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.
He is very consistant, and correct on this issue as well. But you've gotta know what the hell your talking about first.
"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?