--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 8/20/06 3:11:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> What was *not* fine  was your misrepresentation of it
> as supporting WARRANTLESS wiretapping,  which it most
> certainly did  not.
> And as I said earlier that the poll also mentioned that 65% even
> favored the program even if it meant violating privacy. That's 
> close enough for me for the majority being OK with wire taps being 
> warrantless.

Don't be absurd; those aren't equivalent at all.
Without a warrant, your privacy can be violated
for no good reason, just on a whim, or even for
evil purposes.  *With* a warrant, at least you
have some assurance of oversight and of a positive
purpose for the privacy violation, e.g., catching

Not *nearly* close enough, sorry.  Your privacy
can be violated either way, so being OK with it
does NOT mean approving of WARRANTLESS wiretaps.

> Only about 30% or less did not want the program and I have no
> doubt it was because they believed the wire taps could be
> without warrants, why else would that many people be against
> the program?

Yes, as Lawson and I both pointed out to you.

Which tells you ZILCH, however, about whether those
who approved had warrantless wiretaps in mind.

Except that in every poll I'm aware of that asked
about WARRANTLESS wiretapping explicitly, a majority
DID NOT approve of it.

> No lies, no deception, just sour grapes that 66% of the  
> population want Bush's program in place as it is.

Bullshit.  That's not what the poll found, because
that isn't what it asked, and you know it.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to