Ashcroft really is Hitler
 

Didn't see this article posted yet, so here ya go:

Ashcroft wants more powers

Story lead: "Attorney General John Ashcroft asked Congress Thursday for expanded powers to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely before trials and to let him seek the death penalty or life imprisonment for any terrorist act."

To make the always expected, cliche Nazi comparison, this reminds me of a certain Chancellor of Germany asking for "emergency powers" back in the day.

What do you guys think of Ashcroft?

To compare Ashcroft to Hitler is about as dumb as it gets. I have no problem with what he's asking for. Terrorists are about as low as they come and should be fucking killed when caught.

And you have no problem with the 'before'-part of "expanded powers to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely before trials"? Maybe you would like to live in the old soviet union.

I guess you're right, he's more like Adolf Eichmann.

While a direct comparison to Hitler is highly problematic... there are many similar tactics being used by the current administration.

Fear being the most prevalent weapon in their arsenal. Fear of terrorist attack has allowed Bush and Co. to stip away more Liberty from the American people than ever before. The best part is that many citizens are asking for it rather than fighting it.

They are "suspected" <whatever>.

NOT terrorists.

I don't care how radical one's group is, it has a right to exist in this country. Else what good is freedom for anyway? It's not getting to pick your favourite fast food joint.

Afraid not, Simple. Any group that uses terror to effect thier political views does NOT have the right to exist in this country.

Ashcroft isn't Hitler - Hitler had nothing against boobs! Ashcroft is a loose cannon and needs to find employment better suited to his ability - Maybe he needs to go to work for ACLU so thy can look at the other end of the extreme spectrum. I have nothing at all against a lot of what he is doing - as far as I'm concerned a terrorist deserves nothing but terror himself - I just don't care for Ashcroft.

I don't trust the man, period.

Maybe he should go back to campaigning against dead people,
maybe he'll win this time...nah.

But to compare him to Hitler or Eichmann is to lessen the scale of Evil those men accomplished.

Let's just say he's an extremist reactionary,
that is intent on trampling on our fundamental rights.

He needs to be gone,
and probably will be soon, because he's a burden to Bush's re-election.
He causing to many bad vibes for the administration.

Bush could literally fart in the face of every single Republican in the country and still get re-elected. Remember, there are 270 million Americans, but only 9 whose votes count.

I think it was Gore who went the whole legal route, if he would have just admitted defeat in the first place the Supreme Court would have never been involved now would they?

Since when did liberty involve the right to terrorize others? We worry about Ashcroft taking away our rights as individuals and say nothing about the increasing Socialist tendancies of our society as fostered by the Politically Correct Agenda? There seems to be a pay-off threshold for what we give up as opposed to what we receive. When it suits our own individual needs we cry "Fair"- if not we cry "Foul". Fickle this democracy shit.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice ro no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.

------------

Just thought I would post this. Brings things into perspective sometimes.

Well, I have read all of the posts in this thread, and have come to the conclusion that Ashcroft is a encumberance on the current administration, that congress is not doing enough sensible things to maintain our liberty and yet defend our borders, and that public education in this country must suck, because they aren't teaching history very well. The supposition that ashcroft=hitler is so ridiculous as to not merit response. The idea that our rights as citizens are being eroded is true, and it started in the 1930's. It is not as if the Bush administration invented security at the price of liberty. This country has been fighting that struggle since before it's inception, and will continue to do so. if you are still pissed about bush winning, so be it. personally, I think it's a little late in the game to be beating that drum. You will never effectively win the minds of anyone with this kind of mindless drivel. it is up to all of us to hold everyone in gov accountable for their actions.

Ofcourse. I am against any violence of any sort.

I was simply referring to the fact that these "suspected" citizens are being treated as criminals (or terrorists) without justice and freedom.

I see this a lot whenever someone says anything about the current administration. I see it as a way to discredit what ever was posted about the administration and I think it is crap. Whether or not somene is mad that he won has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Absolutely brilliant quote! Man, that says a lot, doesnt it?

That is does. :) It is one of my favorites.

better if u compare him to stalin or the chairman of chinese communist party

Never said it did.

First, I'm not from the USA and am only commenting on your state of affiars as an interested bystander. For a nation that (seems) to pride itself on being the land of the free and defender of liberty and justice for all Ashcroft seems to be doing everything in his power to go against this.

I don't have a problem with Socialist tendancies it just depends on which Socialist tendancies you are refering to. If it is govenment spending on health care (ie universal health care), education and a sizable social safty net, I am all for it. I don't believe the public sector has our interests in mind when it is left up to them to manage them.

Democracy is fickle... it's kind of the whole point of having one. It is by its nature a messy system BUT it is the only fair system (in an ideal democracy - which by the way cannot exist).

And if Ashcroft had his way with all things, we would still be one of the most "free" nations in the world. :p He is not my first choice, or even someone that I much agree with, but he is not the worst option.

Government is simply not capable of doing as good of a job as private-sector companies in many respects, especially education. In Minnesota, private schools remain far ahead of public schools in test results and academics in general. Effective systems should be used, and broken ones should be tossed -- not flooded with more and more money.

Yes. The US would be among the increaingly free nations of the world. However, I just saw a graph that put Canada a head of the US in terms of personal liberties. I was shocked.

I have to disagree with you there. Yes the government can screw it up. However, private schools cost a fortune. They are not readily available to a large portion of the population. If the government would fund public schools properly there would not be such a big gulf between private and public schools.

I don't mind paying a tax as high as 40% to 50% as long as I know that my money is being used well.

exactly, international law dictates that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty . (by the way, that is in the UN charter)

people here are being held indefinately w/o lawyer, w/o trial under the assumption that they are guilty.

same case in guatanamo.

bush administration thinks that it's "guilty until proven innocent"

Hah, a Swedish journalist has already been told by US authorities that he will be arrested if he travels across US airspace again. The reason? Being a member of a left-wing University organisation more than 30 years ago, and his anti-Vietnam war articles during the 70's!

Go Freedom. If this is the kind of people the US is busy searching for, no wonder Bin Laden is still on the loose.

If they were captured while opposing the US military, there isn't really much question as to whether they are guilty of doing so or not. :)

Yeah, because if you return fire when a bunch of US Marines are gunning for you, you must be a terrorist.

I apologize. If you saw a graph that says so, it must be true. :rolleyes:


Private schools only have the impression of costing a fortune because someone who sends their children to a private school currently pays for both public and private schooling, since they have no choice. So, these parents are for some reason punished monetarily by wanting a better education for their child by forcing them to also pay for the incredibly broken public school system. This makes no sense, other than to extend the life of an ineffective money-sponge which is our public education system. Voucher program, please.

Well, Minnesota is one of the highest taxed states in the US and though the state government keeps pumping more and more money into education they are still far behind private schools. Abolish public schools, or break them up by overlapping districts into private organizations and allow them to fend for themselves and compete for business the old fashioned way.

It's nice (disturbing) to know that you are willing to give half of your earnings away to taxes, but please don't suggest that any of us are unreasonable for objecting to that sort of tax.

Oddly enough, in Minnesota the cost per pupil is usually lower in a private school than in a public one and the average test scores are higher. It seems that they get much more bang for the buck. And seretogis is right in saying that people who send their children to private school still must pay the taxes levied by their local school district.

As far as Government spending goes- almost 80% of my tax dollars go for the purposes you mentioned. The facts are available for your scrutiny online if you care to look. (When looking at government spending on schools remember you have to look at the state spending also as this is where most of that money comes from. If you add all the state spending up it is far more than defense spending- nearly 75% more.)

If you really think you're free, try adding a deck to your house. Or better yet try NOT paying your taxes. Your freedom has been severely curbed in some areas but since you've never had them you don't even know they're gone. They were lost before you were born. And it's been both Democats and Republicans who have taken them away. Ashcroft at least is sensitve to his critics, others before him have not been.

One last comment on "universal health care". Isn't it odd that the SARS outbreak is worst in countries with socialized health care?

SARS is worst in countries that recieves a lot of air traffic from China and Hong Kong. Universal health care doesn't have anything to do with it. Here in Taiwan, the outbreak grew fast initially because one guy didn't report the cases immediately.

There's about the same per capita number of cases in the US versus 'socialized' countries in Europe.

Oh, and I wouldn't call Ashcroft Hitler, more of a Heinrich Himmler :)

Regarding the idea that it's more expensive and not as good for the private sector to handle things, that's patently false.

Yes, private schools cost more (partly because of the fact the parents are forced to pay the taxes for the public schools which they don't use PLUS pay the tuition for the private school), but rivate schools, on average, are also shown to give a better education. I had a spanish teacher in HS who could tell with 100% accuracy in my class who went to a private gradeschool and who went to a public gradeschool based on our knowledge of things.

Similarly, there have been numerous reports showing that when things such as utilities, parks, etc were put in the control of a COMPETING private sector, things got better and at a far faster rate than when under government control - even in the area of getting drug dealers and gangs away from housing complexes. The key is moderation - many conservatives are too willing to allow a lack of competition - just look to the FCCs recent decision concerning competition in the media - which causes the private sector to look bad, and many liberals aer too willing to hand control over to the government - which is just as bad as a non-copmetitive private environment if not worse.

Sars has nothing to do with the health care. Sars broke out because we recieved infected travellers from China and they didnt report it, thus infecting other people.

If you've actually seen the studies, post 'em...

Naturally I'd love to - I don't think I need to explain though that I don't keep note of what and where everything I ever read is. The effect on my knowledge is much more important and of an immediate nature than making sure I memorize what I'm reading/watching just in case I ever need to cite it some day.

Not to say it's unreasonable to ask to see them, just saying that, as I didn't foresee needing to prove them to anyone, I took much more interest in the actual content.

I can say, however, that one thing I do remember discussing the subject was a news special on TV of some sort. Of course, that's not the only thing I've seen on the subject.

there is competiton in public schools.

big cities have more than one school and they have to compete to get kids to go there. more kids = more money.

There should be a law against comapairng ANYBODY to Hitler. No one under Ashcroft's guidance has killed over 6 million people so shut up.

calm down, people have the right to express their feelings and i dont think anyone meant that quite literally.

Whoah- Did this thread ever get hijacked... what the heck is all this about private schools...

Re: Ashcroft really is Hitler
 

He's no Nazi, those were some very bad people. I believe Ashcroft in genuine in his want to protect the American people. If he needs more power to do so, then he should have it. I should note however that when I say he, I mean the government agency as a whole. Stripping someone suspicious of their rights and stashing them away somewhere while we figure out what they were up to is a good idea, and if they are found to be guilty of terrorism, then we should bring it to their grill. I can't say I dissapprove of his job, I don't really care for the guy for other reasons though.

Re: Re: Ashcroft really is Hitler
 

hold up..........you are saying that the govt should be able to 1)put somebody in custody indefinately 2)provide no access to council 3)no habeas corpus 4)no trial before a jury and i can go on.....

you have ANY idea how many ammendments and statutes and supreme court rulings that violates?