[Wombat101]

"Actually, he is. Those "wire taps" are all on international calls. Are the Rights of those in other countries protected by our Constitution and our legal system? Don't be silly."

Oh heck, no! I never even made that argument that Constitutional rights were to be transnationally applied, or that the wiretapping was done willy-nilly. Nice try, though.

He should have posted, right in the first sentence, what his intention was in presenting the story. Instead, we got a cut-rate version of events, and are left to imply an awful lot, and if you are of the same political bent as Neal, you imply what he wants you to without realizing it.

That's what I'm talking about; be up front about your agenda and when you tell the story make it evident where your point of view lies. That's all. Is that too much to ask?

[Dead Corpse]

Neal has never said he wasn't a partisan. In fact, he takes pains to remind people often. That everything he states is HIS opinion and that nothing he says should be taken at face value unless you have researched it and come up with the same conclusions yourself.

Again, like I said, if you knew what you were nattering on about... you'd find something more interesting to talk about rather than push a bad position.

[Wombat101]

P.S., Re: wire taps.

If one of those international wire taps turned up evidence of a child porn ring operating across borders, would you be for or against the relevant government agencies passing this information on to local law enforcement, or do you consider it "fruit of the poisoned tree" (i.e. since this information was collected while looking for something else, it should not be used to prosecute anyone)?

[higgmeister]

...if you are of the same political bent as Neal, you imply what he wants you to without realizing it.

Do you mean infer? I believe people get imply and infer mixed up a lot.