would you like to be blamed for 9/11?

would you feel safe if people around you believed you to be responsble for 9/11?

would you have issues with the people who said you were responsble for 9/11?

Of course there is a problem with that. Should we blame 9/11 on jaywalking? No. Just as it cannot be blamed on gay people - for one simple reason: jaywalkers and gay people had no bearing on 9/11 whatsoever.

Anyone who uses their position of power (i.e. their television show) to claim such a thing needs to be called on such nonsense at every turn. And most certainly not defended with "There's no problem with that".

I disagree. People seek comfort in religion in a world that is torn apart by what else but religion...Good people....bad priorities.

Not all instances of religion tear the world apart. I'd estimate that most don't. My mother's practice of Roman Catholicism certainly never has.

The instances that do are the ones that make the 10:00 news.

I thought that what Robertson basically said was that God had forsaken America because we coddled the GBLTQ community, and that we were able to be attacked sucessfully because God had forsaken us. Isn't that correct?

If so, yeah, it's preposterous, it's silly, but it's not accusing the GBLTQ community of being responsible specifically for 9/11. Or did I miss it when he said that one of the planes was hijacked by the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" cast? ;)

I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to religion as a concept in and of itself is, in general terms, to not be the problem but rather it is the people who are extremist or fundamentalist that take that religion and "do crazy things" in the name of that religion to be the real problem.

I really wouldn't care if people thought I was responsible. I'm already assumed to be responsible for poverty, crime, the lessening of morals, that "damn rap music", and any number of other things.

Having issues with someone is different then them wanting you dead. That is the comparison you were trying to make.

Of course it's nonsense. But spewing nonsense doesn't make someone Bin Laden, nor does having an unpopular opinion. THAT was the comparison-not if Falwell was a fool. I was just calling someone on what I saw as baseless hyperbole.

Bin Laden shouldn't even be mentioned in this conversation. He is a political terrorist. His motives are not founded in religion (despite what American news networks might claim). Osama has never even used the word jihad against America. He could be compared to other political anarchists and terrrorists, but not religious fanatics. Interesting, eh?

The Christian fundamentalists mentioned are responsible for spreading hate, and that is inexcusable. I won't compare it to terrorism yet, but it is certianally a step in that direction. Preaching about God and preaching about hate are two very different things. These men preach about hate fueled by their ignorance and fear.

The threat mentioned deals with the question of Bush's level of compliance with the forementioned christian fundamentalists' teachings (or insane rants, if you will). While I can't say for sure what level of compliance there really is (and no one on this board is really qualified to address that specifically), you have to notice how often God is mentioned not only in general speeches, but in giving reasons for political moves. How often was God mentioned before, during and after the war on Iraq? That's what scares me. If he is relying on what he thinks God is telling him about foreign policy for his decision making, we might as well elect God Himself. Maybe He should run next election. He'd certianally have the evangelical vote. :crazy:

Did you, or did you not say:


Isn't that implying rather strongly that Bin Laden's religion made him a bastard?

To suggest that those that follow Islam are bastards because they do is ludicrous. Or because they don't condemn their extremists as you would like. That is flat out bigotry against a huge % of the worlds population.

I did not title this thread, and I believe Host answered that issue. As for your last paragraph above, I'm not sure what you are suggesting beyond that I have a problem. Not sure how asking about your statements means I have a problem.

But I guess you are clearing up any confusion I might have about things.

Bin Laden is a religious bastard-he uses his religion as an excuse for heinous acts. That is the point I was trying to make.

It isn't "as I would like". Any condemnation would be a start.

My response about the thread title is directed at your comment about broadly brushing people with certain beliefs. You were claiming that it is wrong to condemn an entire religion based on the actions of a few. I was merely wondering why you weren't as aggravated when christians were being stereotyped and judged by the beliefs (not even actions) of their fringe elements.

And you weren't asking anything, you made a bad assumption, a faulty analogy, and tried to call me a bigot. I assumed by your analogy and the term bigot you were thinking I was saying all arabs were terrorists, I was trying to separate the arab people and islamic terrorists. I was also tryign to acknowledge the fact that there are muslim terrorists of all races. My statement about you possibly having a problem was based on my feeling that bigotry is a problem, and your seeming inablility to separate islam and arabs. I was saying maybe because you assume that arabs are instantly muslim, or vice-versa you might have some bigotry.

Then you took your argument too far by claiming there was no problem with it. Clearly there is a problem with it, it might not be a kill-3000-people problem, but it is not something that should ever be dismissed.

Maybe those were the wrong words, ill admit my phrasing could have been better. IFalwell's words shouldn't be ignored, but to compare Falwells comments to Bin Laden's actions is silly. They aren't on the same scale.

sounds about fair.

Bin Laden can only dream of undermining the rule of law and the rights of
individuals as we enjoyed them in pre-9/11 America, compared to Falwell's
plans to attack America:

i was a bit concerned when i saw the way this thread was framed that it might deteriorate into a kind of "my religion is better then yours" thread and sure enough...the "fundamentalist christianity is better than islam" trend above appeared.

which served, as it usually does in these sorry times, as a pretext for trotting out the kind of uninformed nonsense about islam that seems to circulate out there to motivate folk who support bushworld to hedge themselves round with distorted views of the Other--in this case islam---in ways that are little more than transposed racism.

it seems that if you locate yourself within the context of defending fundamentalist protestant ideology in its recent american variant, then any level of racist idiocy is justified because it becomes intertwined with matters of "faith"--and thereby becomes an arbitrary committment the utility of which is not to be evaluated with reference to any descriptive power.

this type of argument is then an almost perfect example of the matter i have been going back to again and again in arguments with conservatives here--this style of argumentation boxes you in by shifting the premises from description to belief. so it follows that you can make apparently coherent arguments about islam without knowing the first thing about it. because in the end, these arguments are not about a world external to the believers--it is about the ways images of the world are processed in order to buttress a set of (arbitrary) convictions. it is also about how the right is mobilized politically.

you can see it as demonstrating why the right works with and through a horror of substantive critique..because their premises do not and cannot withstand it---from which follows their interest in using truncated arguments of "principle" as wedges to shut down the spaces within which critique can operate...see the thread on tenure and "accountability" at the university level for an example.

Exactly what rights have you personally lost since 9/11?

Osama does belong in this conversation. Jihad is a two way street. I mean doesnt the religious right believe theyll sit next to God when muslims have been annihilated. Isnt that the end of times prophecy of the religious right?

Osama does belong in this conversation...Jihad is a two way street. I mean doesnt the religious right believe theyll sit next to God when muslims have been annihilated. Isnt that the end of times prophecy of the religious right?

I would say he is a bastard terrorist. He uses religion as a tool/excuse/whatever, but that isn't the religions fault. He is a grown ass man, and has personal responsibility for his actions. Your continued linking of religion to the cause is what I see as the problem. It isn't right, and it seems like bigotry to me. Again, not the religion's problem any more than religion is the problem in Ireland. The people that choose to kill/damage other people are the problem.

As I am not in that community, I can't say how they feel with any confidence. I don't read the op ed pages of the Jakarta Post. I apologize for assuming that you aren't intimately familiar with that community. If you are. Otherwise, it seems like the problem you see is that people of that religion arne't communicating in our media apologizing for their extremists.

I'm guessing we aren't apologizing for our extremists in ways they see, either.

I think asking questions in threads is a good thing. I wouldn't object to a thread called "Do Islam's beliefs pose a threat to the US" either. Questions are good.

I also buy Host's explaination of his intent, and written shorthand. Rest assured, I will object when I see someone saying that Catholicism's beliefs make someone a bastard.

Always good to be reminded to be fair tho, thx.

Sorry for my bad writing. Felt like an implied question to me. "how do you mean this". Analogy felt accurate to me, based on my reading of what you wrote. But I'll try to be more clear in the future.

What you seemed to be saying is that Islam makes people bastards. Terrorists are terrorists, to me. Doesn't have anything to do, in primary causes, with arabs OR religion. You seem to think it does. If you think a religion causes terrorism, then I'll try to be more clear when trying to call you a bigot.

Again, not sure how you read that in what I wrote. Seems like self projection, to me. Islam IS separate, but overlapping, to the arab population. And BOTH are separate, but overlapping, to terrorism.

Sorry for the confusion.

When I post anything on here, I now do so possessed with the knowledge that
HALX is compelled by the federal government to turn over any information he
has about me, from his site's IP logs, and from the personal information that I
supplied in the course of registering for TFPmembership. HALX is prohibited,
under the threat of prosecution from disclosing whether the government has
inquired about me, and whether or not he has supplied that information about
me to the government in response to that inquiry.

My knowledge of this possibility discourages me from practicing my formerly
less restrictive free speech rights on this forum, because I have to presume that I am already under surveillance because of the tone of dissent and contempt for the criminality of the Bush administration, lawfully expressed in my posts.

Here's some more info, supplied by the very organization that Jerry Falwell specifically aims to marginalize, an organization fair minded enough to represent the interests that it has in common with it's critic, Rush Limbaugh.

If one person has lost civil liberties since 9/11 beacuse of the Patroit Act, isn't that enough?

The Patriot Act amends at least 15 separate federal laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/), the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 (http://www.cpsr.org/issues/privacy/ecpa86), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (http://www.panix.com/~eck/computer-fraud-act.html), and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html).

The law permits roving wiretaps and so-called “sneak and peek” warrants, adds new terrorist crimes, knocks down the wall between foreign and domestic intelligence, amends the definition of domestic terrorism and makes many other changes too numerous to catalog.

This is already effecting people. Have you flown in the past few years? I have about a dozen times. 3 out of 12 times (reduced to 1/4 of the time for you math people) I have been taken aside to be searched more than everyone around me. Why? There doesn't have to be a reason why anymore. They can profile me all they want. Is it stopping terrorism? Studies say no. After the airport changes, a local news team went undercover and snuck weapons unto a plane at our local international airport. They had an Arab reporter sneak on several knives.

Enough to justify a reconsideration of the controversial portions of the Patriot Act? Surely.

Enough to justify equating Falwell and Robertson with Bin Laden? Not nearly.

I didn't equate them. Actually:
I was just responding to what NCB asked specifically. I was not addressing the thoughts behind the question.

No, what they'll do is beat around the bush (like with everything else) and try to say things like, "No, see, you aren't supposed to KNOW when it happens," or some other incredibly vague (and horrible) reason for why things happen. :lol:

I agree with you the government is getting way too intrusive. Especially in the scenario you describe above. I first began to take notice of this type of thinking when congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I guess they think if they can invade our privacy for money then they can do it for security as well. I fear in the area of internet privacy things will get worse as the courts uphold the releasing of IP logs for any number of reasons.

Yeah, but NCB's question seemed to be following from what looked like host declaring that Falwell was worse than Bin Laden (or equal to). For that context, it would not be 'enough'.

I don't think the ACLU is one to be criticizing anyone about data collection practices:

Two members of the ACLU board decided to speak out about their actions, and were threatened with being expelled for trying to tell people. These are definately people I want defending free speech :rolleyes: .

The above is part of the transcript of the interview where one of the board members appeared on Bill O'Reiley's show.

I personally think the ACLU is one of the most destructive forces currently opperating in the country. They don't defend free speech, they defend speech that agrees ideologically with their agenda. If Falwell is trying to build up an organization to counteract the ACLU's heinous influence, that makes him a hero in my book.

As far as I am concerned, their comparison is illogical not based on the extremety of their acts and beliefs, but based on the fact that it is comparing apples to oranges. Osama Bin Laden is a political terrorist who happens to be a Muslim. The religious fundamentalists are religious terror-inciting preachers (they preach a message of hate to imporessionable people, possiblty leading to violent acts of hate), who happen to be mentioned in political circles only beacuse of their supposed influence over the president.

I don't think one is enough. I don't know if 100 or 1000 is enough. There are ocassionally innocent people incarcerated for crimes they don't commit, should the criminal justice system be shut down?

I consider Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Franklin Graham and others to be practitioners of dangerous hate rehetoric that feeds the neocon, imperialistic mindset. The direct and intended effect is the encouragement of religious intolerance, blind patriotism, and exaggerated national and international political division. The increased numbers who will die because Bush remains president, and feels a "mandate", partially as a result of the unquestioning support of
Christian right leadership, is incalculable. Your "not nearly" conclusion is
reasonably contested, by people with moderate and deliberative points of view.
I see Bill Moyers holding up a mirror for interested Christians to look at themselves in. I see the "Christian Right" using a magic mirror like the one
in the Cinderella fairy tale, where they know that they will always see the
"fairest on of all", when they gaze into it.

I didn't say to shut it down. I'd like to see it fixed. The criminal justice system does quite a bit of good, but it is not perfect. If something is not perfect, you continually work at it to make it as close to perfect as you can. If you find a fault or mistake, you try to rectify it in some way. I know if you were wrongly imprisoned, I'd be fighting to get you out and fix the error that lead to your wrongful imprisonment.

The problem with the Patriot Act is that it isn't patriotic. We could fix it in order to make it continue to protect civil liberties, while at the same time battle the threat of terrorism.

Black or white, either leave it open and flawed, or shut it down ?

Why not divert some of the funds expended to incarcerate non-violent convicts
to better funding for legal aid, and pre-case disposition investigators for indigent
defendants, dna testing for inmates who apply for it, (In cases where the evidence to be tested has not been lost or thrown out by prosecutors' offices),
and by a national moratorium of the death penalty, modeled after the Illinois governor's actions in 2000. The cost of death penalty trials and appeals is
much more expensive than incarcerating inmates serving life sentences.

If you counter with the "death penalty is a deterrent" argument, consider that the states of New york and Texas have similar sized populations. New York last executed a condemned inmate in 1963.

In 1990, Texans reported 761 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, New Yorkers reported 1180. By 2002, Texans reported 578 violent crimes, and
New Yorkers just 496 per 100,000 inhabitants. In that 12 year period, Texas executed approx. 250 convicts, while New York executed none.
<a href="http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm">http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm</a>

New York is now contemplating eliminating the states's death penalty statute. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17486-2005Feb11?language=printer">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17486-2005Feb11?language=printer</a>

Would you make an effort to back your vitriol of the ACLU with some references that you believe are difficult to impeach?

So...the ACLU loses the small amount of credibility and worthiness that you,
(I am assuming) credited it with before "fair and balanced" O'Reiley covered this ACLU controversey on his show ? )

The following NYTimes report of the controversey you cited is more detailed:
Who do you want defending free speech, if you are of the opinion that the ACLU has a record of being inadequate to the task ?

Will reports like this one exist without the ACLU representing OUR right to
know ?
Are you more apt to believe accusations of wrongdoing aimed at the ACLU than you are when the accusations are aimed at Bush or his administration? Do you hold the entire Bush government culpable for the acts of some of it's cabinet or executives? When Paul O'neill and Richard Clarke wrote their "tell all" books containing criticism of Bush, was your reaction as negative as to cause you to "roll eyes", at the book's disclosures that an invasion of Iraq was high on Bush & Co.'s agenda well before 9/11, or that Clarke could not get his request for a high level meeting to discuss the Al Qaeda threat until 7 days before 9/11 ?

Doesn't the disparity between Bush's claim that the invasion of Iraq was actually to "spread freedom" and the information that ACLU foia suits uncovers, revealing a pattern of systemic torture and other abuse of Iraqis,
who presumedly were not yet found to be guilty of crime, by regular U.S. armed forces, give you cause to "roll eyes" ?
Please explain how the ACLU fits your description of <b>"ACLU is one of the most destructive forces currently opperating in the country. They don't defend free speech, they defend speech that agrees ideologically with their agenda. If Falwell is trying to build up an organization to counteract the ACLU's heinous influence"</b>

alansmithee, is it your opinion that the ACLU foia suits of the U.S. Army are
activities consistant with your opinion of the ACLU? Do you think that the law students or the future graduates of Falwell's new law school will better represent the rights of the American people to the protections of the Bill of Rights or of holding the government to lawful compliance with the provisions of the FOIA? I consider your claims about the ACLU to be outrageously and inaccurately disparaging, especially as the events of the day leap out from the front pages of newspapers around the world with the story of the ACLU using the courts to enforce our right to know, even if we are too pathetically propagandized by our political and religious leaders to demand the accountability of our elected officials !

Limbaugh paid for the following PR.....he seems to hold the ACLU in higher
regard than you do, and he helps to refute some of your ACLU criticism.

I'm actually rather irritated as I was setting up a draft to some publishers along similar lines. And LaHay beat me to it. Ah, well.

The death penalty ill leave alone (fyi, I don't think it's any sort of deterrent to crimes). But why shouldn't non-violent crimes carry the same penalty as violent crimes? If I punch my neighbor, he has some pain and possible medical bills (and maybe long-term problems, rarely death but it's a possibility). Now if I embezzle a retirement fund, not only my neighbor but possibly hundreds of others might be out of a means of living later in life, why should my crime be less? Or if I take pcp, and flip out and kill someone I obviously deserve punishment. But doesn't the person who sold the illegal substance also deserve some form of punishment?

Have you taken the same effort to back up your statements with "difficult to impeach" evicence? I just "impeached" the integrity of the ACLU article you used to back one of your opinions. I posted a transcript of an interview where one of the ACLU members himself told his story, and an article of the New York Times. One is the opinion of someone directly involved in the story, the other lists facts that there is no dispute of. This is in constrast to the many opinion-based links used to back up other opinions that may not synch with yours.

The ACLU has never had much credibility in my opinion. Also, O'Reiley is a self-promoting blowhard. His comments in the interview I posted are irrelevant. What was important was the member of the ACLU who was his guest an stating his point. However, are these people/organizations any more "fair and balanced"?

Micheal Moore
http://www.americanprogress.org
Bill Moyer
Justin A. Frank
Barbara Boxer
Tom Flocco
http://www.commondreams.org/

You seemed to have no difficulty in citing them as evidence.

An organization that actually practiced what they preached would be a good start.

Paul O'neill had more credibility to me than Clarke. Clarke seemed more about covering for himself, and seemed a bit disgruntled over his dismissal. And what US soldiers are doing has really no bearing on what Bush claimed was the reason for the Iraqi invasion (unless you are saying Bush really invaded Iraq because he desired US soldiers to torture Iraqis, which I hope you could also see as being rediculous). And I personally think all these claims of "systemic torture and other abuse" are greatly exaggerated. I will admit I care little for the claims, maybe the threat of torture will stop some Iraqis from deciding to become "insurgents"


I think the agenda they have is highly destructive to society. I generally have disagreed with them on every major case I have known of them to be involved in. They have done some good, but IMO have mostly been a negative force.

It is my opinion that the ACLU foia suits are helping undermine US activities in Iraq. It is my opinion that they are doing this knowing that they are undermining the military, and actually have that as a goal. I believe that if Falwell does organize a law school that his organization will better serve the intrests of the country and it's citizens. You try to say my claims are "outrageously and inaccurately disparaging" but you give no evidence. You have obviously decided you and anyone who agrees with you is correct, however without hard facts you cannot logically support your claim. If I had made the same statements but replaced ACLU with Fox news, the CURRENT government, any organized christian group, the GOP, or any other organization who you disagree with you would not have made a sound.

alanmithee, I included an article origninally published about the two ALCU board members who face discipline by the entire
83 member ACLU board for allegedly criticizing the ACLU for
it's alleged violation of it's own donor privacy policy and undermining it's own "mission to preserve free speech rights."
One item not covered in your post was that no national ACLU board member "threatened to expel" Kaminer or Meyers. The ACLU Oregon state chapter accused them of "acting inappropriately. You provided no report that ACLU national president Nadine Strossen has predicted that any proposal to discipline the Kaminer and Meyers will be rejected. I believe that the information that you posted is unduly sensational and more negative than the details reported so far actually indicate..........
In fact, the ACLU national board took no action against national ACLU board Kaminer and Meyers.......
The ACLU is imperfect. You exaggerate the ACLU's shortcomings; you wrote:
I ask you again, please cite examples where the ACLU has done more harm than good.......and who do you propose to replace the ACLU as a national watchdog and legal defender of the constituional rights of all Americans, and with oversight of government compliance of FOIA and of full disclosure ?

You stated that, "It is my opinion that the ACLU foia suits are helping undermine US activities in Iraq. It is my opinion that they are doing this knowing that they are undermining the military, and actually have that as a goal. I believe that if Falwell does organize a law school that his organization will better serve the intrests of the country and it's citizens."

Do you believe that the government should be exposed, or even challenged when it commits illegal acts, or covers them up ? My "sig" is intended to be a tribute to SCOTUS Justice Robert H. Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg. Can you defend what I quoted from you above about the ACLU intentionally undermining "U.S. activities in Iraq" after reading the following quotes of Justice Jackson ? Do you take into account that the pentagon has the discretion and authority to prevent disclosure of FOIA requested documents on the grounds of national security, if it deems the material to be sensitive ? The ACLU has disclosed new incidents of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and the complicity of military commanders in the destruction of evidence of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan. Do you believe that this is information should be concealed from the people of the U.S. ? The U.S. military released this information but you would not have done so ? You are shooting the messenger if you continue to believe that the ACLU's FOIA requests are the problem here.

I have paraphased excerpts Justice Robert Jackson's summation at Nuremberg in 1946. In some places, even an
ardent partisan might admit to himself that there is cause for concern as far as the decision to invade Iraq and in the prosection of the war.
July 26, 1946

THE PRESIDENT: I call on the chief prosecutor, the United States of America.

The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the BUSH regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to
goosestep the NEOCONS across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes. Their creed and teachings are important only as evidence of motive, purpose, knowledge, and intent.

We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led AMERICA to resort to aggressive war as an
instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances
against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions created in the 1990's, as they will continue to create, grave problems for AMERICA as well as for the other peoples of THE WORLD. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior to 2003, illegal and criminal for AMERICA or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war...........

..............The Crimes of the BUSH Regime.

The strength of the case against these defendants under the conspiracy Count, which it is the duty of the INTERNATIONAL COURT to argue, is in its simplicity.

It involves but three ultimate inquiries: First, have the acts defined by the Charter as crimes been committed; second, were they committed pursuant to a Common Plan or Conspiracy; third, are these defendants among those who are criminally responsible?

The charge requires examination of a criminal policy, not of a multitude of isolated, unplanned, or disputed crimes. The substantive crimes upon which we rely, either as goals of a common plan or as means for its accomplishment, are admitted. The pillars which uphold the conspiracy charge may be found in five groups of overt acts, whose character and magnitude are important considerations in appraising the proof of conspiracy. ..................

................. Laws were enacted of such ambiguity that they could be used to punish almost any innocent act. It was, for example, made a crime to provoke "any act contrary to the public welfare" (PATRIOT ACT I).

The doctrine of punishment by analogy was-introduced to enable conviction for acts which no statute forbade (PATRIOT ACT I). ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT explained that THE BUSH ADMIN. considered every violation of the goals of life which the community set up for itself to be a wrong per se, and that the acts could be punished even though it was not contrary to existing "formal law" (PATRIOT ACT I).

The JUSTICE DEPT> and the DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY were instrumentalities of an espionage system which penetrated public and private life (PATRIOT ACT I).

ASHCROFT controlled a personal wire-tapping unit. All privacy of communication was abolished (PATRIOT ACT I). HOMELAND SECURITY appointed over every 50 householders spied continuously on all within their ken (TIPS PROGRAM).

Upon the strength of this spying individuals were dragged off to "protective custody" and to DETENTION camps without legal proceedings of any kind (JOSE PADILLA) and without statement of any reason therefor (PATRIOT ACT I). The BUSH APPOINTED SECURITY Police were exempted from effective legal responsibility for their acts (PATRIOT ACT I).

With all administrative offices in BUSH's control and with the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS reduced to BEING BUSH's RUBBER STAMP, the judiciary remained the last obstacle to this reign of terror (PATRIOT ACT I). But its independence was soon overcome and it was reorganized to dispense a venal justice () Judges were ousted for political or racial reasons and were spied upon and put under pressure to join the REPUBLICAN Party (). After the Supreme Court had acquitted three of the four men whom the BUSHCO accused of BEING ENEMY COMBATANTS, its jurisdiction over treason cases was transferred to a newly established "MILITARY TRIBUNALS" consisting of MILITARY OFFICERS ()....................

The result was the removal of all peaceable means either to resist or to change the Government...............

.....................The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact. Have we established the Plan or Conspiracy to make aggressive war?

Certain admitted or clearly proven facts help answer that question. First is the fact that such war of aggression did take place. Second, it is admitted that from the moment the BUSHCO came to power, every one of them and every one of the defendants worked like beavers to prepare for some war. The question therefore comes to this: Were they preparing for the war which did occur, or were they preparing for some war which never has happened? It is probably true that in their early days none of them had in mind what month of what year war would begin, the exact dispute which would precipitate it, or whether its first impact would be IRAQ, IRAN, or NORTH KOREA. But I submit that the defendants either knew or were chargeable with knowledge that the war for which they were making ready would be a war of AMERICAN aggression. This is partly because there was no real expectation that any power or combination of powers would attack AMERICA. But it is chiefly because the inherent nature of the BUSHCO plans was such that they were certain sooner or later to meet resistance and that they could then be accomplished only by aggression. ............................

...................The orders for the treatment of IRAQI prisoners of war were so ruthless that ALBERTO GONZALES, pointing out that they would "result in
arbitrary mistreatments and killing," protested to the BUSHCO against them as breaches of international law. The reply of RUMSFELD was unambiguous. He said:

"The objections arise from the military conception of chivalrous warfare! This is the destruction of an ideology! Therefore, I approve and back the measures" ().

The Geneva Convention would have been thrown overboard openly except that RUMSFELD objected because he wanted the benefits of ENEMY observance of it while it was not being allowed to hamper the U.S. in any way. ........................

...........................The dominant fact which stands out from all the thousands of pages of the record of this Trial is that the central crime of the
whole group of BUSHCO crimes the attack on the peace of the world was clearly and deliberately planned. The beginning of these wars of aggression was not an unprepared and spontaneous springing to arms by a population excited by some current indignation. A week before the invasion of IRAQ, BUSH told his military commanders:

"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting war. Never mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether we told the
truth or not. In starting and making a war, it is not the right that matters, but victory ().

The propagandist scenarios were duly provided by the BUSHCO incessantly and falsely inferring that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Attacks, and posed an imminent threat to America because he possessed large stockpiles of biological weapons and was close to developing nuclear weapons, in order to create the appearance of a credible threat of an impending Iraqi attack on the U.S. or on one of it's allies. ()..................

.................Each of these people made a real contribution to the BUSHCO plan. Each one had a key part. Deprive the BUSHCO regime of the functions

performed by a RUMSFELD, a WOLFOWITZ, a RICE, or a CHENEY and you have a different regime. Look down the rows of fallen men and picture them as the photographic and documentary evidence shows them to have been in their days of power. Is there one who did not substantially advance the conspiracy along its bloody path toward its bloody goal? Can we assume that the great effort of these people's lives was directed toward ends they never suspected?

To escape the implications of their positions and the inference of guilt from their activities, the defendants are almost unanimous in one defense. The
refrain is heard time and again: These officials were without authority, without knowledge, without influence without importance.......
........In the testimony of each defendant, at some point there was reached the familiar blank wall: Nobody knew anything about what was going on. Time after time we have heard the chorus from the dock: "I only heard about these things here for the first time."

These officials saw no evil, spoke none, and none was uttered in their presence. This claim might sound very plausible if made by one defendant. But when we put all their stories together, the impression which emerges of the BUSH REGIME, which was to herald the new millenium, is ludicrous. If we combine only the stories of the front bench, this is the ridiculous composite picture of BUSH's Government that emerges. It was composed of:

A Defense Chief who knew nothing of the excesses of the Military Intelligence Units which he created, and never suspected the IRAQI PRISONER TORTURE program although he was the signer of over a score of decrees which instituted the persecutions of those detainees;

A VICE PRESIDENT who was merely an innocent middleman transmitting BUSH's interest in obtaining definitive IRAQI WMD intelligence from the CIA, like a postman or delivery boy;

A Secretary of State who knew little of foreign affairs and nothing of foreign policy;

A Commanding General in IRAQ who issued orders to the Armed Forces but had no idea of the results they would have in practice;

A Homeland security chief who was of the impression that the policing functions of his department were somewhat on the order of issuing colorful threat level warnings that were politically motivated.

A Political Advisor and Mastermind who was interested in polling research and had no idea of the violence which his philosophy was inciting in the twenty
first century;

A provisional authority governor of who reigned but did not rule; and could not account for nearly $9 billion in funds he controlled that belonged to the
Iraqi citizens.

An NSA director who denied that BUSH saw briefings before 9/11 on the threat of terrorist airliner attacks, but who had no idea that anybody would read them;

A CIA Director who knew not even what went on in the interior of his own office, much less the interior of his own department, and nothing at all about the accurate pre-invasion intelligence about Iraqi WMD's or about Saddam's cooperation with AL Queda;

A president who never failed to create new justification and a new mission for his troops to justify his war of aggression as each previous justification
that he had advanced to the world, wilted under half hearted and delayed media scrutiny and closer inspection on the ground in IRAQ.

And a preparation for the war economy that included huge tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens, guaranteeing huge federal deficits, but with no thought that it had anything to do with war.

This may seem like a fantastic exaggeration, but this is what you would actually be obliged to conclude if you were to acquit these defendants.

They do protest too much. They deny knowing what was common knowledge. They deny knowing plans and programs that were as public as the pronouncements of the

NEOCONS of the PNAC and the Party program. They deny even knowing the contents of documents they received and acted upon. .....................
[/quote]

If nothing else, and until you find an effective replacement for the ACLU and it's FOIA suits, the Bush government cannot claim that "it knew nothing", because the American people and the world know.

I put much effort into backing what I post with information and cited sources that I do not believe to be easily impeached. I rarely post links to http://commondreams.org or to http://americanprogress.org. If I attribute something to Michael Moore, I anticipate that I will have to defend the accuracy of the details. I consider Bill Moyer to be a journalist of the highest reputation for ethics in the U.S. today.

alansmithee, if I post something that you can argue is misleading or untrue, please post an objection with linked souces to back up yourself up to the same degree that I have referenced whatever you are objecting to. I seem unreasonable and rabidly partisan mostly because we disagree on many issues and are of different philosophies.

I didn't say that they were expelled, I said that they were threatened with expulsion. Where did I get that information? Why, from one of the principles involved, in an interview.


The ACLU does not defend the constitutional rights of all Americans, it only defends the rights of those who fit it's ideological agenda. They aren't a "national watchdog", they are a propaganda organization. I don't see a purpose. And examples of where they have done more harm than good:

http://www.operationlookout.org/look...end_nambla.htm
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeS...?ID=17134&c=42
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty...ID=17318&c=139
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/S...?ID=16785&c=31
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/S...?ID=15931&c=31
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeS...?ID=17183&c=42
http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugP...?ID=14606&c=79

I could go on, but you should get the point. They have advocated/advocate many positions that I feel are damaging to the well being of society.

I think that it's extremely hard for the government to do anything really "illegal". I have always believed that if the government feels something is in the countries best interest, it overrides what some people might feel is illegal. The actions of Lincoln and FDR I think are prime examples of this. As for current "prisoner abuse" I think while the conflict is ongoing, it should be concealed. All releasing it does is feed anti-US propaganda in an area where there is enough of that. Let the criminals be taken care of after we are out of active conflict, where there might be some time for giving the so-called abuse perspective, and see if it's still worth all the fuss when it can't be immediately used as political capital.

I really didn't see the relevance of the above. If it's to see who can write the best short-fiction piece, ill concede that.

My main problem with many of the so-called support given to arguements on the board in general is that they will often contain some facts, then the opinion of an "expert" which is cited as if it is also fact. This opinion is usually highly biased. I usually don't bother citing "counter-evidence" because that usually breaks down to battling experts. I personally prefer that someone states THEIR opinion, and uses facts to back that up. Opinion pieces have their place, but I rarely place any more weight on the "experts" opinions than I would on a poster on the board. Also, it's hard to state with certainty that an opinion is untrue or misleading, they are hard to attack without resorting to duelling experts. I don't mind the rabid partisanship, but when backed with more partisanship and stated as certainty I think it's disingenuous.

This is nonsense, as evidenced rather specifically by your first example of "harm", listed below - the defense of the right of speech of NAMBLA. (Also see the ACLU's defense of the KKK's right to assemble.)
You are not the arbiter of what is and what is not harmful to society. You are but a single voice. Society, by definition is the collective. All of those links you posted are examples of the ACLU defending the freedom of speech. You may not agree with the speech which was being attacked, but that does not give anyone the right to limit it, nor does it qualify your judgement of that speech as harmful to society.

If you were attempting to demonstrate that the ACLU is doing more harm than good for society, you failed entirely. If you were attempting to demonstrate that the ACLU is doing more harm than good to you personally, you have still failed entirely, by failing to show any correlation between the articles you posted and your personal life.

I like how you attack my OPINION with your OPINION. For one, not all of those were even about free speech. Did you even look at them? And even if they all were, there are many situations where there are limits on speech, and in my opinion advocation of illegal, heinous acts should be a limit on speech. Your fundamentalist secularist views have no place in this discussion (although your self-righteousness would make plenty other fundamentalists proud). The links I provided showed where the government tried something in the best interest of society, which the ACLU tried to stop because of their blind following of an anti-american, immoral agenda. Aparently in those cases, the government initially agreed with me as to what speech should be allowable, so your whole arguement about my opinion just being "a single voice" is invalidated. I have the weight of the government, which is the extension of the will of the people. You are the "single voice".

The ACLU is doing more harm than good by supporting activities that negatively contribute to society. And how my personal life has any bearing on the discussion is really beyond me. I might have failed to convince you, but honestly I don't think you are open to any idea that doesn't fit into your preconcieved notion of how things are.

It is my opinion that your opinion is not the opinion of society.

It is also a fact that your opinion is not the opinion of society.

In this particular case, my opinion is also fact.

Once again, simply because you say the ACLU is doing more harm than good doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself. You posted "proof" of your opinion, but in reality those links only demonstrated that the ACLU defends people and policies with which you personally disagree.

So what? Why is that harmful to society? Because you disagree with the ACLU's defense? Nonsense. That is simply harmful to your opinion of how society should be. The ACLU may be harmful to your opinion of a better society, but that does not make the ACLU harmful to society. Perhaps your opinion is what is harmful to society, in which case, the ACLU is the benefactor.

Post something which validates your opinion, or accept the fact that your opinion is not society's opinion.

And lastly, advocation of illegal acts is a fairly common form of free speech practiced by millions of people, such as those who oppose abortion and those who favor drug use. Your opinion that the advocation of illegal acts should be limited is contrary to the very principles of the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of the United States of America. Since you oppose this aspect of the Constitution, and it is this aspect in which you find fault in the ACLU, it becomes apparent that the ACLU defends the Constitution and is therefore a defender of the United States of America. You are free to oppose that because of people and organizations like the ACLU who defend your right to oppose the Constitution.

I would say you are both wrong.

Not one person I associate with supports the ACLU. Conservatives on the whole, most likely don't support the ACLU. So, without any evidence, if I am even remotely correct, society is roughly split 50/50 on the ACLU.

Anybody that defends NAMBLA is scum of the earth and a disease to our society. How on earth the first amendment can be used to protect this slimebags is beyond me. Last time I heard, having sex with a boy was illegal. A group that advocates sex with boys should be illegal as well.

I think society is split on its support of the ACLU. And if more people knew about the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA, I would guess the number would go up. I can't think of one person who would support a group like these freaks. Guilt by association in my opinion.

I would looooooove to see someone try and defend NAMBLA or the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA.

Then you either did not read closely enough, or you are mistaken. I did not claim that my opinion is the opinion of society, rather I stated that alan's opinion is not the opinion of society. I am not wrong in that statement. You then proceeded to agree by stating that roughly 50% of society supports the ACLU and roughly 50% do not.

Which is precisely my point. Alan's opinion is not the opinion of society.

Simply because it is disagreeable to almost everyone is no reason even one single person should be punished for talking about it. Discussion should never, ever, be illegal.

It is quite simple. NAMBLA was being sued by the family of a boy who was molested and murdered by someone who had read NAMBLA literature. It is unconscionable that anyone would deem it appropriate to NOT defend NAMBLA in that situation. NAMBLA did not force the man to molest and murder the child, NAMBLA is rather explicit that the actions they condone are actions deemed illegal - that is the purpose of their existence. Thoughts should never be considered open territory for punishment. The rapist/murderer was guilty of a horrible crime. NAMBLA is only guilty of expressing their opinion.

That anyone would attack NAMBLAs right to express its opinion is sad.

That anyone would attack the ACLU for defending NAMBLA is a sign of a fundamental failure to grasp the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Wasn't the boy raped? Because the real issue was how NAMBLA and their whack ass pedistry literature facilitated the crime. Much like how hate literature found on the persons or property of someone who murdered as a means of hate crime would be gone after. If you got someone inciting behavior, then someone does said behavior, in the context that said behavior is illegal as pedistry is, NAMBLA should've had their balls stapled to the wall.

** The culprits were not charged with rape, but the it was asserted during the trial that there was conspiracy to rape the boy, and that he was murdered after he turned down the sexual advances**

I thought conservatives didn't agree with the whole hate-crime punishment system?

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the fact that NAMBLA does not tell people to rape children, they advocate for the change of laws.

I believe anyone who suggests NAMBLA should be punished for the actions of someone who had NAMBLA literature is simply blinded by their dislike of the NAMBLA cause. A dislike of any cause is most certainly not a reason at all to support the silencing of that cause.

I remember way back in the day, a bunch of people got all concerned and wanted to ban the Dungeon's and Dragon's game because some of the kids acted out the game and hurt themselves, or something. As if the game was the source of the careless or illegal behavior.

Nonsense.

Let's ban rock music, because it facilitates Satanic rituals.

Let's ban websites that contain information on obtaining illegal copies of copyrighted work, because it facilitates the downloading of copyrighted material. Oh wait ... <a href="http://www.lokitorrent.com/">we already are</a>.

That is a load of shit Manx.

NAMBLA advocates pedistry, sex with young boys, boys as young as single digits. BY DEFINITION THAT IS RAPE. How can a group who advocates an illegal act which by all current legal definitions is a form of rape, not be telling it's members rape children?

Also your rock and satan comparison is cute, but it's ill-founded. Rock isn't illegal, neither is performing satanic rituals. Sex with minors is rape, sodomizing minors is rape, both of which are illegal.

There is a rather basic form of English language difference between advocating for the legality of something, and telling someone to perform an illegal act.

But even if NAMBLA had TOLD someone to perform an illegal act - that STILL doesn't mean they should be punished in anyway if someone then performs the illegal act.

I could tell you to jump off a bridge. It's not my responsibility if you do it.

That's exactly my point. They are not illegal. And NAMBLAs goal is to make sex with children legal.

If we make rock music illegal, you are suggesting that anyone who fights for the legality of it should be punished.

No. It is a significant portion of the foundation of the United States of America.

Manx

This is a true test of despising what someone has to say but still defending their right to say it. I have to agree with you.

It's called inciting to the masses, and it can definitly be illegal.

If I were a member of some KKK sect, and I handed out propaganda inciting and advocating the killing of minorities, then some yahoo murdered a black person as motivated by hate, and was found with my literature, you better believe I would be arrested.

For any further discussion I suggest everyone here download or somehow legally obtain the South Park episode where Cartman joins NAMBLA.

Simply because you disagree with their cause does not make them illegally inciting the masses.

NAMBLA is not advocating the rape or molestation of children, as I have already stated and as you can see for yourself on their website. So your analogy is not effective.

And regardless, I do not believe you would be arrested.

By your definition, it takes a majority. Here's your majority:

Excuse the bad formatting, original poll on link. Great deal + Moderate=43. Not much+not at all = 53. A majority.

By your reasoning, there can be no proof of anything's impact on society. By your logic, showing statistics for the genocide of Jews during Nazi Germany is not proof of that society's evil, because some people might not feel that killing Jews is bad.

I would assume the majority of society agrees that NAMBLA is bad, the other cases are more judgement based. If my opinion of a better society IS a better society, then the ACLU is harmful. Again, using your reasoning we can make NO judgement basis about the effects of anything on anything dealing with society, because nobody knows for certain.

Here is a quote of yours from a different thread:
You have no proof for any of that, by your very reasoning. You are discussing what YOU think is society's beliefs. YOU state that hate is displeasing. YOU state that killing someone because they are gay/black/white/etc is a displeasing motivation.


I did that above. Your whole premise seems to be that people cannot state any society judgements because they are individuals, and not self-contained societies. You might be correct, but your assumption is worthless, because it eliminates any potential for debate. Or, if we use your earlier definition of society (a majority of people) there should be opinion polls on every subject to discuss it's relevance. And any opinion that isn't backed up by a majority opinion is worthless.


You are disproved by legal precedent, inciting riots is not protected speech. Also, Charles Manson is serving a lengthy criminal sentence for murder, yet he just told others to kill-he killed nobody. It is you who seem to lack understanding of constitutional law, as avocation of certain illegal acts IS limited. All you stated after in relation to that assumption is invalid.

I post the following quotes to rebut the argument that speech that "incites the masses" should not be defended by the ACLU, and to put this thread back on topic..........

alansmithee -

You have made far too many claims on what I have said when I have not said that which you claim. Then further, you tried to bring a post I made in another thread into this discussion to make a point. I can't imagine what point you think you made.

It would be quite impossible for me to continue discussing this with you. The illogic is far too advanced now.

Well Host those Christians inciting to invade and kill Muslims is no different then what the Mullahs are doing in the mosque's. Plus as far as the inciting goes, what they are saying isn't illegal in any common or criminal sense. Not to mention there is a big difference in advocating action against a quasi-corporeal enemy that has attacked America and advocating for the legitimacy and legalization of sodomizing and raping young boys.

alansmithee, I know that your comments quoted above were directed at Manx, who originally jumped in to counter some points that you had made in an exchange of posts with me.

I want to point out that ignorance or incomplete understanding of the restrictions put on government as to it's power to restrict freedom of speech and expression, as stated in the U.S. Constitution and in it's initial amendments, (the Bill of Rights), are just that......a shortcoming in the opinions of many people living in the U.S. today.

alansmithee, here's a <a href="http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/docket_2002-2003.asp">link</a> to the issues list that the ACLU Massachusetts chapter was involved in from 7/2002 to 6/2003, including "Curley v. Nambla".

The ACLU is in a place in time now that may have a lot in common with the place that Abu Ghraib whistleblower Josep M. Darby finds himself in. His community is polarized in it's reaction to his act of conscience. How would you treat him if he came home to your town? Your opinion of the ACLU FOIA efforts seems ripe for revision. It seems un-American. If you disagree, what do you see our military "fighting for" in Iraq ? What principles do we stand for, and expect our troops to stand for ? How do we postpone investigating the possible torture and abuse of prisoners, and the possible illegal acts of the Bush administration, and still maintain and display our American values and integrity to our enlisted ranks in the military, to the Iraqi people, and to a world that is watching intently to see whether we are a fair and benevolent superpower, or something else ?

Since you have yet to propose an immediate replacement for the ACLU, and you stated that U.S. war crimes do not fall into a category of our timely "right to know", I won't be surprised if you don't take the time to examine the list and post comments about it. I thought of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam when I read your justification for postponing the people's oversight of government's prosecution of war. You make statments that help to persuade me that you are a blinded by a misplaced patriotic sense that it is not possible for you federal government's leaders to be war criminals and perpetrators of an illegal war of aggression, and.....more alarming.....that the assertion by the ACLU of all of our legal rights, in the use of the federal courts to compel the government to disclose the paper record of what it is involved in as far as the prosecution of that possibly illegal war, somehow "undermines" our military, so those inquiries should be postponed until "later"?

Mull over the possibility, however remote it may be to your way of thinking, that nothing undermines our military more signifigantly than the waging of illegal war of aggression and the torture and abuse of those detained by our military in the course of waging this war, and the destruction of evidence by the military of the commission of war crimes, and the failure to investigate reports of these crimes in a timely and honest way. Here is what can happen when the military and the citizens are not committed to the principles set forth by Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg in 1946:

You made faulty assumptions, provided no facts, were proven wrong, and now try to label me illogical. How...liberal.

I personally think that Abu Ghraib was very overblown. Comparing it to the My Lai massacre is like comparing a high school hazing to the Columbine school shootings. Sure, they both happened in school settings, but the degree is very difference. If I saw him, I would respect his service but disagree with his actions. I don't think him or his family should be harassed, though.

As for what our military is fighting for, I really have no idea anymore. But IMO the military has no reason to show integrity, or nobility, or anything along those lines; it's job is to kill people as efficiently as possible. Anything that impedes the military from doing it's job with as little loss as possible is bad. The military should have no other considerations while in active conflict. After the conflict you can go back and challenge what took place during, but not before. To use a metaphor, if someone sets your house on fire, you don't start the trial while the house is still on fire. You put the fire out, then see what caused it, what motives were involved, etc.


I wasn't going to check this link initially, as I read the ACLU's main homepage, but I saw that comments might be in order, so here's a brief overview of the section I read. There were some points I disagreed with the ACLU's position (Curley v. NAMBLA, Commonwealth v. Kundrot, Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community Television, Inc, Ridley v. MBTA, Change the Climate v. MBTA) but for the most part I think they were serving the best intrests of society. There were a couple I actually found humerous (Five Unnamed Students v. Montachusett Regional Technical High School, and also the religious case where Falwell's legal staff refused to work with the ACLU). I had some misconceptions about the ACLU before I made my initial comments (which I found after looking on their website for my posts above). But I didn't bother posting them, because they didn't seem fitting in the spirit of this thread.

I think it would take alot more than what has currently occured to raise our government to the level of war criminals, or of waging an illegal war. I don't think that if the government were really war criminals it COULD be hidden, therefore you can't expose it. That is why the inquiries should be postponed until the end of conflict-they do nothing to put an acceptable end on the conflict, and can only exacerbate a bad situation.

The only thing that can undermine the military is something that hurts the swift performance of their task, which boils down to systematically killing people designated as the enemy. If energy is focused while in the middle of conflict on anything but the conflict, the military is harmed. There should be investigation into alleged crimes, but it should happen in the aftermath of the war, not during it.

I think a good new rule for this forum, and a good rule of thumb for life is that calling someone a liberal, or conservative as an insult is the same as calling them a prick, asshole, shithead. What have you. That isn't allowed here.

This forum should adopt a policy of anyone using the blanket term Liberal or Conservative as an insult is a violation of the terms of agreement.

Hot damn, i never thought i'd live to see the day that one of TFP's resident conservatives would make those two equal. Mojo? Are you feeling alright? :)

And yeah, "how liberal" is not cool. Can we have a resolution only to use dead political parties as insults? Name calling is so "Bull Moose" of people. (No offense to Teddy intended...)

Don't be ridiculous. You last response was so far off the wall, I couldn't even determine where to begin. Just look at the first words you wrote "By your definition, it takes a majority" - really? Where exactly did I make that my definition? I didn't. You made that up.

And your post only went downhill from there.

Here are the remarlks of majority leader of the house of representatives of the United States. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this man shilling for himself, Schiavo, and God in the same sentence? Can even some of you who support Bush and his alliance in congress recognize that supporting Tom Delay and his activist religiously themed base may be working against your own best interests ?

1. How are the Dems who are oppossed to Delay working in my best intrests when they are advocating death for the disabled?

2. Do you have a problem with Barney Frank and his crude comments about "playing God on C-Span"? Also, if this woman were a lesbian and her Christian parents wanted to pull the tube, would he still be supporting his platform?

3. If you would be totally honest, would you admit that you enjoy seeing the Christian right getting their asses handed to them on this issue?

It doesn'teven take any special goading:

I thoroughly enjoy seeing the Christian right getting their asses handed to them on this issue. Long overdue.

If there is any positive aspect of the years long struggle to fulfill Terri Schiavo's wishes, maybe it will be the recognition by voters that the Christian right, and by automatic extension the GOP, need to be shut down when it comes to government.

But I doubt we'll be that fortunate.

NCB, I wish you could see that the political influence and agenda of religious zealots, overwhelmingly, in terms of political clout and observed accomplishments, southern and midwestern Christian fundamentalists who purport to accurately and literally interpret their bible, and thus, to know what God's plan is for them and for the U.S. and for the world, is too ominous a threat to the security of our country to trifle with at the level of oneupsmanship, when we actually see American "mullahs" in congress and at the white house carrying out their God's wishes on the rest of us. This week, they did their work on a weekend midnight. We deperately need to make sure that this marks that high watermark of their collective, faith induced, insanity. Even the citizens of Salem came to their senses when the witchcraft trial execution count rose into the teens. Madness then, like now.

I have been negatively criticized for the title and the tenor of this thread. This recent quote from a Republican Congressman, one of only five who voted against what the LA Times is calling the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-schiavo21mar21,0,2140071.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials">"Midnight Coup"</a>, encourages me to put even more emphasis on my efforts to publicize the disturbing political trend of "faith Based" initiatives intruding ever more in Republican politics.

Democrats are promoting the inappropriateness of Congress' attention to this case. Democrats are questioning the judgement of a powerful, law-making man who makes significant medical diagnoses from a distance. Democrats are agruing for an appropriate mutual respect of church and state, and well as their separation in legislative government. Democats are advocating for the individual civil rights which 20 courts have now affirmed are squarely and properly in the hands of Terri's spouse. This last one really gets under my skin -- the party with the steady moan about "defending marriage" (in all 50 states and Congress) casually and conveniently rips and tears at the marriage of Michael and Terri, clearly viewing it as inconsequntial or flawed, as if that could ever be their right to judge.
I don't know Barney Frank's remarks at all. I can't see at all how anyone's sexual orientation could play a role here -- it's irrelevant to any argument I see.
I enjoy seeing that the American populace disapproves of Congress' intervention. If there is a price to pay for the issue, the Christian right certainly hasn't had to pay it yet. If anything, their power to pass midnight federal legislation is breathtaking in and of itself. There isn't a winner here.

Here's the only piece of evidence that I found about this Christian right trying to play politics over this...


GOP Memo: Schiavo Was Recruited to Win Pro-Life Vote
by Scott Ott

(2005-03-24) -- A secret unsigned talking points memo circulated to all Republican Senators and leaked to The Washington Post reveals that the GOP recruited Terri Schiavo to become "a poster child for our Christian conservative right-wing pro-life base so we can sweep Congressional elections in 2006."

Although Post reporter Mike Allen obtained the memo from an "unimpeachable" source, he denies that source was former President Bill Clinton, who survived an impeachment attempt.

An excerpt from the memo reveals that Terri Schiavo is a "blood red Republican so committed to the cause that she's willing to give her own life to boost the political fortunes of the party. That's why we recruited her for this important work."

Despite the fact that the memo is unsigned, and appears on plain white paper, Mr. Allen says "there's no chance that it was forged in a fashion reminiscent of Dan Rather's Bush National Guard memo."

The anonymous Republican author of the memo exhorts all of his colleagues -- from conservative Rick Santorum, R-PA, to liberal Olympia Snowe, R-ME -- to "ride the tide of Schiavo sympathy to a pro-life victory in '06."

"America is hungry for leadership on the life issue," according to the unnamed Republican author. "The little people thirst for leaders who will take a stand. You need to feed these red-meat talking points to the media in your state and milk this for everything it's worth."

The memo concludes with an ominous warning that "if Terri Schiavo is starved to death, pro-life Christian conservatives will blame Republicans and will probably vote Democrat next time."






satire

I honestly don't care what someone believes...as long as they dont' act on that belief in a way that is going to affect me/the world in some negative way....