Actually, wiretapping is a good thing. That is exactly how the U.S. was able to rescue that FARC’s captors in Columbia. Without wiretapping, it would never have been possible.

Nancy, you should have a seat, lest you get the vapors. Hyperbole much????

If it such a terrible time for civil liberties, how did your letter appear?

Mr. Jones -
Ms. Reeeves’ letter appeared because -
after all, isn’t the StL P-D a commie pinko gay-lovin’ liberal George-hatin’ anti-American ACLU-lovin’ rag, fit only for the bottom of the birdcage and to poison young folks’ minds?
Oh yes - and to pay for this forum…

The funny thing is many people will rant about the second amendment being a sacred amendment. Their reasoning is that the individual owning guns keeps the government from becoming oppressive, for the individual owning guns will give provide a militia that balances out the power of the federal government.

Yet many if not most of these people are willing to give up the right to privacy in their communications in defense of the federal government. Before the first gun was loaded, before the first minuteman stood on a green, before the first shot was fired, it was thought that gave form to the reason for doing the first three. The thought to gain popular support had to be communicated. If there were phones in the 1760’s and 70’s and the British were allowed to wire tap without a warrant then the American Revolution could have stopped before it began and the 4th of July would have just been another work day.

Mr. Maher

A very good description of the Post-Dispatch. You finally got it right.

Nancy Reeves:

“This is in conflict with our precious Constitution. This is indeed a terrible time for civil liberties in America.”

Oh it’s not so bad Nancy, so far, my rights haven’t been affected any more by the Senate Bill than my dog’s appetite. Don’t be too quick to say that my dog has nothing to do with the subject, he has everything. He’s a car chaser with absolutely no idea of what to do with it if he catches it, just like your and your civil liberties.

I shall place a classified ad for a new proof reader tomorrow. The former one, an unprincipled and disloyal baggage named Hilda failed to correct the first “your” in my last sentence to “you.”

War is a temporary state of emergency. Because Congress has not technically declared war [in many many decades], our current situation is not temporary, but rather another fixture of life in the US. If you think you’ve been untouched rights-wise, think about the joys of air travel and reconsider.

There are 2-sides to this non-state of war: rights erosion and a never ending conflict b/c we pussy-foot around rather than grind the enemies into the earth.

Iconoclastic,

There was a poem once written describing someone who only worried about liberties that effected him it went as follows:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

It was written by a Lutheran Minister,Martin Niemoller, shortly after being released from Buchenwald concentration camp.

Is someones opinion less if they believe the second amendment protects the right to own guns but does not own a gun themselves?

I have to agree with Nancy, it is a terrible time for civil liberties in America, just not for the reasons she whines about. I am all for wiretapping terror suspects, and I recognize the fluidity of modern communications are vastly superior to a law passed 30 years ago. No, the part that has me really worried about civil liberties lies in the Supreme Court. Four out of nine justices dont understand that “Of the People” means just that, “Of the People”, not incompetent governments. Five out of nine justices were just WRONG in their decision saying Louisiana couldnt execute child rapists. They missed laws passed on the subject about two years ago.

You miss the point with the wiretapping bill. It was not the bill that was the focus of attention, but the little item slipped in that would grant the telcos immunity for spying on U.S. citizens at the request of the Executive Branch. There was NO court order. There was NO reason for the telcos to do the act. They did it at the REQUEST of the Executive Office, DESPITE IT’S ILLEGALITY, and now they want immunity from lawful prosecution.

THAT’S THE REASON FOR THE FUROR.

Check out http://www.eff.org for an unbiased look at the issues.

Then ask your Congressional representatives (Bond & what’s-her-name) why they voted for immunity.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin
Gotta hate those liberal pinkos, eh?

Nancy Reeves

Please tell all of us, how you personally have been affected, by the new FISA Bill. Please site examples, of your civil liberties being trounced on. Please list the dates, that you were harmed.

Bob:

“There was a poem once written describing someone who only worried about liberties that effected him”

I’m in the process of writing a poem about someone who only worries about Constitutional abstract conjecture while making targets of my family for insanely homicidal Islamics.

I’m asking for balance, other than extreme law enforcement purity, what are you asking for?

Binky59:

“There was NO court order. There was NO reason for the telcos to do the act. They did it at the REQUEST of the Executive Office, DESPITE IT’S ILLEGALITY, and now they want immunity from lawful prosecution.”

There have been more than 14 thousand requests to the FISA courts and about 10 have been denied. Hellzfarr Binky, more than that would have fallen through the cracks of this
Democrat inspired judicial boondoggle. Had it been the other way around with 10 surveillance requests approved by the court and more than 14 thousand denied, there might be some reason for the Bush inspired uproar in your digestive tract.

Loopies have no sense of priorities.

JD,

Your response to Nancy is typical. If it does not effect you then it is not a problem. Liberties are diluted a few at a time and in increments. The fact that a liberty being denied does not effect me personally does not mean that I should not worry about it.

I have never had a relative murdered or their car stolen, yet I worry about crime. Following your logic concerning civil liberties and applying it to crime then I should not worry about crime since I am not effected.

Icon,

Then I assume that you will not worry if we also limit the right to buy guns, note I did not say eliminate. Right after 9/11 there was talk of doing this to prevent terrorist from coming into the US then buying their weapons. The NRA opposed this as unconstitutional. I assume you would not worry about holding people longer if suspected of being a terrorist, do you have a definition of a terrorist?

The Constitution to a large degree was written in abstract, with some specifics. Many times I think that people like you should go rent the movie “1941″. It shows how unreasonable hysteria can cause people to do irrational things. I know the movie exaggerates, however it is based on actual events. For instance people did believe that there were secret Japanese air bases in Southern California.

It is very easy to start denying other liberties on the ground that it effects just a few. Do not forget that in the first year or two the civil authorities infiltrated a Mormon Group in Florida on suspicion of being linked to terrorist.

JD…please tell us how the 2nd amendment has personally affected you and your regulated militia. Gives us specific dates and details in which you were able to defend yourself or even your freedoms. How many men have you killed or wounded in defense of your property?….Shooting vicious wild turkeys doesn’t count.

It all comes down to trust, doesn’t it? Do we trust Government to use their power wisely? This question sometimes has a party based answer: Some will trust Republicans more than Democrats, and vice versa. For others, there is a healthy level of skepticism whenever Government announces something that they’re doing for ‘our good’.

Even though I’m not doing anything wrong, it bothers me that the telecoms might have released my phone records to some unknown Government agency. I’ll never know if it happened, of course. I also was taught and understand that the Constitution does not GRANT rights. Rights are inherent. What the Constitution does is limit Government. It says, in so many words, “here is a list of things Government may do, and here is a list of things they may NOT do (the bill of rights).” It doesn’t say a word about what I, a citizen, may or may not do.

Bob

I am not Icon, but the states have limited my rights to buy a gun, by requiring a background check and a waiting period, each and every time, I desire to purchase one. They have also limited my rights to carry a gun, by requiring that I purchase a license, and renew it every so many years.

If you desire to have another 9/11 type incident, when intercepting an overseas call, just might keep it from happening again, and saving hundreds, and possibly thousands of American lives, is against your belief’s, I feel sorry for you. Of course, I should assume that life means nothing, since the left supports killing unborn babies in the womb.

Mrs. Garrison

I have never had to defend my home yet, to an intruder, but will if it ever happens. The 2nd amendement gives me that right, but as I stated above, the states, have limited my rights to purchase and carry, as I see fit. They have also limited my right to the type of gun, how many shells it can hold, and how many I can purchase at one time. Why aren’t you and Bob complaining about all the restrictions on guns, or is just selective rights, you wish to complain about?

JD..what is it you want? Legalized flame throwers or hand grenades?
You’re the one who wanted to know how FISA affected Nancy Reeves. How many rounds do you want to fire in 30 seconds and how has that affected your constitutional liberties?
You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Sorry for such logical limitations to your constitional freedoms.
But don’t ask Nancy for specifics…you look silly.

Nancy and the other leftists are right. Our civil liberties are being slowly eroded. Just look at the left is pushing the “Fairness Doctrine”, that would give the government unlimited authority to regulate every word said on our public airwaves

Mrs. Garrison

Yes, I want to know how FISA affected Nancy, and I still do. I do not wish to own a flame thrower or hand grenade, but just showing how hypocritical liberals are, for wanting to limit one right and not another.

You didn’t answer my question, so here it is again.

Why aren’t you and Bob complaining about all the restrictions on guns, or is it, just selective rights, you wish to complain about?

Bob:

“I assume you would not worry about holding people longer if suspected of being a terrorist, do you have a definition of a terrorist?”

Merriam Webster defines “terrorist” as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Since this also defines proponents of Universal Health Care in America, I’ll go to the first part of your question. I do not worry about enemy combatants incarcerated for extensive lengths of time because the easiest alternative is to blow their freaking heads off on the battlefield. You obviously prefer to use our tax funds for lawyers to fluff their pillows prior to profuse apologies and early release, allowing them to continue the fight on other battlefields.

“You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Sorry for such logical limitations to your constitional freedoms.”

Really? Why not? Is there some force field that prevents me from doing this? NO. I CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, I just have to be willing to accept the consequences of my actions, much the same way “reverend” Jackson should accept the consequences for calling Obamessiah the “N” word and wanting to cut his nuts out.
I CANNOT, however, walk into a store and purchase hand grenades and flame throwers, at least not without a federal license.

You need beat with the clue bat.

JD,

You paint the left with a broad stroke do you not? You assume that one can support Civil Liberties but not be against abortion.

getting of the subject a but I will tell you why I do not worry about your right to buy guns, and I know that this runs contrary to recent court rulings.

I do believe that the framers of the Constitution was limiting the right to bear arms to the states in order to form a militia. Otherwise why would the two subjects “bearing of arms” and “militia” be linked as they are.

This view point is supported by debate within the states as to if they should add a right to carry arms for individuals off of their property within the states constitution. Some states added this and others did not. These were the same states that ratified the Federal Constitution, so if the states felt the right was protected under the Federal Constitution why did they feel they needed to include anything in the state constitution?

During the Whiskey rebellion and Shay’s rebellion the rebels presented themselves as the militia. Yet most of those involved in writing the Constitution and the amendments disagreed and raised the point that only the state government can call out the militia. So if guns and militia are linked then they are linked under that state governments authority.

There was the issue of guns for self defense. However, it was the 1820’s before using a gun for self defense was successfully argued. Until the the Blackstone theory of “fight or flight” and “your back to the wall” dominated in the courts. These were points supported by the framers of the Constitution.

Like I said I know recent court rulings run counter to my argument but that is why I am not up in arms about your right to own guns.

I do believe the government has the right to outlaw guns, it is a different issue as to whether I think they should.

As far as wire tapping is concerned. I find your position very funny. From earlier discussions you do not trust the government to use your money correctly for health care. However, you trust them to have no restrictions on your civil liberties and on this issue you trust them to do the right thing. I trust them when there are checks and balances such as warrants but you just want to throw the flood gates open.

I thought, by voting the Donks/Socialists into office, we would do away with “illegal” wiretaping and we’d prosecute the telecom companies that allowed this “illegal” behavior. What? The Donks/Socialists voted to protect the telecom companies from prosecution.

It’s as if the Donks/Socialists told their rabid lefty base one thing and then did something else; similar to what Osama Obama’s doing.

Where do the Socialists go since the Donk party has thrown them under the bus? The Green party? Cynthia McKinney is an avid Socialist, and a total nut case. Come to think of it, Mrs. Garrison would probably make sense to the nut jobs in the Green party.

“I do believe that the framers of the Constitution was limiting the right to bear arms to the states in order to form a militia. Otherwise why would the two subjects “bearing of arms” and “militia” be linked as they are.”

Ok Bob, answer this for me, the word “people” is found 9 times in the Constitution, other than the 2nd amendment, where else does “people” not mean “people” but some government organization?

JD,
FISA itself is a secret court whose very purpose is to circumvent the requirements of the 4th Amendment. Civil rights and privacy have been abolished entirely under the FISA regime…(You still get to carry your “He-Man” gun, don’t you?) The NY Times reports that NSA has been spying on Americans, on Bush’s orders, since 2001. The NSA turned from eavesdropping on communist to eavesdropping on businesses and privite citizens. You think you have a right to privacy with just a few limitations? FISA lovers claim that if you’re not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Well ATT monitored 2 million Americans in a 6 week period in 2004 (didn’t know we had that many terrorists next door). From phone calls to internet activities, to e-mails to text messages. Be careful what you read, write, or in your case, view..
Read the 4th Amendment. Try to learn it as well as you know the 2nd Amendment.

Si Vis,

There are multiple meanings for the word people, two such are “A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.” and “The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate.”. Both of these connect the people to the political unit, which in turn connects them to the bearing of arms under the second amendment. The people had the right to bear arms because they would bear those arms under the direction of the government.

I am not saying that grammatically that the Constitution was written correctly in terms that it is not clear. I do think that it jumps back and forth using people to represent a political unit and individuals. Some of the problem being that the Bill of Rights was ratified under the first congress and written by different individuals.

Many of the framers of the Constitution and the early congress did not trust the individuals to act correctly so they wanted power concentrated at various levels of the government, such as the Senate being elected by the legislature.

So I believe it is meant as follows in its usage
Preamble - a political unit at the state level
Article 1, Section 2 - the individuals (they had to make this distinction because this talks about election to the house, whereas the Senate was originally chosen by the state legislature)
Amendment 1 - both
Amendment 2 - the state
Amendment 4 - individual
Amendment 5 - the state
Amendment 10 - individual
Amendment 17 - individual

Tim, the government already has unlimited authority to regulate every word said on the public airwaves. You have heard of the FCC? Besides, the Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced.

Without the Fairness Doctrine I can go onto Faux News and declare “Tim Jones is an idiot!” and have so called experts back it up with “Tim Jones is a fascist idiot and here’s why” analysis and Faux News does not have to give you or any of your minions’ equal time to repudiate those accusations. This is Faux News modus operandi.

Actually, maybe Jamie Riley could block the rest of your posts for this blog thread to give you a better understanding of the Fairness Doctrine. But that wouldn’t be the liberal thing to do, given the paper’s liberal bent.

Bob

FISA, is one small part of the war on terror, and if you can’t see that, you are asking for another 9/11 type tradgey. I would rather have Unc listen to my phone calls or read my e-mails, than have another hit like that one. How about you?

Government run health care in not a right, and they have demonstrated very well, with waste, fraud and abuse, running medicare and medicaid, that they CAN NOT do it.

The left makes a big deal about abortion, wanting the right to kill unborn babies, even minutes before they are born. So what am I assuming? Isn’t it in the democrat’s platform? If you don’t condone abortion, more power to you. As far as I am concerned, it is legalized murder. Please don’t come back with I support the death penalty, because you will speaking of apples and oranges. Abortion is the death of an innocent unborn child in the womb, and the death penalty is awarded to someone who committed a serious crime. No comparison.

My question still has not been answered. Why aren’t you (Mrs. Garrison) and Bob complaining about all the restrictions on guns, or is it, just selective rights, you wish to complain about?

Tango, are you voting Democratic now? That is what it seems like given your last post. Nonetheless, a lot of the Dem leadership had to vote for the current FISA bill because they were enablers to previous abuses of FISA by allowing the Executive Branch to wiretap without a warrant. However, FISA in its current form protects the telecoms immunity from civil lawsuits, (being sued for big bucks). The telecoms could still face criminal charges for wiretapping without a court order.

I’ve tried to answer your question JD, but you just don’t get it.
Here, I’ll make it simple. I don’t think you have a constitutional right to own a gun. Any limitations to the 2nd Amendment are meaningless. Sorry you’re unable to purchase a “surface to air” rocket launcher. Contrary to what our Founding Fathers had hoped for you.

Mrs. Garrison

I just wanted to be sure, that you are FOR selective limitations, of the rights, afforded to us by the constitution. You have just confirmed it.
Yep, you libs are socialists.

t is incredible how you can read only what you want.

First of all I did not mention the FISA courts, I have some trouble with those courts because it is unclear to me how their decisions would be reviewed if needed. However, they are empowered to issue warrants. It is warrant less wire taps I worry about.

Again you say has for has government health care “they have demonstrated very well, with waste, fraud and abuse,” yet one can only assume that the same people running wire taps will be nothing but saints and do none of what happens in Medicare. That despite what the Inspector General of the FBI said was going on when they used wire taps for among other things to spy on spouses, but had logged it has anti terrorist.

You also say: “My question still has not been answered. Why aren’t you (Mrs. Garrison) and Bob complaining about all the restrictions on guns, or is it, just selective rights, you wish to complain about?”

For this last question re-read what I wrote 6 paragraphs concerning the subject of guns.

The IRS focus on U.S. taxpayers is a much greater threat to “civil liberties” than the NSA focus on U.S. enemies. However, bigger government in any area means less liberty, period. Folks just need to decide how much of our hard won liberty we are willing to surrender to Nanny.

Bob

Just wanted to be sure, you and Mrs. Garrison, are FOR selective limitations, of the rights, afforded to us by the constitution.
You two have confirmed.

JD,

First do not state that she and I are for selective limitations when you are willing to give up some rights. If anything using your logic it is not her and me it is her, me and you. How does it feel being part of the radical Left?

It is my opinion that the Constitution does not provide you as an individual to own guns,but I have no problem with owning guns within limitations. So if I do not believe that you have the right then I am not limiting you under the Constitution.

However, there are without a doubt. For instance you do not have “the right to shout fire in a crowded theater”, Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1919, Schneck vs US.

Bob

It would be a cold day in hell, before I would ever be part of the radical left, or anywhere close to it.

JD,

It is Math A=B, B=C so A=C.

It is funny how you say Garrison and I are willing to have limitations on Constitutional rights. You also seem to believe we are part of the far left, some call it radical. However, to avoid another 9/11 you are willing to have some limitations on privacy rights under the Constitution. Thus if she and I are far left for our stance and you hold the same basic belief (limitations) then you and I are bosom buddies.

Sorry but it is simple math A=B, B=C so A=C.

Buddy:

“Actually, maybe Jamie Riley could block the rest of your posts for this blog thread to give you a better understanding of the Fairness Doctrine. But that wouldn’t be the liberal thing to do, given the paper’s liberal bent.”

Letters is the only part of Tucker Boulevard pest hole that passes a semi-fairness muster. Why don’t you try disagreeing with the Editorial Board on the Platform Blog? That’s where the real wild eyed loopies reside, they delete anything that doesn’t kiss up to their whacked out opinions. I suppose that’s the “liberal” thing to do, given the paper’s liberal bent?

Ms Reeves’ letter is succinct and to the point. However, many responses to her letter are not.

Even in its’ current version the FISA act can be misused by an overly aggressive Executive Branch, and, quite possibly with the “cooperation” of a group of Senators or Congresspersons for whom any perceived “threat” leads to domestic spying. The COINTELPRO fiasco is a case in point.

Ms Reeves, the only wat we can protect and secure our rights under the Constitution is through the full exercise of these rights. Keep at it and do not let the name-callers get you down — they are the relatives of Senator Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, George Lincoln Rockwell and a host of others who seek the tyranny of conformity in every case.

Yeah Nancy, and when Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein try to ram the Anti-First Amendment legislation called the “Fairness Doctrine” through Congress…this will help our Civil Liberties, right?

Suppression of free speech is a much greater step toward the “Fatherland” than wiretapping will ever be…

Bob

You must be using some of that new fangled math. ha

JD,

Using your own logic, if I am willing to have limitations on Constitutional rights and I am on the far left. Then anyone willing to have limitations is on the far left.

It is your definition and now you are not willing to live with it? Are you flip flopping? Or does definitions only apply to the ones you disagree with, something like ”Animal Farm”?

Come on admit it you are a closet socialist, either that or your definition is incorrect which then we must question how accurate your other statements have been.

Bob

Only in your wildest dreams, am I a closet socialist. I am center to right, but not far right.

JD,

My friend it is your definition that makes you a socialist or at lest far left. After all you are the one that accuse people of wanting to put limitations on the Constitution. Those people are always accused by you of being leftist.

You have admitted wanting limitations on liberties, such has giving up the right for private communications. So if the surrender of one limitation would make someone a leftist so should the definition apply to you. You are not having double standards, are you?

Come on into the daylight, let your leftist tendencies as you define them out into the light. Welcome, to the left, no longer a closet socialist.

Bob

That is where you are mistaken. The calls being intercepted are to and from, known terrorist supporting countries. Can it be abused, sure, just like anything in the world can be.

You just keep dreaming. That is one dream that is a nightmare for you. Closet socialist, never heard such funny BS.

JD,

If they are known why do we let them continue.

The Inspector General of the FBI reported that only a small portion of the wire taps were legitimate. That only some of the wire taps were for calls outs side of the US. That they found one wire tap that turned out to be used to spy on an agents wife during divorce proceedings.

Are you calling the Inspector General for the FBI as be incorrect?

Bob

As I said in a previous post, anything can be abused.

The “Fairness Doctrine” is a regulation of the FCC. It was lifted because of the growth of diverse media. The FCC is talking about restoring it. It would basically require that any broadcast or cable channel would have to allow for opposing points of views to be aired.

The conservative “Christian” right is upset because they might be required to allow a “progressive Christian” actually have air time.

Contrary to the posts calling the suppression of free speech, it requires an expansion of free speech. Those who only want to hear their own voice as the “voice of Truth (or God)” feel threatened, perhaps in the same way paranoid schizophrenics feel threatened by reality.

JD,

Yes anything can be abused, however when you abuse civil liberties then you are edging towards a communist or nazi type government. Somehow, that does not seem to bother you.

It will be interesting to see if these civil liberties supporters will come out and defend free speech when the Democrats try to re-institute the (un)Fairness Doctrine by taking away the right of the right to speak out against the new Democrat president and Congress.

Centrist

Do you read any of the postings before you speak?

The fairness doctrine simply says that if a radio or tv station air’s an opinion for one side then they have to give the other side the same amount of time and slot to give the other opinion.

So if a tv station has a pro Obama editorial McCain can demand a pro McCain statement read by someone of his choosing. It prevents a station from turning down a commercial has long has it is tasteful, so a campaign commercial full of obscenities can be denied but not one where you call your opponent a liar. That is what the fairness doctrine says.

RHarnack - So, do you think NPR will be forced to air 50% conservative viewpoints anytime soon? I doubt it. NPR is 100% liberal and politically driven, and taxpayers foot the bill for 100% of the content.
If a radio station or TV channel isn’t government run, and is funded by free market advertising, those stations shouldn’t be forced by a government agency to air the “opposing” view - that is censorship. The federal gov’t should start with their own propaganda channel…NPR.

The reason Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are pushing the “Unfairness Doctrine” is due to the ultimate success of conservative talk radio. If the conservative stations are forced to have liberal views, advertisers and listeners will leave in droves, causing the station to shut down.
But, liberal stations have had their go as well - air america failed because it has no audience, and it was filled with uninteresting radio hosts with little talent.

This “doctrine” exists for one purpose only…to kill talk radio.

The “Axis of Ignorance” speaks again! We have Centwisted, sick and vicious, not a sage, JD, jones, gaucho, Tang, all yammering on how our rights need to be taken away to satisfy their fascist, corporatist fearmongering agenda.

http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/09/real-terror-is-fear/

I know y’all think the US Constitution is “just a goddam piece of paper!” like ol W says. So I propose you go somewhere else to live where there are no civil liberties like Russia or China or Zimbabwe and seee what their Constitutions can be used for other than toilet paper.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

We are Americans, and will stand up and fight to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes the “Axis of Ignorance” here which poses a merely marginal threat to free thinking and freedom loving Americans.

Keep on yapping!

The Constitution says you can!

Until BushMcCain says you can’t!

Gaucho, yes I listen to NPR, so I am aware that they have responsible conservative spokepersons on regularly in addition to administration spokespersons. What the do not have on are irresponsible ranters from either side of the political spectrum.

As to the Fairness Doctrine, why is it only conservative “yakkety yak, don’t talk back” shows that are worried? (My apologies to the Coasters).

Reeves, we keep hearing you libs crying about our civil liberties being violated with this wiretapping bill. What evidnece do you have to show the privacy of Americans has been violated. Did you know Clinton also did warrantless wiretapping in 1995? He convicted a former CIA operative name Aldrich Ames for spying for the Russian government and he did it using a wiretap without a warrant. Everytime libs bash Mr. Bush on this, they forget Clinton did the same thing. But they seem to give Clinton a free pass on this as they do everything else. What is it with you people?

Yeah Maher, the Post-Dispatch is terrorist appeasing, Bush hating newspaper, just like you libs are.

Now maybe you crybaby libs can answer the question I just posted. I doubt if you can, but try it anyway.

Sorry Harnack, Reeves’ letter doesn’t even close to the point. Read my post before shooting your mouth about George Bush violating our civil liberties. It deals with Aldrich Ames and Clinton. Then maybe you libs
will crying about this.

The only people trying supress free speech Harnack you hypocritical liberals. Diane Feinstein was talking about having to bring this Doctrine back in because she feels liberals don’t get air their views on conservative talk radio and I cna tell you rght now each night I listen to Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, they have plenty of liberals ariing their irrational thoughts about this war and other topics on the air. I hear it amny times. The problem is conservatives don’t get the same air time. So don’t go telling us or at least me, the Fairness Doctrine needs to be put back in because that is bunch of crap. So please, save your crocodile tears for something you can actually argue about.