| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2004 11:35:54 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Danger that I'm wrong that many people wouldn't see the US going in the direction of 1984 a bad thing? Hmm...let me think about that for a second...yeah that's dangerous all right.
Originally posted by karmat:
The danger about making generalizations about large groups of people is that they are very often wrong about many in that large group. |
|
The danger is in assuming that it is only "God-fearing, Bush-supporting, neo-con" that wouldn't see the direction of the country and 1984.
Just because someone claimed to be a democrat (or this group, or that nationality, etc) wouldn't make him/her immune to such things.
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 11:37:30.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:44:10 AM · #27 |
It's a slippery slope, though. One by one, as liberal (academic definition of liberal here) values are being replaced by conservative values, personal freedoms are being eroded. Remember when you could drive a car without a seatbelt? Go helmetless on a motorcycle? Drive a big old gas guzzler in Los Angeles? I hear it now....'yeah but we know those things are bad'. Doesn't matter. When personal freedoms are taken away for the good of your society you're moving away from the ultimate ideal of personal freedom on which the US was based. It happens so subtly that you don't even notice that you weren't as free as you were before. It adds up, though. In taking away personal freedoms (remember the whole photographing bridges thing that got us into this whole discussion) and putting fear in people about not speaking out lest they get branded a 'terrorist' is taking this further. Bush is using th eword freedom but, in such things as the Patriot Act, what he's actually doing is taking personal freedom for the sake of the good of the whole. This is fundamentally different than what America was supposed to be all about. It smacks of fascism. When you hear the phrase 'neo-con' that's just a euphemism for fascist.
Originally posted by nborton:
while i am not saying it couldn't happen. i find it very unlikely that the "average" person typing a key word is going to be "black listed". supposing that a program can catch every key word, and not miss a single one. it seems as though there would be so much to go through and investigate, it would take an army of people to work through it all.
edit: by the way i am not for privacy invasion either. however, the sheer number of key word hits has to be huge. in a sence, there is privacy in being lost in the numbers. |
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 11:48:04.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:46:35 AM · #28 |
Well I don't see my statement as dangerous. What I DO see dangerous is that this very group of people actually endorsed Bush and his ultra-right wing, Patriot Act big brother policies.
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Danger that I'm wrong that many people wouldn't see the US going in the direction of 1984 a bad thing? Hmm...let me think about that for a second...yeah that's dangerous all right.
Originally posted by karmat:
The danger about making generalizations about large groups of people is that they are very often wrong about many in that large group. |
|
The danger is in assuming that it is only "God-fearing, Bush-supporting, neo-con" that wouldn't see the direction of the country and 1984.
Just because someone claimed to be a democrat (or this group, or that nationality, etc) wouldn't make him/her immune to such things. |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:59:56 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by mk:
I don't think threats of asssasination of the president are covered by free speech, are they?
Anyway, you might also want to check out the follow up entry. |
Thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't seen it. It also made me more curious as to what was said, so I went looking ...
//www.jeffooi.com/archives/2004/10/if_you_talk_bad.php
Can anyone seriously consider that to be an assasination threat?
If you believe that God would listen to her, and carry out her wishes, then maybe, but c'mon.
The thing that still bothers me, and which is reinforced by the follow up post, is that somebody, probably with a personal grudge, reports her and the FBI drop round, put her on file, etc. without any indication of an investigation.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 12:06:32 PM · #30 |
What will an administration do with USPA I & II when they are already eroding the freedoms of Muslim US citizens as they detain them without being formally charged with any crime, without legal recourse, without access to lawyers, without knowledge by their families as to there whereabouts, or if they are alive AND...with reports of them being tortured. I don't believe any have been found to have ties with terrorist and four of them were released from Guantanomo Bay earlier this year when the British government (they were British citizens) put pressure on the US to release them, all found to have no relationships to terrorism.
It's a scary time we live in. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 12:50:41 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's most definitely partisan. Patriot Act? Patriot Act II? These are partisan. If you want to reduce your government's control over you, you voted for the wrong administration. They're going to overturn Roe V. Wade and ban gay marriage. This is MORE control. This is a loss of personal freedoms. I can't believe that people swallow the sancitiy of marriage crap in a country which has umpteen 'marry a millionaire' programs on TV. IT'S NOT A MARRIAGE ISSUE. It's a gay hatin' issue. Plain and simple.
It makes me angry just thinking about it. All the work done by civil libertarians down the damned drain.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Yes Big Brother is watching. A scary thought indeed. All the more reason to reduce government and it's power over us. |
|
your wrong again I see. While some of it is intrusive and I do not agree with those parts, both parties had members vote for it. Even though life indisputably begins at conception (it is human life not animal or alien life)I doubt seriously Roe v Wade will be overturned. Your again making unfounded assumptions. But partial birth abortions definately should be banned.
Gay marriage definately should be banned. As for the TV shows the people in favor of gay marriage are the ones producing the shows. So your comparison has no ground to stand on here. Marriage should be kept sacred for a man and woman only, not given to those that have made a lifestyle choice to lead an anti-social lifestyle. Here in Texas sodomy is illegal. Personally I don't think it should be a law as the government has no business in our bedrooms and people should be free to practice their own lifestyle as long as it doesn't intrude on others rights. But the fact remains that it IS A LAW. Which means that if your gay in this state your probably breaking the law which makes you a criminal. Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law?
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 12:56:37 PM · #32 |
I know you can't always believe what you read or see on TV, but a few weeks ago on the CBC there was a story (they did a real-live interview with the man and his friends) about an older man (no offense, he was 60+) who was out with his friends one evening and made some negative comments about George Bush. One, or possibly many, of his friends being offended went to the FBI and reported the elderly man.
In the interview, he said a group of FBI showed up on his front step threatening him.
It was unreal. I watched the interview myself with my own two eyes. Not to say that people won't stoop to making up stories jsut to get 15 minutes of fame..but I doubt it in this case.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:11:21 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
your wrong again I see. While some of it is intrusive and I do not agree with those parts, both parties had members vote for it. Even though life indisputably begins at conception (it is human life not animal or alien life)I doubt seriously Roe v Wade will be overturned. Your again making unfounded assumptions. But partial birth abortions definately should be banned. |
See here you're holding your own values above the values laid out by the supreme court, which is attempting to hold up the consititutional rights and freedoms of every citizen in your country.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned. As for the TV shows the people in favor of gay marriage are the ones producing the shows. So your comparison has no ground to stand on here. Marriage should be kept sacred for a man and woman only, not given to those that have made a lifestyle choice to lead an anti-social lifestyle. |
So someone has the right to thrash marriage in a public forum but not in private? Where one can broadcast a totally fabricated marriage based not in love but in monetary terms, and that's OK? And gay lifestyle being 'anti-social'? What's that nonsense? That's OK, 'cause further down you say that we should be out of the bedrooms of the country anyways and that sodomy shouldn't be a law but no gay marriage should be? Are you for real?
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Here in Texas sodomy is illegal. Personally I don't think it should be a law as the government has no business in our bedrooms and people should be free to practice their own lifestyle as long as it doesn't intrude on others rights. But the fact remains that it IS A LAW. Which means that if your gay in this state your probably breaking the law which makes you a criminal. Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law? |
And here you're (and it's YOU'RE not YOUR) making the argument that law is OK because it's a law, yet you call for less government control? If you didn't question your laws you'd probably still have slavery. Would that be OK? You're just proving that you're very confused.
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 13:13:25.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:23:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned.
Marriage should be kept sacred for a man and woman only, not given to those that have made a lifestyle choice to lead an anti-social lifestyle.
Here in Texas sodomy is illegal. Which means that if your gay in this state your probably breaking the law which makes you a criminal. Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law? |
Is someone in the closet over this issue?
You obviously have never met anyone who is gay, right?
Have you ever J-walked? Or maybe forgot to put your seat belt on? or done Cocain? (like the president of the United States?) Should we impeach the president? he broke the law. maybe we should take your right to marry away because you j-walked once, or maybe you got paid under the table when you were 16 and didn't "claim" that $50 bucks on your taxes. Guess what? The Vice Presidents Daughter is gay, I guess she better not visit Texas huh? we'll have to arrest her for breaking the law.
What you wrote here is complete and total ignorance. nearly everything I've read of yours is based on falsehoods, and fear. You should be ashamed. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:34:04 PM · #35 |
Well first thing the Texas Sodomy law was overturned awhile back.
story
and second since the presidents cocaine use was never substaintiated with any facts the hypocrisy in the following statements is pretty evident
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Have you ever J-walked? Or maybe forgot to put your seat belt on? or done Cocain? (like the president of the United States?) Should we impeach the president? he broke the law. |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
What you wrote here is complete and total ignorance. nearly everything I've read of yours is based on falsehoods, and fear. You should be ashamed. |
edit: I can't spel
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 13:35:08. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:37:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned. As for the TV shows the people in favor of gay marriage are the ones producing the shows. So your comparison has no ground to stand on here. Marriage should be kept sacred for a man and woman only, not given to those that have made a lifestyle choice to lead an anti-social lifestyle. Here in Texas sodomy is illegal. Personally I don't think it should be a law as the government has no business in our bedrooms and people should be free to practice their own lifestyle as long as it doesn't intrude on others rights. But the fact remains that it IS A LAW. Which means that if your gay in this state your probably breaking the law which makes you a criminal. Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law? |
Ok, I'm as homophobic as the next guy... It creeps me out watching two guys kiss on CNN every other day. But let's be real here... What business of mine (or yours) is it what two consenting adults do? If there is a law that says who someone can or can't love, then that law is the problem, not the so called "criminals" that want to get married. It was once against the law in Texas for two people of different races to marry... Personally I don't think Republicans should be allowed to marry Republicans, but I would never want to impose that on the rest of the world...
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 13:39:06.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:42:41 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by jlhudson:
Well first thing the Texas Sodomy law was overturned awhile back.
story
and second since the presidents cocaine use was never substaintiated with any facts the hypocrisy in the following statements is pretty evident
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Have you ever J-walked? Or maybe forgot to put your seat belt on? or done Cocaine? (like the president of the United States?) Should we impeach the president? he broke the law. |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
What you wrote here is complete and total ignorance. nearly everything I've read of yours is based on falsehoods, and fear. You should be ashamed. |
edit: I can't spel |
Unfortunately, proving Bush used cocaine will never happen, unless he was caught on tape, or he comes clean about his past. There are reports from third parties saying that he did use cocaine.
Here's the hypocrisy: Since we are talking about breaking the law, Bush and Cheney both "broke the law" with drunk driving convictions. For Anachronite to say "Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law?" Didn't GW Bush break the law? should we extend his rights to be married? Isn't drunk driving a little more dangerous that having gay sex in your bedroom?
And I stand by what I said:
"What you wrote here is complete and total ignorance. nearly everything I've read of yours is based on falsehoods, and fear. You should be ashamed."
and I'll say it again - You should be ashamed
edit: added this: About George Bushs drug use. First he refused to confirm or deny it. Later he would say only that "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." Next he said that the issue wasn't relevant. Then he said that he wouldn't address "rumors."
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 13:48:49. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:46:36 PM · #38 |
"Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law?"
You know, you have a point. I mean that's why we ban murderers, rapists, and child molestors from marriage. Oh, wait. We don't because that would be a civil rights violation. So, explain this point to me again? |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:49:28 PM · #39 |
Stand by whatever you want. It dosen't make it any less hypocritical.
I'm not necisarily disagreeing with your point of view on the statements you are refering to, but to be critical of Anachronite's statements and then turn around and use the same tactics is sort of silly. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:50:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by jlhudson:
Stand by whatever you want. It dosen't make it any less hypocritical.
I'm not necisarily disagreeing with your point of view on the statements you are refering to, but to be critical of Anachronite's statements and then turn around and use the same tactics is sort of silly. |
Bush on his personal drug use:
First he refused to confirm or deny it. Later he would say only that "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." Next he said that the issue wasn't relevant. Then he said that he wouldn't address "rumors." |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:53:46 PM · #41 |
It would be nice to see the context of the statement. If I had to guess those statements were made in reference to his admitted problem with alcohol when he was younger.
I could be mistaken but the context of the remarks would be helpful, and even if it is in reference to cocaine use thats not an admission of guilt. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 02:13:45 PM · #42 |
Look: you are each responsible for what you do and say. I am a conservative and our theme is freedom of speech. Notice that the conservatives did not try to shut up Michael Moore and his kind, yet the liberal Kerry campaign did by fiat try to shut down the Opposition.
You can say anything you want but also keep in mind that whether you chose to believe it or not, we are in a state of war and since the enemy is within us, stupid and imflamatory gibberish is open to question and scrutiny. This is nothing new.
You have a right to make an ass of yourself and make people wonder about your mental deficiency and your dysfunctional and mean spirit. But consider, the people in this election has told the loony left that their stance is out of bound and they want no part of it.
What this means is that your gibberish will be met with equal force from the wacko right. The others will tolerate you and simply smile.
The best approach is to open your ideas for exploration and duscussion and to maintain a cordial spirit of goodwill. If there is no goodwill then your motives are those of the radicals. If you are perceived as a radical then you present an immediate obstruction to any resolution. In short, select to be a grown up and do not feel that you are superior. We are in the same boat and we do have a mutual enemy which will kill us both no matter on which side of the coin we are in.
Yes, I know, you are the pacifist, you have a concern about social issues and you are quick to find fault and hurl terrible accusations against this country and its leaders, but remember, you have not been annointed as saviours by anybody. There are ideas which are in direct contrast to yours and followed by a distinct majority. This does not mean that your ideas are wrong and ours right. It is like the image you uploaded for a challenge. Either the voters liked it or not.
Those of you in the loony left are not at all interested is in the exploration of ideas. You simply lash out like angry spoilt children and you reveal the ugliest traits of human nature. The right also has a wacko aspect that matches your intensity. They too are not interested in the exploration of ideas. They are as wacked out as the loony left.
Instead of lashing out by starting a thread with an attack, consider exploring the merits of ideas and entering a give and take discussion. When intelligent minds ponder their results are better than the non productive attacks which are geared mainly to inflame and insult.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 02:16:02 PM · #43 |
Here's the content of the statement, I'm not dragging GW Bushs cocaine use or lack there of through the dirt. I frankley don't care if he did coke or not. I'd respect him more if he just answerd the question with a straight answer in the first place. The point I was trying to make is that breaking the law doesn't mean you should take away someones right of marriage. Anachronite obviously feels this way, so I ask him: Should we take away GW Bushs right to be married because he has broken the law in the past (Drunk Driving)? Or anyone elses right to marry? I think not.
I'm sure with a lot of free time you could find the original transcript for any of these interviews. Or possibly video clips. And your right, It doesn't prove he ever used cocaine.
John Seery writer for the LA Times -
In 1994, when asked about drug use in his campaign for governor of Texas, Bush replied, "What I did as a kid? Â I don't think it's relevant."
About a year ago, during the presidential primaries, 11 out of 12 candidates in both parties denied ever using cocaine. Â George W. Bush was the sole candidate who refused to answer the question. Â He quipped, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."
1999 - Adam Clymer of the New York Times reported that George W. Bush, responding in Ohio to a question about long-ago cocaine abuse, had issued "another awkward answer" of the sort that had "made the issue linger."
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 02:26:30 PM · #44 |
graphicfunk -
I'm honestly asking, what was the whole Disney/Miramax thing surrounding Moore's movie? Weren't they trying to stop it's release? |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 02:34:00 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
graphicfunk -
I'm honestly asking, what was the whole Disney/Miramax thing surrounding Moore's movie? Weren't they trying to stop it's release? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a corpotate suvival decision and has nothing to do with the Busch administration. The Kerry campaign did file. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 03:18:27 PM · #46 |
To marginally bring this back on topic- any threat against the president of the united states is taken very seriously by the Secret Service. Once it's reported, that's it. They will investigate. Period, end of story.
This is not Patriot Act related. It goes waaaaay back to Kennedy. Every single reported threat that the US Secret Service gets will be investigated. Threats of violence against the president are not considered free speach. :)
Now back to your regularly scheduled rant. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 03:29:18 PM · #47 |
Following blemt's lead to get back on topic -
One thing this "violation" of our right to free speach and the Patriot Act work against is our right to take arms against a government of tyranny. How would such a revolt begin at even the tiniest seed of thought level if we aren't allowed to even broach the topic. I realize we aren't even close to that point and I'm not at all suggesting we are but if hypothetically we were, it would have no chance under the current government. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 03:42:01 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Look: you are each responsible for what you do and say. I am a conservative and our theme is freedom of speech. Notice that the conservatives did not try to shut up Michael Moore and his kind |
Uh, wasn't that the point of reneging on his distribution contract? |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 03:43:06 PM · #49 |
There are other ways to overthrow a government than killing the leader....Saddam is still alive as an example
In our system if the outcry were large enough we would do it the civilized way with an impeachment/removal from office,
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 15:45:01. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 03:48:00 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
But partial birth abortions definately should be banned. |
You believe in justifiable homocide, right? If I point a gun at you, you will shoot me down without compunction or fear of prosecution.
Why then, if the continued existence of that fetus is a threat to the life of the mother, do you not accord her the same right to defend her life by any means necessary?
It is only the lack of such an exception for such protection of the life of the mother that the current law was struck down.
This is not a routine procedure used for "birth control" because she forgot her "pill" or the rapist didn't use a rubber. It's an exceptional procedure primarily used in desperate circumstances. |
|
