02-22-2005, 12:36 AM | #161 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
02-22-2005, 04:07 AM | #162 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
02-22-2005, 05:18 AM | #163 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
02-22-2005, 05:24 AM | #164 (permalink) | |
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Location: Grantville, Pa
|
Quote:
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. |
|
02-22-2005, 06:48 AM | #165 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
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...)
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|
02-22-2005, 08:29 AM | #166 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
And your post only went downhill from there. Last edited by Manx; 02-22-2005 at 08:33 AM.. |
|
03-24-2005, 10:52 AM | #167 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
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 ?
Quote:
|
|
03-24-2005, 11:38 AM | #168 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Tobacco Road
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Quote:
|
||
03-24-2005, 11:48 AM | #169 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-24-2005, 12:34 PM | #170 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
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. Quote:
Last edited by host; 03-24-2005 at 12:43 PM.. |
|
03-24-2005, 03:17 PM | #171 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Connecticut
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
less I say, smarter I am |
|||
03-24-2005, 04:23 PM | #172 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Tobacco Road
|
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
__________________
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
beliefs, pose, religious, threat |
|
|