Stop the traitor!


PDA






MicroBalrog
August 16, 2003, 11:32 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/traitor.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Stop the traitor!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
telomerase
August 16, 2003, 11:41 AM
One can understand Ashcroft's thinking; from his point of view, sitting at the top of the Total Information Awareness network, our liberties may seem like "phantoms" to him.

Tamara
August 16, 2003, 11:51 AM
That all depends on what laws you uphold.

Janet Reno was all about upholding the law, and she sure ain't on my hit parade of favorite AG's... ;)

telomerase
August 16, 2003, 11:58 AM
>From REASON mag: Fair-weather federalist John Ashcroft sent his Justice Department after doctors in Oregon who might, in accordance with state laws, prescribe lethal medicines to terminally ill patients who request them. Ashcroft declared in November his intention to make sure that doctors who did so would lose their license to prescribe any federally controlled drug, effectively putting them out of the doctoring business. In conducting such investigations, he instructed the Drug Enforcement Administration to examine state records about drugs prescribed, information that doctors complying with Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act are required to file. Oregon’s attorney general sued to stop Ashcroft. The case is now before a U.S. district judge who has stayed Ashcroft’s order pending his decision. The question is expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Actually it was worse than this; many doctors became reluctant to prescribe any strong painkillers to terminally ill patients, because if the patient took an overdose the doctor could run afoul of Ashcroft and lose their license. I don't think there's any Constitutional mandate for the Federal government to police our bloodstreams at all, but trying to force terminally ill people to undergo more pain has to be near the lowest you can stoop (no fair comparing past attorney generals here, Tamara...)

Zedicus
August 16, 2003, 12:06 PM
Many Like to Justify things with the old Contrivercal Saying of "The End Justifys the Means!" but they fail to realise that the wind blows both ways and the same also applys in reverse.

Tamara
August 16, 2003, 12:17 PM
In all fairness, it gives me no end of giggles to see DemLeftLibs slagging the Ashcroft Justice Dept. and the Komittee for State Security when the whole thing's been a wonderfully bipartisan effort and would, no doubt, have been just as festive, if not more so, if it had been enacted under such paragons of individual rights as those in the Clinton/Gore/Reno regime. :scrutiny:

seeker_two
August 16, 2003, 12:28 PM
Tamara gets it in one... :D

And just think what the liberal Demon-Rats will do with those laws if they return to power... :what:

longeyes
August 16, 2003, 12:34 PM
The failings of the Patriot Act aside, what's the state of civil
liberties in Israel these days? Just wondering.

MicroBalrog
August 16, 2003, 12:51 PM
Bad.:fire:

Our gun control laws are bad too, does that mean I can't criticize the AWB?:D

longeyes
August 16, 2003, 12:58 PM
I oppose the AWB too.

I was asking about civil liberties in general in areas related, say,
to provisions of the PA.

MicroBalrog
August 16, 2003, 01:02 PM
Many of the provisions of the PA would be considered outrageous even here, such as the one about "secret seizure".:)

Duncan Idaho
August 16, 2003, 02:04 PM
:rolleyes:

Jim March
August 16, 2003, 02:31 PM
I agree with both MicroBalrog and Tamara. I think Ashcroft has acted like a mad dog in too many areas, I think Reno was worse (although I'm not certain by how much), and the Dems have gleefully taken part in the dismantling of civil liberties.

I am particularly bothered by secret charges, investigations and trials for US citizens, and the denials of legal counsel. The case of the Intel engineer in...Oregon I think?...was a case in point. Four months after incarceration, he "confesses". He's been held so incommunicado, that could have been beaten out of him. :scrutiny:

Horsecrap. Terror-related charges can be dealt with in ordinary courts of law, although you wouldn't know it from the McVeigh trial :fire:.

sw442642
August 16, 2003, 03:19 PM
All these laws will quickly be used for anything else the government wants.
Ashcroft is not a friend of liberty. He is a friend of his own restricted view of
America. The man is scared of a stone breast.

I doubt that any of these new laws will do squat. The reason 9/11 wasn't
detected was stupidity, not the laws.

Seminole
August 16, 2003, 05:29 PM
I actually believe John Ashcroft is a fine Attorney General. He took an oath to uphold the law and so far he has done just that.

That's odd. . . . I thought he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

IMHO Ashcroft is doing a great job of promoting and upholding unconstitutional laws. Of course, he's not the first Attorney General to do so. And he won't be the last. . . .

KC
August 16, 2003, 05:53 PM
"I think Reno was worse..."

Oh come on, give the guy a chance.
Reno had eight years to abuse her authority. Ashcroft has not had half the time she did.

Monkeyleg
August 16, 2003, 07:19 PM
I also would think Ashcroft was a fine attorney general, if it weren't for these pesky issues like rights.

Duncan Idaho
August 17, 2003, 01:46 AM
Is it considered rude to yawn at trolls and their agitprop?

Tamara
August 17, 2003, 01:55 AM
No, but it is considered rude to use insults and ad hominem attacks on fellow THR members.

Orthonym
August 17, 2003, 02:10 AM
Duncan, just whom are YOU calling a troll? You remind me SO much of a local cop here, who said to me,"Don't tell me about any laws, I don't like your attitude!" (after blatantly lying to me about physical facts before his eyes, as an excuse for falsely detaining me) Our Constitution is (somewhat) beautiful, our govt is run by bullies, like all others!

Orthonym
August 17, 2003, 02:12 AM
Sorry, Tamara, got carried away a little there. I think our posts crossed. Oh, and sorry, Duncan.:o

Sindawe
August 17, 2003, 02:23 AM
Traitors, oath breakers, all the rest of those 'public servents' who swore an oath before God Almighty to uphold and defend the Constituion, then think nothing of breaking that oath to serve their own end. All of em, down to the last man or woman, deserve nought but:

a) the end of rope.

b) show a suitable backstop and dully ventalated.

c) escorted to the air lock, booted in and cycled out to space sans EVA suit.




:fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire:

Zundfolge
August 17, 2003, 02:38 AM
Ashcroft is kind of a mixed bag

on one hand he says the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, on the other hand, since the Patriot Act, he seems to think the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments don't exist.


I think if the patriot act had not become the law of the land, we'd all be praising Ashcroft as a friend of the constitution.

I can understand one upholding the law (even if we all disagree with it) but there's a difference between upholding a law and championing one ... I think he's crossed that line.


I still feel great fear for what an Al Gore or Hillary Clinton will do with the Patriot Act :(

jimpeel
August 17, 2003, 02:44 AM
Kill the Wabbit, kill the Wabbit... (http://www.funnypicsusa.com/misc-wavfiles/elmerfudd-killthewabbit.wav)

USGuns
August 17, 2003, 02:46 AM
I hear these accusations frequently about the AT John Ashcroft and the Justice Department.

Can anyone give any specific, re-occuring and documented examples of the AT and the JD habitually abusing Constitutional rights of American citizens?

Not saying these abuses aren't occuring, I just would like to hear some concrete facts, not accusations, before I come to any judgement.

Thanks!

Zundfolge
August 17, 2003, 02:47 AM
Jim, I don't know what the heck your point was, but now I have to clean coffee off my monitor :neener:

jimpeel
August 17, 2003, 02:55 AM
Just a bit of comic relief based on the thread title. Glad you enjoyed it. Cute song.

Duncan Idaho
August 17, 2003, 03:50 AM
Duncan, just whom are YOU calling a troll?That would be MicroBalrog. The prolific poster of all of today's over-the-top agitprop. Oh, and sorry, Duncan. No worries.

HBK
August 17, 2003, 04:27 AM
I think characterizing Ashcroft as a traitor is a little harsh.

NukemJim
August 17, 2003, 09:42 AM
Can anyone give any specific, re-occuring and documented examples of the AT and the JD habitually abusing Constitutional rights of American citizens?

Hoding US citizens secretly. without laywers.

The aforemention Intel engineer as well as the US citizen they arrested in Chicago for allegedly planning to help with a "dirty bomb". He is being held incommunicado (SP?), no laywer, no trial date.

I believe that there are others still being held from 9/11 (not sure) the govement admitted they were holding people in secret so how many are still being held that way?.

Ashcroft is trying to protect the US from Terrorists completeley. 1) I do not believe it can, some of the attacks ,IMHO , will get through. 2) Holding US citizens ( Yes he was a gang banging, crook, scumball but he is a US citizen. ) arrested on US soil, with nothing illeagle on him, holding him without court appearances, not letting him have a laywer, not letting him communicate is abusing ALL of our consitutional rights.

These are the examples the goverment chooses to let us know about, I hope they are being truthfull but given their record I doubt it

Yes, he state he believes in the right to own firearms but if you read the full statement I believe ( and as always I can be wrong ) that there was something in the statement as well about having reasonable goverment control (or did he say reasonable goverment regulation, different words same meaning ).

Yes he is better than Janet Reno from my admittedly biased point of view, Yes he is trying to protect us in the US from harm (impossible IMHO )

But

He scares the Bejjeebers out of me.

I hope I am wrong in my opinion.

NukemJim

greyhound
August 17, 2003, 10:40 AM
The failings of the Patriot Act aside, what's the state of civil liberties in Isreal?

How come here in the US we always see stories about Isreali cab and bus drivers going about armed? I bet if you asked an average citizen here, they would say that everyone in Isreal carries guns. Just an opinion, but I bet its the mandatory military service that does it.

I personally am amazed to hear that Isreal is anti-gun.

seeker_two
August 17, 2003, 02:13 PM
Can anyone give any specific, re-occuring and documented examples of the AT and the JD habitually abusing Constitutional rights of American citizens?

Jose Padilla, anyone?... :scrutiny:

2dogs
August 17, 2003, 02:24 PM
I think Ashcroft has acted like a mad dog in too many areas, I think Reno was worse

How any one can draw a comparison between these two (other than they were both AG) is beyond me.

Last I heard JA hadn't incinerated any American men, women and children or kidnapped children using machine gun toting troopers- a bit more severe a problem than possibly rousting the wrong illegal immigrant.:rolleyes:

Quartus
August 17, 2003, 02:57 PM
Can anyone give any specific, re-occuring and documented examples of the AT and the JD habitually abusing Constitutional rights of American citizens?

Aside from the concrete examples already mentioned, please stop and consider the Patriot Act for a moment. If the plain wording of the doucment isn't blatantly unAmerican, if it doesn't scare you, consider this:

What would America be like with those sweeping powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton? With a Janet Reno type for AG? Maybe Al "No controlling legal authority" Gore? Or James Carville? Or Barbara Boxer? Or....

Did you not hear about the two people in Chicago who shouted at Clinton during a parade and were arrested for making a THREAT? THey shouted, "You suck!" What could Janet Reno have done to those two people with the Patriot Act? We'd never have seen them again. Or consider the people who tried to blow the whistle on Clinton's criminal dealings in Arkansas. THey'd be deep sixed. (One of the most prominent of those folks is a friend of mine, and had enough trouble just with the IRS during the Clinton regime.)

Would it stop there? How about our own Jim March? Making things very unpleaseant for the Million Moron March? And for crooked anti-gun politicos in Califorina? Say bye bye, Jim. No, you won't get the chance - he'll just disappear.


The Patriot Act is Amerika the Police state. It's just waiting for the right administration.

I don't doubt Ashcroft and Bush mean well. I don't doubt that right now they're only targeting bad guys. But who will Hillary target? And who will stop her?

Yeah, THIS administratiion means well. And the result will eventually be the same whether or not they mean well or ill.

Amerika the Police State, brought to you, NOT by the liberals, as I wrongly predicted for many years, but by the Law And Order, My Country Right or Wrong crowd.


Damn. Where's the "weeping bitterly" icon?

Malone LaVeigh
August 17, 2003, 03:14 PM
John Ashcroft is a very effective lightning rod for the pretzeldent. Just as Janet Reno was for bubba.

I guess this is where I repeat myself again and say that both of the major parties are tag-teaming us out of our rights to make the world safer for their corporate clients. They each use the opportunities and issues that present themselves at the time that they're in power, but the overall direction never changes.

2dogs
August 17, 2003, 03:22 PM
They each use the opportunities and issues that present themselves at the time that they're in power, but the overall direction never changes.

Truer words were never spoken.:eek:

Tamara
August 17, 2003, 03:22 PM
Corporations alone don't bother me too terribly much; Bill Gates has never stormed my house with submachinegun-toting agents to force me to buy Windows.

It's when corporations start buying legislators that they worry me.

Corporations aren't going anywhere, and neither are legislastors. The trick is to make the latter an unprofitable investment.

I'm open for suggestions.

Malone LaVeigh
August 17, 2003, 03:57 PM
Tamara,

In a lot of places in the world it's worth your life to criticize or threaten the profits of a corporation, including US corps. Ever heard of Ken Saro-Wiwa? I'm not saying we're at that point in this country, yet. It's where we're heading that bothers me.

Quartus
August 17, 2003, 04:28 PM
Ever heard of Ken Saro-Wiwa?


Nope. Enlighten us, please.


While I generally agree with Tam that gummit is more dangerous, I recommend keeping an eye on large corporatioins, too. THey can get too big fer their britches, and ANY concentration of power is dangerous.

One of the worst decisions to come out of SCOTUS was when they decided that corporations are persons created byt hte state and have all the rights of natural persons. Absent that and we could have some REAL campaign finance reform that would NOT trample individual rights.





Y'know, Diesel was traveling America to promote his new engine design when he disappeard out west. He never was found. Now, there's a lot that could happen to a traveler in those days, so there's not much there to pin a suspicion on.

But he designed his engines to run on vegetable oil, and after his death they were re-designed to run on petroleum.

agricola
August 17, 2003, 05:27 PM
Ken Saro-Wiwa was a Nigerian activist opposed to the massive corruption that exists in that country between various Western oil companies (Shell and BP mostly) and the Nigerian government (as well as the British Government who have always had some kind of hand in there since independence), which has had the effect of keeping what could well have been one of the shining jewels of postcolonial Africa locked firmly in the mess that so dominates that continent.

He was so successful in creating an opposition that for a brief period he ran Shell out of his Ogoniland home - but as a result the Nigerian government attacked his movement, killed some of his supporters and arrested and eventually executed Saro-Wiwa.

Malone LaVeigh
August 17, 2003, 05:55 PM
http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipients/recipientProfile.cfm?recipientID=45

(Trying to get back on topic)

If we're losing our freedoms and power to corporations or government (and increasingly, let's face it, it's the same thing), "traitor" is not too strong a word to use. However, we should resist focusing on characters like Ashcroft or Reno. They're just doing what their bosses want them to do.

One of the worst decisions to come out of SCOTUS was when they decided that corporations are persons created byt hte state and have all the rights of natural persons. Absent that and we could have some REAL campaign finance reform that would NOT trample individual rights.Maybe the tide is begining to turn on that concept:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1226-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0729-07.htm

Quartus
August 17, 2003, 07:50 PM
Malone, that is WONDRFUL STUFF! (Despite being posted on a liberal site.)

And those who don't know what we are talkikng about , PLEASE go read the link. It is far more iimportant than you understand, if the concept is new to you. Simply put, the idea that corporations are persons under the law, and entitled to all the protections thereof, is a source of great damage to individual freedom.



I did find one problem with the article, though:

No, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended democracy to be.


Uh, the Founding Fathers didn't intend democracy to be- at all. THey founded a Republic, for very good reasons. THey FEARED democracy.

But what can you expect from a bunch of liberals?

kentucky bucky
August 17, 2003, 08:40 PM
With all the leftist, freedom hating, gun hating, commy leaning, weak kneed, pansy, convict coddling, unpatriotic, liberal scum politicians in Washington, DC, why on earth do you hate John Ashcroft? The only phrase that I can think of is " DIVIDE AND CONQUER ". Is this your game? It sure seems like it to me. Don't bother with your well rehearsed comeback, your tactics are clear to me.:fire:

papaone
August 17, 2003, 09:00 PM
To call our AG a traitor is pure stupidity. How easy for some of you "experts" to sit back with little responsiblity, for the safety of millions, and the worst terrorist attack in USA history and instruct us. Most simply vomit out what they have read or heard someone else say and then come off like experts and act like they know what they are talking about. John Ashcroft a traitor ? How pathetic and ignorant can you be ?:barf: :barf:

Quartus
August 17, 2003, 09:17 PM
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin


Have either of you ever read anything by our Founding Fathers?


Have you even read the Constitution that John Ashcroft is trashing?



Truth time: Have you read it?

KC
August 17, 2003, 09:31 PM
"How easy for some of you "experts" to sit back with little responsiblity, for the safety of millions, and the worst terrorist attack in USA history and instruct us."

While you are getting off your horse, it would be well to remember that the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks is roughly equal to one month's traffic fatalities. The total results of the attack, not the semi-hysterical reaction, is not noticeable in any measure of US GDP, and barely noticeable over a 8-year span in NYC. All the legislation impinging on our lives via the 'Patriot Act', destroying the airline industry thru the TSA, and on and on, is not likely to have stopped the original 9/11 attack, nevermind any future sucessors.
Consider the cost of the attack, and then consider the much higher costs of the response. If Conventional Wisdom claims the only way you can save the village is to destroy it, then you should really find another way to approach the situation.


"With all the leftist, freedom hating, gun hating, commy leaning, weak kneed, pansy, convict coddling, unpatriotic, liberal scum politicians in Washington, DC, why on earth do you hate John Ashcroft?"
Because, as Americans, we are free to express whatever opinion we care to about any politican or political appointee. It is our duty to do so if the claim has a factual basis. Calling Ashcroft a traitor may be excessive, but as yet may bear itself out.

AmericanFreeBird
August 17, 2003, 10:10 PM
An Attorney General IS supposed to uphold the law. As a matter of fact ALL of them.

American law are heirarchal, meaning that we have various levels of law and they go from highest to lowest. Each and everyone of us, including the Attny. Gen. are responsible for upholding all the laws. A higer law that says, for instance, "...The Right of The People to keep and bear Arms, Shall not be Infringed." When it comes in contact with a lower law such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 supercedes the lower law and makes it null and void.

The Attny. Gen. who enforces a lower law that contradicts a higher law is violating his oath of office. Though maybe not considered a traitor he is unfit to serve.

Impeach him or fire him or whatever they do to Attny's gen. when they go bu-bye.

Quartus
August 17, 2003, 11:20 PM
Calling Ashcroft a traitor may be excessive, but as yet may bear itself out.

I see no reason to believe he is a traitor in the normal sense of the word. As I've said, I think he MEANS well. I think he loves this country. I think he's an honorable man. Same for GW.

They're just WRONG. And the results of this administration's policies will be disastrous to freedom. Good intentions don't guarantee good results. The end of this all will be just as bad as if they HAD been traitors.

grampster
August 18, 2003, 12:13 AM
This thread is keenly interesting. The pendelum swings from way left (microbalrog) to way right (Kentucky bucky) swinging by a bunch between.
I've been reading "The Federalist Papers" lately and am struck by how the debate I'm seeing here is just exactly what was envisioned by "Publius"in many ways.
Maybe there is hope for the Union if there are more like us, who are willing to civily debate these issues and then stand up for what is right. The key is the standing up when the talkin is done and fire up yer neighbors.

There have been erosions of freedom and for the reasons envisioned by the authors of the Papers. But not necessarily for all of the reasons they envisioned. They were worried about factionalism eroding the freedoms that were available at the time of the founders, but figured that a Constitutional Republic with representative government would guard against that erosion. They depended on the fact that sober men of good will would inhabit the halls of power (for the most part) and that the citizenry would participate in governance by placing men of that caliber there, and remove them if they were not. Scoundrels cross the timelines. The key is to remove them. We don't have much of a national track record in that regard. (Robert Byrd, Clinton, he and she etc)

But that factionalism exists today within the Republican and Democrat parties. The problem is it is like two dogs fighting over the same bone. They blame and obstruct each other, but not, many times, in the best interest of the country. They each want the money and the power that goes with the money. It is all about that at the end of the day, unfortunately. A good example of what I'm talking about is Hillary's blaming of Bush for the power failure when her party obstructs his energy policy of deregulation and upgrading the delivery systems for energy. We won't say anything in this discussion about her party's obstruction of nuclear (nucular) power plants, and the stultification of coal fired energy or exploitation or our own natural resources in a ecologicaly sound way. Instead of building safe, clean, cheap nuclear power plants, the politicoes are in thrall to the ecoterrorists who insist on using natural gas and soon our winter home natural gas bill will be more than the national debt. Dems obstruct the appointment of federal judges. Why? Because Republicans obstructed Clinton appointees. The Repubs were not quite as ruthless and belicose as the Dems however. "I' ll show you mine if you show me yours".... Those folks act like school kids and we continue to re elect them. We have two of those blissninnies in Michigan, Sen Lenin (Levin) and Sen Stab you now (Stabenow).

I have supported Republicans since my 30's, (when I started to earn a little money through hard labor at the sales game). I felt then and feel even more strongly today that when considering the two parties, both of them want my money and power over me. The Dems steal my money at the point of the gun and threat of incarceration and ruination of life and liberty.
Try not paying your taxes or carrying a firearm with out being licensed like a spayed dog if you don't believe me. The Republicans loose the "Robber Barons" of big industry. The plus here is that I can avoid those critters, mostly. I don't have to buy their products at the point of the gun and most republicans respect our a priori rights. I'll pick those whom I can avoid over those who want to issue me papers and submit me to check lanes. I am beginning to worry about the Repubs, though.

With respect to the Patriot Act, I seem to see an awful lot of bad guys getting their hind quarters locked up lately. That is a good thing. I think we should be concerned about the Act and make sure that it gets revised or is sunset when appropriate. That is why it is critical to get good people elected. The problem still remain......The sheeple. They hold our fate in their hands and they need to wake up. Maybe if a couple of abuses happen they will.....I don't know.......not that I want that to happen.....

The major miscalculation made by the founders was the evolution of "The Sheeple" and the deep abiding lust of the Sheeple for the "Nanny State".
I wouldhave thought 911 would have woken them up. I am not certain they have come awake.....they may have rolled deeper into a fetal position. END OF RANT

grampster

rock jock
August 18, 2003, 01:17 AM
OK, let's all sing together:

Jose Padilla
You are a friend of mine
I could care less if you cause a death (or a hundred)
As long as its not mine
Did you plot with those Al Queda?
That's OK by me
As long as you bring chaos
'Cause that's what I like to see

JitsuGuy
August 18, 2003, 01:33 AM
John Ashcroft is a liar in business with the globalists to destroy America.

Don Gwinn
August 18, 2003, 01:50 AM
Thank you, RJ. You've stated my point of view perfectly. Indeed, since I believe that Jose Padilla should be allowed a lawyer, communications with the outside world, and a fair trial, I think it should be fairly obvious to everyone that I agree with him and consider him a friend.

People who believe in feel-good liberal junk like fair and speedy trials, lawyers, evidence and due process make me sick!

:rolleyes:

Orthonym
August 18, 2003, 02:00 AM
Good point, a few posts back, about the "Roscoe Conkling" interpretation of the 14th amendment! BAD side effect! Talk about unintended consequences! A corporation is so obviously NOT a person, but a creature of the State!

Erik
August 18, 2003, 02:33 AM
The AG is a man who, despite setting forth stategies I believe are best left alone, is responding to the fluid, uncharted terrotories of a post-9/11 landscape the best he can.

All in all, he is doing admirably in a position and time most cannot fathom.

---

Where is the criticism of the Legislative and Judicial Branches?

rock jock
August 18, 2003, 11:31 AM
Sorry, Don. A little tongue-in-cheek humor. I guess I react that way when folks start dismissively referring to the mass murder of 2,000 people as nothing more than a very large traffic accident.

KC
August 18, 2003, 02:11 PM
First, it was closer to 3000
Second, I was not suggesting that you dismiss the attack as nothing more than a large traffice accident. Only that you keep in mind that it produced about the same number of casualities as one month on America's roads.
Third, my point was that the US, public and government is grossly overreacting (and usually not in a productive fashion) to the situation given what happened, and how to prevent another attack.

Dorrin79
August 18, 2003, 02:25 PM
Ashcroft is pretty terrible,

So is Norm "Idiot" Mineta.

so is...

oh wait - so is the Whole Stupid Government.

Everyone acts so surprised... like government can be anything but stupid and evil. Just because the not-quite-as-bad side (Repubs) are in office instead of the a-little-bit-worse side (the Dims) doesn't mean the State won't continue to erode our rights and rob us of our production.



:banghead:


I'm surprised to see partisanship defending Ashcroft here. If the much-maligned Clintons were proposing half of what is in the Patriot Act you all would be talking about the need for armed revolt.

(that's not to say anything nice about clinton, who deserved most of what was thrown at him. I just think it's telling when people engage in "ok for me, but not for thee" arguments)

Sorry if I've stepped on anyones' toes.

:cool:

rock jock
August 18, 2003, 02:36 PM
Third, my point was that the US, public and government is grossly overreacting (and usually not in a productive fashion) to the situation given what happened, and how to prevent another attack.
Its not just the deaths of 3,000 people. It was the fact that it was an act of war, that it resulted in the destruction of a national landmark and major damage to our national defence HQ, that it struck at the heart of our dominance as a nation, that it resulted in a huge economic blow to the country, that it signalled that our country is no longer safe within our borders, that there are people out there who will stop at nothing to annihilate us. Now, if you want to sit back comfortably, yawn, look at 9/11 and shrug your shoulders, that's up to you. As for me, I'm tired of hearing armchair "experts" who claim that 9/11 was an isolated event, that there is no real terrorist presence in the U.S., that we don't face any real threat, that terrorists can't possibly acquire WMD. If and when we get hit again, what will your reaction be?

KC
August 18, 2003, 03:15 PM
Yes, it was an act of war. Yes, lives were lost. Yes, there was an economic interruption. None of this embodies the point I am trying to make.

Has the TSA prevented the hijacking of a SINGLE airliner by rummaging thru peoples luggage, confiscating fingernail clippers, and generally abusing their position?

Have you been made one iota safer in the objective sense by the combination of several smaller federal agencies into the monolithic Ministry of Internal Security? (Zulu's in Apartheid South Africa have legal homelands; why do we?)

How has the so-called Patriot Act or its twisted cousin, made this country any safer from terrorists? How has it endangered you liberty?

How has anything the federal government done, vis a vis the 9/11 attacks, made any actual improvement in your life?

Quartus
August 18, 2003, 03:21 PM
If the much-maligned Clintons were proposing half of what is in the Patriot Act you all would be talking about the need for armed revolt.


Bingo.


Which makes THIS administration more dangerous than Clinton's was.


Of course, with the tools Bush and Ashcroft have forged for them, the NEXT Clinton regime will make the first one look like nirvana.

KC
August 18, 2003, 03:30 PM
"Of course, with the tools Bush and Ashcroft have forged for them, the NEXT Clinton regime will make the first one look like nirvana."

Or foster another civil war.:(

If you enjoyed reading about "Stop the traitor!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!