When they took the 4th amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the 2nd amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the 1st amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
The following article is from today's NY Times. We need to restore some balance in how the Constitution is read.
Ashcroft Defends Subpoenas
NY Times
February 13, 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 - Attorney General John Ashcroft
rebuffed calls from Congressional Democrats and abortion
rights groups on Thursday to drop the Justice Department's
demands for abortion records from a half-dozen hospitals.
Mr. Ashcroft said the records were essential to the
department's courtroom defense of a new law banning what he
called "the rather horrendous practice of partial-birth
abortions."
A group of doctors have sued to overturn the law, which was
passed by Congress last November and signed by President
Bush. They say they have performed medically necessary
abortions that would now be banned.
Mr. Ashcroft told reporters that "if the central issue in
the case, an issue raised by those who brought the case, is
medical necessity, we need to look at medical records to
find out if indeed there was medical necessity." He refused
to say whether he had personally signed off on the
subpoenas for the records.
The department has subpoenaed at least six hospitals, in
New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago and Ann Arbor, Mich.,
to obtain medical histories for women who have had
abortions in the last three years performed by the doctors
now suing the government. A federal judge in Chicago has
thrown out a subpoena against Northwestern University
Medical Center because he said it was a "significant
intrusion" on patient privacy, and hospital administrators
in other cities are contesting the demand as well.
Government lawyers do not want the names or other
identifying information about the women, Mr. Ashcroft said.
He said the Justice Department was sensitive to privacy
concerns, "and so we took, I believe, every precaution
possible" to protect patient confidentiality.
But some Democrats in Congress, abortion rights groups and
civil liberties advocates condemned the records demand on
Thursday and called for Mr. Ashcroft to drop the subpoenas.
"It is clear from both federal and state laws that strong
privacy restrictions are in place to prevent the kind of
intrusive breach of medical privacy that these actions
represent," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois
Democrat who has written legislation restricting the public
use of medical records.
Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of the Bronx, said,
"All Americans should have the right to visit their doctor
and receive sound medical attention without the fear of Big
Brother looking into those records."
I'm trying hard to get worked up over this vile attempt to destroy our God given liberties, but I ain't making it.
According to the abortionists, any limits on any type of abortion are the end of the world.
Pulling a living, viable child half way out of the womb and then scrambling it's brains with a scapel is murder. Pure and simple. It has nothing at all to do with the mother's rights, as the child is viable. Her job is done. Her body is hers again. She is not required to raise the child. In this case, she just wants to murder the child because she thinks it might be a problem in her full and interesting future life.
All Ashcroft wants is the medical records for these 'life threatening' pregnancies. No names. Nobody's privacy is getting invaded.
The abortionists are howling about privacy, as it is the only way they can conceal that no life was threatened but the child's.
The abortionists have utterly no interest in examining this case on it's merits, or they would not be opposing this action.
What other evidence is available to Ashcroft to enforce a legitimate law other than the medical records? Is he supposed to take the abortionist's word that it was all good?
Legal crap. Legal smoke screen. The abortionists ought to be ashamed of themselves for trying to wrap the constitution around their bloody hands.
But they won't, as they have no shame.
I am not opposed to the regulation of abortion. I don't believe that it's an absolute right. I believe the Supreme Court has made the right decisions over the last 30 years, balancing the mother's first amemdment rights with the rights of the unborn.
That being said, I don't go to doctors to resolve legal questions and I don't believe we should use lawyers to resolve medical ones. Professions other than politics (and one could debate whether that *should* be a profession) should not be political.
do you trust him? I don't.
Your medical records may become much less private than you think.
PB Abortion is either legal or it is not and you might feel about it one way or the other. What is going on here is whether the Feds can second guess a decision made by your physician and you about your health. That is what this whole debate has always been about. If the Feds get these records, they will litigate the validity of these private medical decisions to death. Why will they do it? For the same reason that a dog licks his balls: because he CAN and it excites his fine Christian sensibilities.
Don't all of you, regardless of party - see that if the Christian RIght increases it's influence in this country, the ladies and men posting on this board are next! We are sinning in their eyes boys and girls: Fruther we are an easy target - we destroy marriages, spread disease, degrade women, and are general miscreants and fuckups (and, on the whole, we love it)..
HARRY'S CALL TO ARMS: Get the Christians out of public life and send them back to church where they can pray for their immortal souls (and our immoral souls of course). Anything to keep them out of the real business of living, running a society, and making laws! I WANT POLITICIANS AND LEADERS WHO ARE BIG TIME SINNERS, LUSTFUL THEVES AND WHOREMONGERS! Where is Lyndon Johnson? Where is Bill Clinton? Where are Eisenhower and Bush I with their long time affairs with their secretaries? Where is the Kennedy who would do any woman that moved within his reach? . The Republicans give us Born-Again Bush and Church Lady Ashcroft. Where are the men and women with big hearts and big appitites for everything who can love the country well ? I want to be able to vote for a man or woman who will leave the prayere breakfasts and the sunday visits to church to the cheesebrains and the wimps who put on their nightshirts before they fuck.
Who's with me? Ride to the sound of the guns!!! Harry 
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 8:08:58 AM
But I'd like to feed John Ashcroft to the lions.
Perhaps we could rent Sigfried and Roy's tigers for a couple of hours?
My real concern are with the Christians who want to turn their country into a theoracy that fits their beliefs.
Ashcroft is the scariest Son-of-a-Bitch in a long time. I can't believe that we are willing to put up with this bullshit.
Can you tell he makes me angry?
All of the things that you speak of here, and other references on the board lately are disturbing - no question about that.
Things Ashcroft does and says are disturbing, no question.
Things Bush does and says are disturbing, no question.
These people and the things they do have to be monitored closely by all of us to make SURE that the awesome and unprecidented powers we've given them due to extraordinary circumstances are used wisely. Not question about that, either.
Where I fall off the liberal/moderate bandwagon is the direct connection between what I've seen so far and the imminent and complete, irrevocable destruction of our entire way of life.
I was talking to a college student over Christmas who said that her biggest fear was that under the Patriot Act, a black helicopter could land in her yard, 6 men in coveralls could take her away and intern her, without access to a lawyer, phone or any contact with the outside world, for what could be the rest of her life. This was the biggest fear in her entire life.
Then I pointed out that she had a zit on her forehead. She was so horified that she litteraly dropped her wine glass and RAN to the bathroom to deal with what, at the moment, was the biggest fear of her life.
Life is a BALANCE, not an on/off yes/no switch.
Under the Patriot act, exactly the scenario which she raised IS LEGAL. While of course that wouldn't happen to her without any REASON, the REASON that gets used very well might not be anything valid. It might just be that she exercised her free speech rights and called Dick Cheney a traitor for ordering the leak to out Valerie Plame, which of course, is a Constitutional right that she has, unless it can be PROVEN that she has no reason other than malice aforethought to do this. And even if malice is proven, she is only guilty of slander, which would be a crime for which she should still have a right to a swift and fair trial and access to a lawyer of her choosing in her defense.
But, under the Patriot Act, Aschroft could sign some administrative release that says that her activities were seditions and a danger to the nation. At that point, she could be locked in an undisclosed hole until she died of old age (or, in fact, of mistreatment, since nobody would have access to her to assure she WASN'T mistreated).
Yes, the Patriot Act is a disgrace, and FAR MORE of a threat to our way of life in an insidious way, than is a bunch of impoverished and under-sexed arabs with box cutters.
Years ago, I worked with a large company. I won't give their name, but their initials are MOTOROLA. The biggest single thing that occupied their corporate lives at the time was ISO 9000 compliance, which says basically (and I'm being catty here) that "every policy and procedure a company has, no matter how stupid, insipid or ridiculous, must be documented in writing and followed in all cases" Literally, if your company policy is to laugh in the face of customer complaints, ISO 9000 requires that you DOCUMENT that policy, train all relevant employees in it's implementation, and follow that policy religiously. DO that, and you can proudly claim IOS 9000 compliance!
My point here is that we had endless meetings, memos, studies, etc., wasting COUNTLESS man hours documenting every procedure to cover every contingency (no matter how obscure the case) so that in the final analysis .. no one in the entire company would ever again be required to THINK! It really WAS Dilbert in action!
And what continually vexed and defeated them was that life is not actually LIKE that.
The Patriot Act was designed to give the leaders of this country unprecedented powers in the face or EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES because no one could figure out how to get the job done WITHOUT these powers. (This wasn't the first time, however. The beloved Democrat FDR would order people picked up and confined to mental hospitals for "psychiatric evaluation of indeterminant length" during WWII if they were suspected of being a security risk. And somehow the Reublic survived.)
The reasons why Ashcroft can't be required to appear before a magistrate are manifold and logical and I support those reasons, but SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE he has to have those powers, he has to be watched closely ... by people who can THINK (sadly, we don't have that ... just the American public) in order to see that the powers we've given are NOT misused. I agree that it's dangerous and I agree that it's imperfect .. but the world is already filled with people that say it can't be done because it won't work or it should be done because I'm afraid of ...
But to say that the power MIGHT be misused and therefore can't be granted is to say that you have no faith in anyone that they might actualy do the right thing, isn't it?
If the helicopters start landing in your neighborhood, you'll know it, so will Channel 7, so will the Washington Post and just about everyone else in the country and THEN you can call your elected representative.
Have faith, the Republic will survive.
I frankly am CERTAIN, given his fanaticism, that he WANTS TO, and FULLY INTENDS TO misuse the powers in the act. Were a NORMAL, well intentioned individual responsible for it's enforcement, I could accept your premise. The problem is, the guy doing the enforcing is John Ashcroft.
The people who KNOW this guy well in his own state voted for a DEAD guy rather than have Ashcroft serve in office. He is the single most dangerous man in the nation - he's an absolute religious extremist whacked out loon, no different from Osama Bin Laden, other than the fact that he is in a position of extreme power in our nation, but thankfully is still constrained by the Constitution of the United States. remember, this is a guy who put a dress on the statue of Justice that had been visible for 50 years, so as not to allow the bare breast of a statue to be seen in public. He is not a rational man.
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 12:52:47 PM
you wrote:
---
The Patriot Act was designed to give the leaders of this country unprecedented powers in the face or EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES because no one could figure out how to get the job done WITHOUT these powers. (This wasn't the first time, however. The beloved Democrat FDR would order people picked up and confined to mental hospitals for "psychiatric evaluation of indeterminant length" during WWII if they were suspected of being a security risk. And somehow the Reublic survived.)
----
This is a bad analogy since WW2 was a declared war against a NATION that attacked the USA, unlike Bush's undeclared war against an ideology or non state sanctioned group of people. ( I do not use the word terrorist because no one has ever given me a defintion for it that is NOT self indicting.)
Both parties in the USA have used such illogically phrased ideas such as War on (some) Drugs or the War on (some) Terrorism to push the idea that by sacrificing rights they can guarantee us security. This alludes to your own thesis on you webpage about possession and control, but from an individual level to a societal or cultural one. But I respect your historical knowledge enough that I can safely assume that you fondly remember Benjamin Frnklin who said (paraphrased) "those show sacrifice rights for security, end up with neither."
You then wrote:
---
The reasons why Ashcroft can't be required to appear before a magistrate are manifold and logical and I support those reasons,
--
I was aghast at this. Even the president can be impeached and removed. To have the AG above such actions is tantamount to returning us to royal reign.
Warm regards,
TET
I agree that it would be a lot easier if the folks that attacked us would form a nation somewhere solid and simply declare war. It's always a hassle when the other guy doesn't play by our rules, isn't it?
FDR unconstitutionally violated the civil rights of a number of people for reasons that he thought, at the time, to be the lesser of evils. Do you think for a minute that those people, or their families were even the slightest bit LESS upset because there was a war on? Do you think it meant even the slightest difference to a Japanese American born in San Diego that there was a war on? We did it because we thought it was the right thing to do at the time. History proved us to be incorrect, but that isn't the same as saying the people DOING it were ignorant.
As far as Due Process (note: I'm a huge fan of Due Process) I suspect that there are people who think that if we allow the person any contact with the outside world at all, even to be transported to a close court room, it might send a signal to the cell he's connected with that the Feds were on to them.
Now ... if that IS their theory, then I question them simply because if you and I are in a cell (note to audience, we're NOT) and you simply 'vanished' one day, I would INFER from that the same thing as if you called me to say "hey Pig, they're on to us!" So I don't see the point of it.
But again ... here's where we differ: I pretty much assume that the people who voted FOR Ashcroft and voted FOR the Patriot Act asked themselves that same question and about a hundred that I haven't even thought of ... and STILL they supported it.
When faced with the choice that the people in power and ALL the people that voted to give them that power are ALL Ignorant dupes of an evil ignorant genius or in the alternative that they know things that I don't know, I choose to Believe the latter. I pay close attention to what they actually DO with that power and pay very little attention to what people say they "could" or "might" do with that power and so far .... what they are doing hasn't lived up to the threat so many think is imminent.
Sorry, the Patriot Act is just like the detaining of Japanese Americans in WWII. It is unambiguously wrong. Everyone who supported it is wrong. Some because they are malevolant, some because they are ignorant, and some because they are craven politicians. I would wager that, deep down, most of them KNOW that it's wrong, but they are responding to herd mentality that existed post 9/11.
There are enough parallel examples in our history, such as the ones that YOU brought up, that thoughtful peoplesuch as yourself ought to recognise just how wrong it is.
EVERY time there is a genuine threat to us, we have an over-reaction in the curtailment of civil liberties, and EVERY time, once the threat clears, perspective has allowed us to understand how wrong it was. The Patriot Act is just the latest example of this.
you wrote:
----
I was talking to a college student over Christmas who said that her biggest fear was that under the Patriot Act, a black helicopter could land in her yard, 6 men in coveralls could take her away and intern her, without access to a lawyer, phone or any contact with the outside world, for what could be the rest of her life. This was the biggest fear in her entire life.
---
When I worked a cubicle tech job during 9/11, my next door cube worker wasa naturalized US citizen from Iran. In August beofer 9//11 she went home for a family visit. When she came back AFTER 9/11, she worked for a couple of days, then one day she disappeared. We contacted the PD and FBI and they just told us to talk to the other agency. Ignored us IOW.
To this day none of us know where she is. Not even her family here and in Iran.
It does happen.
TET
If you say it happened, then I believe that it happened.
It happens to about 26 people a month, last time I read. Has since almost forever. People move, people sever ties with their family (NOT likely here), people get hit by busses and their bodies can't be identified or are victims of horrible crimes and their bodys are never found.
Could be any one of those. Could be she WAS picked up and is being held. Could be any one of a million things, and I'm sure there are people that would say it was a UFO abduction.
I don't know what happened to her .. and I have no idea what to think, or who might have done it based on the fact that there appears to be no evidence.
You seem to be saying that you DO know who ... or at least have your strong suspicions - based on zero evidence and backed only by the fear of what the government could do if it felt the need.
Just too big a leap for me.
No I don't know what happened to her. But the timeline and other issues like being a naturalized US citizen from Iran and such, can leave a nasty taste in one's mouth without it looking paranoid or conspiratorial.
Interesting fact you bring up about missing person in ths USA thoug, megapig..... every year in the USA 750,000 people are missing. Fugitives, runaways, all kinds of people. yet you dont hear about most of them. Just the Amber Alerts now. Historically children were seen as very expendable as recently as the late 19th century. I find it interesting how in only 3 generations the opposite has been inculcated into the USA psyche.
Marshall McLuhan was spot on!
TET
Warm regards,
Give me a break....I'm 45 years old. That would be 33,750,000 disappearing in my lifetime. That would be about the entire population of Canada or California. I think I would know at least a few who were missing or there would have been "film a t eleven". Can you provide us with a list of the missing?
No. It isn't 750,000 go missing each year. but there are 750,000 Americans missing per year.
TET
Sorry...I don't see the difference in your statements.
The only difference was, in the case of MY friend, they let him go after 6 months, when they realized he was JUST an American who came from Iran and maintained contact with his family in Iran. And ONLY because he is a great guy and highly valued employee, did he still have a job AFTER the justice department had him buried out of sight for 6 months.
It turns out, my friend belonged to a Mosque that one of the Hijackers who was living in San Diego ALSO belonged to. And he had gone to a single Mosque-organized community function that one of Mohammad Atta's roommates had gone to, and was seen in an surveillance photo that showed my freind and Atta's roommate in the same buffet line. My friend is also a highly skilled electrical engineer, who designed circuit boards for us.
For that coincidence, and the simple fact that my close friend and co-worker is a naturalized Iranian, he lost 6 months of his life to John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. He almost tried to commit suicide as a result of it, and he still sees a therapist. I am sorry, but if you don't believe that THIS is what the Patriot Act is being mis-used for, you are simply a naive dupe. Six Months, and at NO POINT was there EVER ANY evidence of ANYTHING against my friend, other than he stood in the same buffet line as Mohammad Atta's roommate in a function at a San Diego Mosque.
I'm sure that happened, and I'm sure there are many others just like it. We don't have to look far back to see similar injustices, like the internment of Japanese Americans from Hawaii back in WWI. Same thing. It was a terrible injustice to them and many lives were ruined because of it.
Now ... just to recap ... going slow here, I AM AGREEING WITH YOU! Got that? Good.
Where we part company is saying that the men who interned the Japanese and the men who detained your friend were and are evil, corrupt, power-mad cretins who took then and take now great joy in seeing those injustices done and getting almost orgasmic delight from getting to be a part of it.
What happened to the Japanese Americans in Hawaii and on the west coast was a terrible injustice (recapping that!) it was wrong. I was a knee jerk reaction by a country that was suddenly beset by so many problems in such large magnitude that it didn't know what else to do.
I maintain that it wasn't a group of men sitting around, lining their pockest with war ecomony money saying "well, OK, we have the resources sitting around to properly and completely investigate each and every one of the people to see which ones, if any, were connected with the attack. We can get this done, quickly, quietly, efficiently and without hurting anyone, but what the hell ... let's just fuck up their lives instead!" For the most part these people were decent, honorable men who agonized over what had to be done and didn't feel at the time that they had viable alternatives.
There hasn't been a successful hijacking of an Israeli Airliner since the 70's and they attribute it to one thing and one thing only - in their own words "we don't look for weapons, we look for terrorists." Research has indicated that a single man of Arab descent between the ages of 18 and 26 is over 600 times more likely to be a terrorist that a caucasion woman in her 80's, but the ACLU has successfuly argued that profiling a person because he fits the profile of someone 600 times more likely to kill you is unconstitutional. And .. brace yourself here .... I AGREE WITH THEM !!!!!
What happened to your friend was a tragedy. It was WRONG. Telling him that life can sometimes be tragic is no consolation to him, to you .. and I don't even like SAYING it.
But what I don't see here, haven't heard from you, or from anyone else is ... a BETTER WAY. A viable solution that will help separate the people that would do us harm from the people that wouldn't in a way that would be effective, non-intrusive and wouldn't tread near the edge of civil liberties yet be quick and effective.
If you have a proposal, I'm sure I'm one of a large group that would love to hear it. If you don't that's OK, too- identifying a problem is the first step TOWARDS solving it.
All I object to, and all I really HAVE objected to is the constant characterizations of the people who ARE at least actively trying... to be Moron-Fascists that are happily trying everything they can think of to ruin your way of life simpply because it pleases them and/or are too dumb to know better.
Why not allow for the possibility (admit NOTHING, just allow that MAYBE) these men have lost more sleep over it than you have, and want a miracle solution more than you do?
I will grant you that MOST of the people involved in detaining my friend and robbing 6 months of his life without recourse were well intentioned people. The problem is, they were operating in a climate of fear, under the orders and guidelines set forth by a single fanatic (John Ashcroft) who has NO REGARD WHATSOEVER for the personal freedoms set forth in the Constitution. Even ABSENT a national emergency such as 9/11, Ascroft's pre-disposition had already been on the public record as believing that the 4th, 5th and 1st Amendments were undue constraints on proper execution of police power. 9/11 gave him the ability to drive these fanatic views into actual policy. And law enforcement did their jobs in following these views that were issued as actual policy.
You will NEVER persuade me that is the type of man who ought to be entrusted with the powers of the Attorney General's office, because his published views that are on the record ought to totally disqualify him from the post. And frankly, Bush's appointment of Ashcroft to the position in the first place was the first act of his Presidency, and still one of the most egregious, that persuaded my of Bush's lack of fitness for HIS job on the basis of intellect alone. Appointing Ashcroft was an act of wanton incompetence/stupidity. Either that, or it was fundamentally malevolant to the Constitution of the United States. Trust me when I say that I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt in ascribing it to his ignorance - because the alternative is truly frightening.
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 2:23:33 PM
And gives me a mission in life, other than making lots of money, having sex with pretty escorts, and otherwise enjoying life in spite of the fools who would destroy our Republic.
What he actually SAID was that there are SITUATIONS where the burden to be met by law enforcement is undue. That's not quite the same as advocating that they be abolished completely.
Back in the 1970's Ol Ed Meese was the AG and he thought that we shouldn't worry too much about protecting people's civil rights since most people who were arrested were guilty anyway. The Republic Survived. Since then and many times over, the Police have argured that they ought to be able to admit evidence illegally found in a search if they could prove that in the course of an investigation, the evidence would have been uncovered anyway. The Republic survived that, too.
Back to your Uncle John, I don't know what to tell ya there, seems the President thought he was a good choice and a majority of the Senate agreed, even some of the opposition. Given the position we're talking about, I can't imagine ANYONE fit for that job UNLESS there was constant and microscoping scrutiny. Still, given the job he has to do, I'd rather have a pit bull on a leash than a chihuahua curled up under the bed.
As far as trying to convince you of this ... or convince you of ANYTHING, for that matter, nothing could be further from my mind. You read what you read and choose to belive the parts you want to believe (just like we all do).
All I'm trying to do is get anyone else who might care to read these threads to think that perhaps your opinion is not necessarily the only or the correct opinion.
Then they'll choose to believe what they want.
Those are the people who KNEW what John Ashcroft stands for. And they basically said, even though we are from a conservative Republican state, ANYONE, including Mel Carnahan's corpse, would make a better Senator for us than this wing-nut.
Fortunately, Ed Meese was just a small time crook. Our system is well protected against small time crooks in high positions. It's visionaries with Grandiose malevolant visions that we need to be ever vigilant of. People like Ashcroft.
He doesn't even fit that profile. And the BETTER WAY, is to allow the police powers of this country to be excercised COMPLETELY within the confines of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Allowing my friend to have legal representation, and his detention being a matter of public record would have immediately resulted in my company posting his bond, and he would have been questioned, cooperative, and probably spent no more than 3 days being detained, rather than 6 months. Had he been a LESS REPUTABLE member of society, he could certainly STILL been held and questioned every bit as thoroughly as would have been needed.
Now ... why in the WORLD do you suspect that Bush, Ashcroft and EVERYONE who voted for the Patriot Act didn't just think of that?
In Bush's case, it's because he doesn't understand the issue, and in the case of the rest of them, it's because they are craven politicians who didn't have the guts to oppose it when the general public went to knee jerk, support the President mode post 9/11
It CERTAINLY isn't because most of them actually believed it was the RIGHT thing to do, just that it was the politically expedient thing to do. Just like detaining the Japanese Americans during WWII, the fact that it was the law of the land certainly didn't make it right. It just took the perspective gained by time to make that apparent. No doubt that the Patriot Act will get the same verdict from History.
Sorry Sdstud, I back you up when we see eye to eye but I have read all the posts here and see how passionately you feel about this issue.
So I have to ask why you think a lot of Democrats, including Kerry and Edwards voted for it. It just seems that you think if any Republican does something its for evil nefarious reasons, yet when Democrats do the exact same thing. If the Democrats are truly that weak or that stupid that they fall into Republican traps and thats the reason why they do these things then they truly don't deserve power at any level. How will they avoid the traps of the world's evil and nefarious leaders??
In sdstud's own words "they are craven politicians who didn't have the guts to oppose it when the general public went to knee jerk", that would be Kerry, Edwards, Liberman, H. Clinton.
I believe what you are trying to say is that Kerry is a fucking wimp, without backbone to stand up for his beliefs. (As if he had any core beliefs)
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 3:48:24 PM
Damn, Hillary too?? Can't believe I missed that one. Im sorry I just can't stand by and keep listening to this Bush and Ashcroft did it out of spite and disregard for the constitution and because they despise civil liberties and individual freedoms.
Here is what makes sense to me. Kerry voted for it because--
1. He believed it was necessary!! In that case according to the logic kerry, Hillary and the rest hate and despise civil liberties.
2. Kerry believed it was wrong but still voted for it--Which makes him even more unworthy and deserving of respect. Why vote for something you think in principle is so wrong for the country.
3. He read it, didn't believe in it, but voted for it anyway--because of public sentiment at the time. Again, if it truly is a matter of principle then you vote no and state your case as to why. Why make a political vote on something you truly believe in.
4. Someone please bitch slap Kerry every time he starts ranting "we need an Attorney General whose name is not John Ashcroft."
You voted for the damn thing, and thereby gave the act legitimacy. If you believe you made a mistake then just say you made a mistake but why go around condemning a man for utilizing a law you voted for. Plain hypocrisy.
It no different than Kerry ranting "Wer'e coming, your'e going and don't let the door hit you on your way out." That rant is about special interests. This from a man who is the king of special interests, literally the king. More special interest money raised than any politician in the last 15 years. On top of that he criticizes Bush for being beholden to special interests.
They all have varying degrees of duplicity here. On a 10 point scale, where 10 is complete malevolance, and 0 is righteousness, I give Aschroft a 10, Cheney an 8, Bush a 7 (didn't know what he was supporting quite to the degree Cheney was), Kerry a 5 and Edwards a 3 (his constituency more strongly supported this than Kerry's, and Kerry should have had the guts to go against it),
My views are alot more nuanced than you give me credit for on this issue.
His no vote wouldn't have carried the no's, so his yes vote is even more wimpy, politically expedient, proving his lack of character and core values!
Think of him as President, no wait, please don't!
But nonetheless, still far less culpable than Bush and Ashcroft.
Sd .. I've tried not to get personal here ... tried not to attack you even if I do attack your ideas (as it should be!) but I have to say something here that is going to hit closer to personal than I would like, so please keep in mind that I don't mean it to be any more personal than it has to be, OK?
When one steps back and takes your posts on the whole, you sound like a Creationist.
Where they believe that God created man and the universe pretty much "as is" and have a devil of a time (pun) trying to shoehorn facts to fit the conclusion .. so YOU sound in these threads:
Forgone conclusions beyond possibility of error:
1) Bush is ignorant
2) Cheney is greedy
3) Ashcroft is evil
What if they WERE to find WMD in Iraq? Does that mean Bush had the WMD planted, because to admit otherwise would be to admit error? What if intelligence gathered by means authorized in the Patriot Act WERE to allow us to apprehend a terrorist with a nuke in or on the way to the US? Would the price your friend has to pay STILL Be too high?
It's one thing to say that you BELIEVE items 1-3 above, but you keep stating them as absolute unassailable facts!
Now, I'm not saying you have any facts wrong, not saying you have any specific conculsions misdrawn based on information that you have ..... I'm saying that you seem to keep stating that there CAN NOT BE facts in existence that would change your mind or get you to rethink. NOTHING POSSIBLE, IN ALL OF EXISTENCE, WILL CHANGE FACTS 1-3.
Is that truly what you think?
Don't worry about getting personal - NONE of this is personal to me. I simply enjoy the sparring. I already examined all the data that's out there, and reached the conclusion that this bunch must go at all costs.
Certainly, things could change with more data. If Bush were to spend his time getting educated, he might not be ignorant any more. He has a chance to do this. But the Presidency is too demanding a job to allow for this. So I suggest that he be given some time off (4 years worth, at least) starting this next coming year, so he can broaden his horizons - perhaps travel abroad, and learn about other societies. Maybe he should go to Europe, and immerse himself in some world culture. Then, he should go to Iraq, and just mingle among the general populace asking questions as he goes about what they think of him. I am willing to allow for the fact that Bush is smarter than I give him credit for. But there is NOTHING in the public record that I've seen that suggests it. Nonetheless, I am willing to give him the next 4 years to go do something else so as to prove to me that he is not such an ignorant man.
Re: Dick Cheney, there is way too much that IS in the public record, including the utterances coming from his own mouth, about what "WE" are entitled to, to reach any other conclusion than that he is a corrupt and greedy man. He is also very smart and secretive. This is one old Dog that already knows all the tricks, both old and new.
As for Ashcroft, He too could change. He would no longer be Evil if he were dead.
I never said that I didn't think they were craven pols, who wilted in the face of the public will at the time. I merely consider their transgression to be the less severe example.
I'm going to wet my pants! You are hysterical, I know you don't mean to be, but I haven't laughed this hard in quite a while!
You're I'm OK, but you're fuck-ed up mentality, it's killing me!
I only wish the Democratic Party would hire you to run the campaign.
If it did, I could live with the guilt.
RLMAO
You're going to have to go for Nader if you really want what you claim you want.
I could support ANY of the Democratic candidates whom I thought would actually be able to beat Dumbya. I could support dozens of Republicans who I'd rather have in office than Dumbya and Cheney. Just so long as they were independent of the Religious Right. Such as McCain, or Dole (either Bob or Libby).
Buy the way, I have heard McCain's, and Libby Dole's Christian testimony. They are both professing Christians. Libby Dole speaks now mainly before Christian Women's Gatherings.
I guess there both off your list. LOL
Maybe you should get behind Dennis Kucinich!
which is the difference between them and Bush and Ashcroft. I have no problem with Christians, even devout Christians. I have a problem with the religious right. That is not in any way the same thing.
campaign for him.
Libby Dole spoke before a convention of Focus on the Family, personally invited by James Dobson.
Like I said, check out Dennis Kucinich, at least he has the balls to stand up for what he really believes, the COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTION! His votes show it, his life shows it. I can disagree with a guy like him and still respect him.
Kerry doesn't know what the fuck he believe in, he really doesn't deserve to respect his own self.
There is a reality at work here that you just don't seem to get.
The simple fact that someone actually supports their party mate doesn't mean that they don't hold them personally in contempt. I have NO DOUBT that McCain personally holds Bush in contempt as a human being. But he will publicly support him as a politician. Does that impugn McCain's character? Perhaps it does, but it is unavoidable when one is a politician, and is no different from the compromises that you are highlighting about John Kerry. It is a function of the job.
Obviously as Libby Dole accepted and did indeed give the keynote address to a convention of Focus on the Family, who leader is James Dobson, one of the people you fear most, it would stand to reason that you might have a problem with that. But that's just politics.
And you claim some clairvoyant ability to know what John McCain personally feels about President Bush.
Well I guess it makes about as much sense as the rest of the stuff you write.
Just one last question, where does that put Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) who it appears does have the courage of his convictions and is supporting President Bush?
Maybe she is a staunch supporter of the radical religious right. But I know that her husband is not, so at least some thoughtful dialogue on the subject is going on in her bedroom, (And, I suspect that there's plenty of time for the Doles to chat before Bob's Vitamin V kicks in). And this intelligent dialogue is more than I can assume could happen in any bed that Dumbya occupies. No matter, I didn't come here to endorse Libby Dole. If you insist that she's a religious fanatic, I'll have to just take your word for it.
As for McCain, I have personally heard John McCain make several off the record utterances about Dumbya while I was working on his campaign 4 years ago, that let me know just exactly how he actually feels about Dumbya. And anybody that has spent significant time with McCain could likely validate this sentiment without too much difficulty. McCain doesn't really try that hard to hide it, so I don't HAVE to try to read his mind.
As for Zell Miller, he's just in the Craven Politician camp, well on his way toward switching parties to the Republican side, since he knows he can't be supported by the Democrats anymore given his state and his views on issues.
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 5:28:24 PM
You would vote for any Democrat who could beat Bush/Cheney!! And I bet you would vote for any Democrat even if that Democrat had the exact same voting record in the past 20 years as a Republican you hate with a passion(just a hypothetical, talking about no one in particular.)
Its just amazing to see voters claiming to have a nuanced understanding of issues when in the end it boils down to,
Your mother
No, your mother
Your father
No, your father
Your family
No, your family
Face it, Kerry is just another 3rd rate run of the mill politician who will do and say anything at the moment to keep himself in power.
Gore, in 91 voted for war, a grave decision about sending kids to their deaths based on how much air time he got that evening. He literally told the Republicans that if they don't delay the vote and let him announce on air they he will not vote for the war. The sad thing is even if you knew of such a cowardly act in Gores past you would still vote for him.
If Bush, or any Republican had said what Gore said before the 91 war all Democrats would call for the death penalty.
Well, actually only one who could actually win. Because, I am not ashamed to admit that there is NOTHING more important that Bush's defeat in the next election. Yes, I'd vote for Gore even if what you say is true. Because that cowardly act would bring him pretty CLOSE to Bush's level for cowardice, but not quite fully there yet.
And yes, the craven coward who mostly shares my views is a better choice than the craven coward with whom I am in almost complete disagreement with. I have to say, yes, that's reality. Bush is BOTH a low coward and stupid human AND someone who's personal and political agenda is nearly 100% in opposition to mine. I don't see how there could be an even worse choice than that particular combo.
Bush's demonstrated foreign policy and economic policy acumen would be reasons #3 and #4.
And what if Kerry votes for Patiot Act 2?? After all he did vote for the first one!!
The clear reason is that it is politically expedient to do so. (Kerry's life legacy) Then he will claim that he really didn't mean to vote for it and the morons of the planet will believe him...AGAIN!
LOL
And, I am afraid that on this issue, that is where Kerry sits. Kerry's main weakness is the fact that he has been a Senator for a long time. And Senators get into the habit of horse-trading, and fighting only the political battles that they can win on, or gain strength in losing. It's pretty clear that Kerry did not think this was an important enough principle to go to the mat for, and made the call not to do so. It's a compromise, and frankly, not a position I am enamored with. But not nearly as culpable a position as one who drives for the act, pushes for the act, and pushes the limits of the enforcement under the act (which is where Ashcroft and Bush sit on the continuum).
-- Modified on 2/13/2004 4:10:51 PM
would he?? NO, he wouldn't. It was a vote of political expediency and he doesn't have the guts he did in the jungles of Vietnam. Plain and simple!!
Here is a man who in 91, when Saddam invaded another country and threatened to destabilize the entire region didn't vote for the war. There was a legitimate national security threat and he didn't vote for the war. This time he keeps ranting how he was lied to and he didn't mean to vote for the war. It seems to me that Kerry is always in the dark and gets lied to. In that case he is a bafoon who clearly doesn't deserve to be in the White House.
The fact is, by virtue of his chosen career path, Kerry has demonstrated a willingness to compromise all too easily. But that is infinitely preferable to an idiot in the office, which is what we've got now.
Kerry has no balls to do what he REALLY feels is right.
Jane Fonda is your hero.
John Ashcroft is a worse human being than Saddam Hussein, (those arabs needed killing anyway! And Ashcroft would probably put living people into a wood chippers too if he had a chance)!
But Kerry will change!
You sound like a battered woman!
You left out that Bush is an Imbecile, Cheney is the most corrupt politician since Nixon, and Kerry doesn't need to change to still be leagues better than either one of them.
Other than that, I could agree with you
are you still going to be one of the morons who believes he didn't really mean it....again?
So your use of the word "still" is inaccurate here.
BTW, just what is your point? I don't need to defend Kerry for him to be less of a worthless cretin than Bush. And that view will never change. There is NO POSSIBLE COMBINATION of personal traits and political views that I could hold in lower regard than I hold George Bush, except perhaps those of John Ashcroft.
These are people that I disagree with on bedrock principals nearly 100% of the time, AND I consider them either cowardly and stupid (Bush), or Evil an Deranged (Ashcroft). Given that, any randomly selected mediocre man on earth would unavoidably represent a better choice for me than one of these two.
The text that follows comes from a post I made in response to bribite on a thread he initiated back on 2/10 with the first post in that thread making some reference to Hanoi Jane. BTW this has nothing to do with Jane Fonda I am only making reference to her to identify the original thread. However I would like to note that I consider her antics on a visit to North Vietnam at the height of the war to be one of the most pathetic actions by any "American" I have ever witnessed, and I am left of center on the political spectrum and deeply concerned about the direction in which our country is being taken under the "leadership" of the current administration.
Jane Fonda is not worthy of either side in the political debate
as a means to score points.
I will try to add a link to the original thread because this
would be easier to follow if read in context with two or three exchanges between myself and bribite in that thread.
There is a reference to Vietnam because both bribite and myself are Vietnam veterans and the war itself was a significant element in the exchange that took place.
I hope to address the issue of the atrocities that occurred in Cambodia subsequent to the withdrawal of the US from Vietnam but that is for a later time.
Here's the link to the previous thread, first of several exchanges:
http://theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=77942&boardID=12&page=3
This post is really directed at the discussion, if you can call it that, over the Patriot Act.
For some reason I find something ominous in the very name of this
law as if those who constructed it were intent on some sort of coup through title alone. Vote for the act or you are not a patriot or some such nonsense.
The text of my original post follows:
This thread is too far out of the picture with respect to posting the response I had intended last night simply because that response was for a wider audience, particularly with respect to the loss of lives on both sides in Vietnam and the subsequent consequences of US withdrawal from SE Asia.
bribite wrote:
"I have found that the so called social liberals and educated liberals in our country are the most closed minded."
With respect to the above one who is left of center on the political spectrum or perhaps even a moderate could edit your statement. "I have found that the evangelical christian zealots and the conservative radio talk show junkies are the most closed minded".
Statements like these paint an entire group with a broad brush and represent a personal viewpoint and political bias that comes up short of any thing approaching some absolute truth. Both liberals and conservatives engage in these tactics and although there may be some element of truth based on personal experience neither side can generally convince the other of the overwhelming
validity of their opposing position.
bribite wrote:
"To me the fears of the Patriot Act are unfounded."
It is legislation of this sort that makes its way into law not on merit but more so because of an atmosphere of irrational dread, bordering on paranoia, that has the potential in an insidious way
to erode away individual freedoms that we all cherish. Yes bad things happened on 9/11 and there certainly is a need to be far more vigilent but this is overkill. Simply because you or someone you know has not been personally touched by this doesn't mean that it is not to be questioned, that it does not hold out the potential for great harm. There are already cases of families of long time residency in this country being split up because of simple visa violations that in the past would have never been on the radar screen. Often times these are members of a particular ethnic group or national origin. These actions often take place without due process.
I don't necessarily see this trend as temporary as you suggest. Perhaps you are right, but time will tell. This is simply one reason why the stakes are high in the upcoming election. I do not see a halt to this trend unless there is change in Washington.
Just my two cents.
-- Modified on 2/14/2004 12:23:23 AM
-- Modified on 2/14/2004 12:30:54 A
-- Modified on 2/14/2004 12:50:43 AM
-- Modified on 2/14/2004 11:14:57 AM
-- Modified on 2/14/2004 2:42:35 PM
...come dressed wearing one party's logo or one party's moniker.
Poltical expediency runs rampant in Washington and there are members of both parties at the highest levels who are all too willing to take the road of political expediency in lieu of the high road.
The two party system is firmly entrenched in this country in large part due to the obscene amounts of money that are tossed around in the attempt to hold on to power.
With the two party system not likely to be challenged successfully
in the forseeable future we find ourselves left with essentially choosing the lesser of two evils. Choose your poison but don't expect others to necessarily respect your choice. Respect is reserved for your right to choose and comes with no obligation to respect your choice.
These are general remarks NOT directed at any single individual.
-- Modified on 2/14/2004 12:42:45 AM
-- Modified on 2/14/2004 11:09:49 AM