Everytime I get out they keep pulling me back in. I did try to stop, but JW kept pressing for an answer.

I think it depends on the issue. I would agree conservatives do tend to be more paranoid about what could happen. I think the left, however, does tend to extrapolate on what could happen. Whether one agreed with FISA (that was the phone conversation monitoring? was that the right acronym?) or not, I always thought it funny that so many were worried that the government had the time, desire, or resources to be even interested in their conversations. Without a doubt the potential for abuse did (and does, unless I missed some repealing of it recently) exist, but I wasn't concerned about it. It seemed the left was incredibly paranoid about the potential. And the charges of the government abuse of it were certainly there prior to passage.

Which is what I think the health care debate comes down to. It is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG bill, and as with any legislation, there is potential for abuse, varied interpretations, and unintended consequences. Are some being put forth ridiculous? Certainly. Are all extrapolations? No.

In the spirit of bipartisan unity, I would like to say that I completely agree with Obama that Kanye West is a jacka$$.

FISA is the act (and by extension the court process defined by that act) that was circumvented to carry out the wiretapping. Perhaps there was some extrapolation as to where the ultimate endpoint was, but the fact was that the administration had already started making up their own rules and had already actively played CYA games by declaring the President above the law to do the thing it had already done by not submitting their actions to the FISA court for review.

Perhaps he means when FISA itself was enacted. It's basically a rubber-stamp, kangaroo kourt that circumvents the justice system in obtaining wire-taps. It is, itself, I believe, unconstitutional.

The irony of ignoring the FISA court was that it pretty much always granted a warrant to the government. The Bush administration claimed the 24-hour rubber stamp turnaround time wasn't sufficient.

I think I was too young when FISA was enacted (or wasn't politically conscious enough), but I'm sure the potential for abuse was front and center. I'm not sure it's paranoia to foresee that something which loopholes the judicial protections in the constitution might be abused.

I agree with scaeagles that not all prognostications are paranoia, even those stemming from the right. But I certainly think the current crop of heath care "debate" predictions are of the tinfoil hat and purposeful spoiler variety.

Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Agreed. The majority of the static coming out against the proposals isn't so much theoretical extrapolation of what might happen if the proposals are passed, rather they are outright misinterpretations/misrepresentations of what the proposal says in the first place, often claiming it means the exact opposite of what its actual intent is (e.g., the language that got labeled "death panels" was about giving seniors the right to manage their own end of life care, NOT about the government sentencing seniors to death. The language that some claimed meant hospitals would refuse treatment if you've come in too many times for the same condition actually said the exact opposite).

I'm fuzzy on the details. What I'm remembering was related to FISA and the Bush admin ignoring it when it came to conversations with overseas parties that had been marked as threats. Or something like that. I apologize for the poor memory, but I think others are filling in the pieces.

I could throw out a different one based on an item in the local news here in Phoenix today related to a challenge to a law that requires a 24 hour wait after the initial consultation prior to getting an abortion. It does seem to me that any law placing any form of anything on abortion is typically run with by the left proclaiming it to be the beginning of the end of reproductive choice.

And honestly, I don't fault them for doing so. What happens is the look at what the next step might be and therefore want no movement at all in that direction.

I thought that was already the law. I have no problem with a waiting period of 24 hours after consultation. It's a life changing decision.

But I'd love to see all the faux clinics (that are really right-to-life offices) closed down.

Then again, I'm a member of the "left" who doesn't have an issue with gun ownership (after a waiting period. There is no reason you need a gun right-this-second).

It is the law in Arizona. It is currently being challenged in court.

Slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily invalid but they're very problematic for reasonable debate since, to a degree they can't be negated. Doing so requires proving a negative.

When it comes to any legislation that reduces in any way access to abortion it is reasonable to be worried about the slippery slope since it is almost always being submitted by people who are quite explicit that the ultimate goal is for abortion to never be legal. Does that mean any such legislation is, on its face, a travesty? I'd say no.

When it comes to health care it is reasonable to worry that the current proposals are the first step on a slippery slope to single payer since many of the people pushing it in the past have said that is there goal and are now counseling that it is best to get there incrementally.

"Even though X isn't that horrible of a thing I oppose it because I see it as the first step towards Y, which is completely unacceptable to me" is not a bad point of contention. Especially if it opens a door for negotiation wherein a proponent of X could include roadblocks that make Y less likely to occur. Or at least attempt to show that the benefits of the intermediate step are sufficient that the battle lines should be drawn at the next step down the slippery slope.

The two problems in how most people using slippery slope arguments are

1. They intentionally misstate (or have been themselves deceived into believing) that the feared end state is actually the immediate result of the item being discussed ("requiring a doctor to mention the opportunities of adoption will result in 2 million botched back-alley abortions a year!" or "the House Ways and Means bill is British style socialist medicine!").

2. Misstatement (intentionally or otherwise) of the intent motivating various parties. I grew up being told not that certain Reagan policies would hurt the poor but that Reagan wanted to starve the poor. This is also an extrapolation of unintended consequences, which are also a type of argument that is nearly impossible to negate. "The mechanism by which the proposed plan funds end of life counseling will create a series of perverse incentives that after several iterations and over time will discourage people from using ever-less-drastic measures for extending life" is a reasonable argument. "Obama wants to euthanise old people" is not. "Requiring parental notification is going to lead to more young girls seeking abortion through less safe means resulting in negative health consequences to both them an the fetus at a rate that negates any avoided abortions" is a reasonable (and by reasonable I don't mean correct, just that it allows for discussion) argument. "You'd rather girls die in back alleys with hangers up their nethers than allow even one safe abortion" is not.