Thank you. I wish more of the commentary on this subject was like yours. It's a refreshing to see someone who can disagree with a position but accept that it is still legal if the courts have upheld it.
I made it pretty damn clear that I was talking about it at a constitutional level and it's kinda irksome to watch you find the only person who barely-even-doesn't-really-agree with you and act like they're the only respectable person in the thread. It's not my god damn fault you refuse to read the wikipedia page and inform yourself.
edit: Look, all over the front page this morning. MORE sources and allegations describing MASSIVE domestic surveillance that occurred without any sort of oversight or warrants. How can you just ignore story after story after story and push your anecdotes?
Comments
Thank you. I wish more of the commentary on this subject was like yours. It's a refreshing to see someone who can disagree with a position but accept that it is still legal if the courts have upheld it.
I made it pretty damn clear that I was talking about it at a constitutional level and it's kinda irksome to watch you find the only person who barely-even-doesn't-really-agree with you and act like they're the only respectable person in the thread. It's not my god damn fault you refuse to read the wikipedia page and inform yourself.
edit: Look, all over the front page this morning. MORE sources and allegations describing MASSIVE domestic surveillance that occurred without any sort of oversight or warrants. How can you just ignore story after story after story and push your anecdotes?
Do you happen to be paying any attention to any of the top stories right now? Or does your anecdote answer back ALL of them too?