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.