, so join me as we change it."

i mean ur party had 8 yrs to rule under bush, what singular good came out of that?

Did you notice that the DNC was in charge of the congress for most of it? Did you ever notice how things started going downhill since then? Did you notice what the DNC did to bring about the subprime mortgage mess?

@pres-elect,

No one is perfect, and I sure don't expect you to be. You promise to make an effort to correct what you have personally recognised to be a bad habit. I, or anyone for that matter cannot ask for more.

Just tell your Obama to leave Bush alone. He won an election by associating Bush wiuth everything wrong in the world. Does he plan to govern by the same tactics too? Bush is past tense, he is the present and should guide into the future.

Let me address your issue about the widening gap between the rich and the poor! Tell me, how is that a problem when the standard of living and the income of the poor have risen along with the rich. It makes economic sense for that to happen. Think of it this way. Assume a poor man invests like $10,000 of his discresionary income and makes a profit of 100%. At the same time, assume a rich man invests $1,000,000 and makes a profit of 10%. Your logic suggests to us that there is injustice because the gap has widened. The truth is that the poor person has even done better than the rich in the market place. This is the truth you are not being told. Your attention is focused on the gap and not the fact that the poor who work are doing better and have acquired more during the Bush Administration.

@adconline,

Bush started bail-out. Bush should have used bankruptcy laws instead of waiting for Obama to do it. What your party and president did not do ,you are nowcriticizing Obama for not doing. I would be mad at my party for starting a bailing out fiesta. Wall Street asked for these bail outs not White House. Please put square pegs in square holes not round pegs in square hole. Its so disingenuous for folks like Rush and you to take a swipe on Obama on programs that were started by your president and GOP.
The difference between hard liners like you and Rush and moderates like Obama is the way you guys keep trumping your extreme views. When Bush was president, some liberals said " we will move to Canada" now Obama is president, some cons like you are saying " we will secede or we want the president to fail. Clinton was investigated in granting pardon to Mark Rich as well as his Natl Security Adviser . Mr Berger who was prosecuted. Clinton was impeached by a GOP dominated house for having sex with Monika.

Try to look beyond Republican versus Democrats. I have always ben agaisnt the bailout, whether under Bush or now under Obama. If I recall correctly, Rush also criticised the bailout idea that was embraced by John McCain and Bush. It has been a bad idea all along. That Obama has continued with it does not make it better. So your accusation false flat. Wanna make another one?

If bailout was the final route for Chrysler, why then did Obama force things around and determined winners and losers before agreeing to bankruptcy? How come the non-secured party, UAW gain 55% of the shares while the secured bondholders are not only deprived of their investments, but publicly condemned and ridiculed by the President? Wanna explain that? You don't think that is bullying?

What the heck are you talking about with Marc Rich?
How does President Bush feel about the Rich pardon inquiries?

Bush has been quoted as saying he thinks "it's time to move on," and by all accounts has little interest in pursuing any investigation that keeps his predecessor in the national spotlight. - [url]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html[/url]

@pres-elect,

You know what tension I'm talking about. Abi you want me to spell everything out on the www?

Hate is a very strong word, especially when you use it in a sentence with a fellow human as the object. I don't know what the guy has done to you, but I am sure he does not deserve such negative affection. If anything at all, people who know Rush describe him as an everyday fellow with a very likeable personality. I'm not sure who I'll prefer as a friend between both of them anyways.

No you were not disrespectful to me. Quite the opposite, and I appreciate that. My point was just that you should be consistent with the golden rule irrespective of the personality involved. "Do to others what you'd like them to do to you". You may disagree with him, but calling him or any other person names is unwarranted. To make you get over your prejudices, I have tried on other threads to direct the issues to the points he raised, but it seems you can't get past that. Don't you think you need to wean yourself off of the sources of information that makes you hate somebody because of their political opinion?

You really need to read the letter. It will make you see how irresponsible Obama was in making a victim of these fine individuals. You sure are like millions of people who were fed a one-sided and factually innacurate information by our Commander-in -Chief. Many like you do not bother to seek out the facts, but have carried placards and taught to hate hard working citizens like you. It's such a pity.

Yoy might say this is not about AIG or Chrysler, but they are the main reason why this thread was started in the first place. The president using his office to bully ordinary citizens.

How people act is none of your business, as long as they do not violate your fundamental human rights. If Obama cares so much about the way money is being spent, why then would he approve Air Force One flying over NY for a photo-op that cost the tax-payers over $300,000? How does that help the economy at this time? And don't tell me he didn't know about this before hand. No way Air Force One will get off the ground without the president knowing about it.

@savanaha,

I don't understand why immigrants  support Republicans, especially non Western-European immigrants.
Also why are Republicans so quick to jump on Obama who has not been in office for a year but Bush was allowed to goof off for two terms?
Its all dirty politics but it seems that Republicans like to turn and tumble in the filth. Pretentious filth at that. The right is claiming not seeing change but I guess they don't want to open their eyes.

Bush given a break? I can't believe someone will ever say this.  But then, the truth and self-reality don't match sometimes.

I'm trying to figure out if the RNC has been harsh on Obama. In my opinion, that is not so. If anything, they are afraid to take him on for fear of being called racists by the Obama Press. It's only a few people who dare to take him head on.

Obama may be popular, but his major policies so far are not. This irony is epitomised by no other than Warren Buffet who has consistently decalred his love for Obama, even though he does not agree with virually all the actions Obama has taken on the economy.  Let's take the issue we are discussing for instance.  Here is what Warren Buffet had to say about the Chrysler debacle:

Warren Buffett endorsed Barack Obama for president last year and has generally remained positive about the new president's actions to try to restart the economy. But the Oracle of Omaha apparently has significant reservations about the way the administration handled secured lenders of Chrysler LLC in the days leading up to the automaker's bankruptcy last week, predicting that the government's actions to abandon principles that govern what creditors have priority "would have a whole lot of consequences."

Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 protection last week after some holders of its $6.8 billion in secured debt refused to go along with a government-mandated restructuring that would have seen them receive just pennies on the dollar. The lenders complained that they were being treated unfairly, noting that the United Auto Workers' unsecured claim would receive 55% of the company's equity.

Obama had harsh words for those lenders during a press conference announcing the bankruptcy, saying "a group of investment firms and hedge funds" had decided to hold out for what he called "the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout."

Buffett, speaking to CNBC's Becky Quick at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual meeting, uses the sort of colloquial language that has earned him the title "America's billionaire next door" to explain in simple terms what he sees as the danger of the administration's actions.

He said:

"The bondholders want a secure bond. IIf I have a first mortgage on my house here, and the first mortgage is for half of what the house is worth, and somebody says I want you to take a big haircut because I've got credit card debt someplace else, that's got problems. It has problems in terms of future lending. I mean, if priorities don't mean anything that's going to disrupt lending practices in the future."

He warned that the Chrysler example could make lenders more hesitant in the future, perhaps delaying an economic recovery.

"If we want to encourage lending in this country," Buffett said, "we don't want to say to somebody who lends and gets a secured position that that secured position doesn't mean anything." - Lou Whiteman - http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/05/buffett_warns_of_chrysler_cram.php

@tombola,

i have always known that Tayo- D is a kangaroo.

My guy, I never go Australia before now. Why then the mention of kangaroo?Take time o. I won't let you get off easily next time. If you have nothing to say about the issues, then keep quiet. This is not a personality contest. Seun created the meet-up zone and romance session for people like you who can't debate beyond people (apologies to other users of that forum).

Tayo-D don come again. Uncle e don do na.

What can I say my guy. Bush had enormous goodwill after 911. According to his critics, he used that opportunity to role back civil liberties. Shouldn't we learn from that history to ensure Obama does not use his goodwill to do same, or even worse?