Welcome back, FranchiseBlade. Good to have you. I'm also anti-PC in the instances you cited. I'm for it in cases where people want to know what's so wrong with the word 'Chinaman' since they're not aware of it being hurtful. My grandparents used the word 'colored' way past its time on the same grounds. PC cops are annoying and like any trend it got out of hand. But it has its merits. Besides the most outrageous example of political correctness getting out of control is how, here in America, it's suddenly unpatriotic to question our government. Which brings us to your second point. I couldn't agree more here. Which is why it's so scary that John Ashcroft is having success doing away with civil liberties in the name of patriotism. It all reminds me very much of the flag burning hoo hah from not so long ago. This is from Bill Hicks: Some guy: My daddy died for that flag. Hicks: Oh, really? I bought mine. You know, they sell em at K-Mart and stuff. Guy: Yeah, he died in the Korean war for that flag. Hicks: What a coincidence. Mine was made in Korea. No one, and I repeat no one, has died for a flag. A flag is a piece of cloth. They may have died for freedom. Which, by the way, is the freedom to burn the flag. When 9/11 happened there was a lot of talk about not letting the terrorists win. There were a lot of people saying that if they stopped flying or did anything differently the terrorists would win. More than anything, when our most basic rights as Americans, our civil liberties, our freedom of speech and our freedom to question our government are threatened, the terrorists win. When John Ashcroft receives support for any initiative that threatens these rights, the terrorists win. And I promise you they consider that a bigger victory than people being scared to fly. tbagain, you brought up the Clinton stuff. And for your first several posts in this thread it was you who first threw jabs and then pretended to take the high road by saying it was old and you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Which reminds me of another Bill Hicks quote. He's talking about the JFK assassination when he recounts all the people who say "It's old, Bill. Just let it go." To which he replies, "Don't talk to me about Jesus then. People say Jesus died for our sins. Man, that was a long time ago. Just let it go. I mean, as long as we're talking shelf life..." You came in several times to express your extreme position on Clinton and then acted like the matter should be dropped. And rblh is right. You did ignore the arguments in favor of semantics or some sort of fallacious attempt to take the high road.
<b>Batman</b>: May I call you Batman? I thought Ashcroft was merely temporarily curtailing some civil liberties in the pursuit of something real such as safety or security. How do you construe that it is in pursuit of Patriotism? That just does not make sense... and it seems like a cheap shot. Another question: can you curtail the civil liberties of illegal aliens or enemies of the state?
giddyup, you may call me anything you like. I'm not proud. I'm sorry you see the Ashcroft stuff as a cheap shot. People who are concerned with civil rights and civil liberties were extremely concerned with his nomination and now we're all seeing why. 9/11 has given him the go ahead to do those things that were most frightful to the people who opposed his confirmation. The temporary curtailment of these rights in the name of safety and security is how these things start. It was the same with the WWII internment camps. The suspension of laws and practices which threaten our rights as Americans are not okay, no matter how temporarily, for any reason. It's not okay for someone to be held for months without being charged with a crime and not only is it not okay, it's just plain un-American.
Thanks Batman. I don't like racial slurrs at all, and I don't really count that as PC, and just sensitivity. There were liberals who were against the 'N' word etc. long before the whole PC movement. Yes Ashcroft seems to forget that the president swears to uphold the constitution and not actually to protect America. There's a subtle difference. Meanwhile Ashcroft goes ahead labelling any dissenters as unpatriotic, while tossing out our constitution bits and pieces at a time. I'll try and keep my Clinton remarks brief. Even if it was entirely about perjury, is perjury in a civil case worse than someone defrauding stock holders(many of which have worked hard for years and years and may be on the edge of retirement with their money socked away in that companies funds.)? If we just look at the number of people affected in each case I think the fraudulent business practices affects more people. Again I don't think either of these rise to the level of Iran Contra. Especially considering that we are fighting a war against terrorism, and the country that Reagan gave arms to, is in the 'Axis of Evil'. In fact I think both sides have so many deplorable practices that we could argue back and forth for days. I do find one thing funny. Conservatives like to bring up morality in govt, as something important, or even sometimes the most important quality. Yet I don't remember too many conservatives lining up to sing the praises of Jimmy Carter. When it comes to personal ethics, I think Carter tops them all.
If those enemies are citizens of the U.S. then definitely they can have there civil liberties curtailed. Especially, when there is no trial to label them as an 'enemy of state'. Instead someone can just arbitrarily label someone as an enemy of state. Then strip them of their rights, and try them without the rights guaranteed to Americans in the constitution.
That may be true, but Carter was simply a baaad president - which is why people will not line up to sing praises. Someone might be able to argue that he was decent with foregin policy...but domestic, oh man. Anyway, Carter showed his real benefit as a post-president.
Way to refute my point, Rocketman95. Wait, I think refute's the wrong word there. I meant "miss". Now, quick, post a sarcastic, mocking reply, to let me know you disagree with me. This is interesting, for those of you who were discussing the Larry Klayman issue: More on Judicial Watch going from “conservative,” when it was rarely mentioned by the networks during the Clinton years, to a non-ideological “watchdog group” as soon as it sued Vice President Cheney last week in a filing which ABC, CBS and NBC all highlighted: On the ABCNews.com Web site “The Note” linked to the CyberAlert documentation of the changing labeling of Judicial Watch, CBS News on Sunday described Judicial Watch as “a public interest group,” and Fox News Sunday picked up on the CyberAlert item and showed video clips to illustrate the changing descriptions offered by ABC, CNN and NBC. As reported in the July 11 CyberAlert, when it was suing Clinton officials to disclose information Judicial Watch was always tagged as “conservative.” But when it sued Vice President Cheney on Wednesday, the networks changed their tune as all described it as a non-ideological “watchdog group,” “legal group,” “legal activist group” or “legal advocacy group.” A full rundown of contrasts for ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC: Link Fox News Sunday highlighted how Judicial Watch went from "conservative" to "watchdog" on ABC, CNN and NBC when it sued VP Cheney -- From the July 12 “The Note” by the ABC News political unit, as posted daily on the ABCNews.com Web site, an item which linked to the July 11 CyberAlert article. Friday’s edition was written by Elizabeth Wilner & Marc Ambinder and included this plug brought to my attention by MRC Communications Director Liz Swasey: “The Media Research Center points our attention to a linguistic difference that adds to the collection of evidence we have for what's now termed the Goldbergian thesis: major networks (ABC included) referred to Judicial Watch as a 'conservative watch dog’ during the Clinton Administration. “Suddenly, when Republicans are the target of its watchful eyes, the media refer to the roup as merely a 'watchdog’ or a 'Washington watchdog.’" -- A fresh label delivered by reporter Gretchen Carlson on the July 14 CBS Evening News: “Nor has the Vice President been forthcoming over questions about what he knew of questionable accounting practices at Halliburton, an oil services company he ran for five years. He was sued this week by Judicial Watch, a public interest group, which accuses Halliburton of cheating investors by overstating company income.” -- As part of its “Below the Fold” segment, the July 14 Fox News Sunday featured video clips provided by the MRC illustrating how ABC, CNN and NBC changed their take on Judicial Watch chief Larry Klayman. As host Tony Snow explained in setting up the video excerpts: “Larry Klayman, the litigious leader of Judicial Watch, was scorned by the establishment press when he was suing Bill Clinton. But now that he has filed suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, Klayman finds himself the recipient of strange new respect.” Fox News Sunday viewers then saw these contrasts: * CNN’s Judy Woodruff, March 3, 1998: “Lawyers for THE CONSERVATIVE GROUP, JUDICIAL WATCH, today questioned Clinton adviser, Paul Begala, about the FBI files flap.” versus: Woodruff, July 10, 2002: “The WATCHDOG GROUP said that it was suing Vice President Dick Cheney.” * ABC’s Brian Ross, October 24, 1996: “Larry Klayman, a CONSERVATIVE LAWYER who filed the lawsuit.” versus: Peter Jennings, July 10, 2002: “A LEGAL ACTIVIST GROUP CALLED JUDICIAL WATCH filed a lawsuit today against the Vice President and Halliburton, the energy company he used to run.” * NBC’s Tom Brokaw, December 19, 2000: “The news media, and at least one CONSERVATIVE ADVOCACY GROUP, have restarted the recount.” Anchor Brian Williams, July 10, 2002: “A WATCHDOG GROUP that tormented the Clinton administration filed suit against Vice President Cheney...” Source
<b>Batman</b>: The reason I called it a cheap shot is because you made him sound reckless: denying liberty in the name of a concept. These are real people who (most probably) pose real threats to American lives. You write: "The temporary curtailment of these rights in the name of safety and security is how these things start." <b>Did those things (WWII Internment Camps) end? I think so.</b> So what's the big deal. Maybe, just maybe, it is a damn good thing we have John Ashcroft in his office. I'm all for not over-reacting to the threats of terrorism, but since we really have no idea how many sleepers we may have in the US, I think digging them out now is a good thing. Do you have children to leave a world to? I think that matters. Someday, you are going to have to tell us all about Governor Moonbeam... <b>FranchiseBlade</b>: Don't you think these people are busy enough to not go around labeling innocent people as "enemies of the state" just because they have the power to do so? How many instances have we had? One, I think. He was a street punk who moved abroad and took up citizenship. What was he doing back in the US and not visiting old haunts? Just have to ask. There were about 3000 Americans and others who were permanently stripped of their rights on 9/11. Let's have no such more fiascos.
The fact that most didn't like his presidency is one of the reasons why I think when people harp on character as the most important quality for the president etc. they are making a mistake. I agree that at the time I too thought he wasn't too good on domestic policy. But with hindsight, I actually think he was better than he got credit for. Considering all the recent energy problems in places like California, worry over foreign oil dependency a lot of Carter's energy policies made sense. The problem was that people back then didn't want to hear that they had to conserve.
BrianKagy- Because some called it a conservative watchdog group before and just a watchdog group now might seem to be present a liberal bias. But if we want to just go case by case. I can sit her all day and give cases of conservative bias. How many networks gave any considerable coverage to the story about George W. Bush not showing up for his second year of national guard duty? Almost none. It got mention on MSNBC a few times, but no big deal. Yet, the previous election, Clinton's position on the Viet Nam war received extensive attention from all the networks. In that case there was no liberal bias. I could go on with stories that were ignored or covered in ways that didn't favor the more liberal candidate. Jeff has said it before that the media works for corporate bias. For someone to claim they have a liberal bias only helps them look as if they're outside the mainstream. They aren't. Anything that will cost them the corporate advertising they will never harp on in a negative way, regardless if it's liberal or conservative. Saying they are liberal only makes them seem like they are outside the establishment and more credible than they really are.
giddyup, the fact is that the things he is trying to do DO deny liberty. The in the name of a concept thing is something Ashcroft and the rest made up. I'm just reporting it. The concept they're naming is security, as you said. Sorry. I'm not buying it. In these uncertain times 'security' can be used to justify any initiative, no matter how Orwellian. Did you really just ask what was the big deal with internment camps, since they eventually ended? We are STILL apologizing for that ugly chapter in our nation's history. And now we're doing it again. Arresting US citizens without charging them and holding them for months in the interest of 'security.' And then this business of how maybe it's a good thing we have Ashcroft in office. Like all the people who say thank god we had Bush in office when this happened, like Gore would have rolled over in the face of crisis. I'm further offended that people with children have some sort of high ground in reacting to 9/11, etc. Balkes? Little help here? We are all under threat of terrorism, our friends and families dying and also under a threat to those very most important things about being American. This country would be 'safer' if we adopted ALL the tenets of fascism. Where do you propose we draw the line?
Yes, thank God the internment camps ended. The Holocaust ended too. Hell, even the Trail of Tears ended in Oklahoma. Shoot, even slavery was temporary if you think about it. It was definitely a dark point in American history, which is why it is not commonly discussed. BTW, John Ashcroft used to be affiliated with the KKK. This is the same Ashcroft that refused to fly on a commercial airline after hearing about the 9/11 threats months before.
Brian -- an ineteresting aspect of the Judicial Watch about-face that you didn't point out is how conservatives have also changed their story. An example from David Keene of American Conservative Union (a conservative lobby organization: April 18, 2001 Clinton-basher Klayman targets Bush, GOP Larry Klayman made his name suing Bill and Hillary Clinton every time they turned around. Last week the founder and head of Judicial Watch turned his guns on President George W. Bush and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). They are, he intimates, not much better than the Clintons, and unless they straighten up and fly right he is ready to sue, sue, sue. Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch in 1994 to serve as a conservative “watchdog” over the ethical and legal wrongdoing so much in the news in those days, began suing the Clintons almost immediately, finding the administration what the military calls a “target-rich environment.” Many of his suits came to naught and some have yet to be resolved, but his efforts unearthed more than a little Clinton wrongdoing that others had missed. It was Klayman, after all, who managed to find John Huang and begin uncovering Bill and Hillary’s involvement with “fundraisers” who were, in fact, operatives of the Communist regime in Beijing. What’s more, it was Klayman who stepped forward to take the case of the first Bush administration officials whose FBI files had been illegally transferred to the White House and apparently became bedtime reading for the first lady. Hillary and a few of her cohorts continue to be at some legal risk as a result of this and other Klayman-initiated cases. It’s no wonder that Klayman soon became one of the most hated and admired figures in town. The Clintons and their friends came to despise the man who fast emerged as a watchdog with real bite. Both Clinton critics and Clinton haters came to see him as a hero, a courageous lawyer battling to get at the “truth” that they were firmly convinced would ultimately sink the gang from Arkansas. Klayman basked in his notoriety, became a regular on cable television and built Judicial Watch into a truly formidable operation. The numbers tell the story. In 1995, Judicial Watch raised less than $10,000, but by 1998 the operation was bringing in more than $11 million a year through advertising and direct mail. While others were celebrating the fact that with the election of George W. Bush the Clintons would at last be leaving town, Klayman began hinting that the only reason Bush wasn’t anxious to continue pursuing the Clintons in court was that he was contemplating the same sort of activities. Why else, he hinted, would the new president keep saying he wanted to “put this behind us” when there was so much yet to investigate? Indeed, Klayman began questioning Bush’s ethics even as he was taking office. Things in Washington haven’t changed much, Judicial Watch advertising seemed to be suggesting, but the public should be assured that he and his team of lawyers are still on the job. Then, last week, Klayman held a press conference damning the Bush administration, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and DeLay. They were, he fulminated at a press conference, engaged in the same sort of illegal activity that characterized the Clinton administration. He followed this up with a complaint alleging that an NRCC fundraising appeal represented an attempt to “sell” meetings with government officials and was, in effect, an effort to solicit “bribes.” The charges were, to put it mildly, a stretch, but did represent a Klayman declaration of war on the GOP and the president. Klayman then promised a Judicial Watch “probe” of the supposed “secret deal” that resulted in the release of the 24 American fliers being held by China. “We aim to find out if any secret promises were made to the ‘Butchers of Beijing’ behind closed doors,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. How? By going to court. Cynics suggest that Klayman pursues his watchdog role because he can’t help himself. This, after all, is a man who sued his mother. Others say his motives are suspect in the NRCC-DeLay case because of a business dispute, but if one takes Klayman at his word, he comes across more as a super litigious Common Cause type than as a conservative. Indeed, to listen to him, one is forced to conclude that he just happened to be targeting Democrats and liberals during the Clinton years, but is now ready to go after conservatives and Republicans with equal vigor. He even implicitly took credit for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” vote in the Senate during his press conference attacking DeLay. The question is whether he can get conservatives or others to continue to write checks to his operation while he attacks DeLay rather than Clinton. Whether one likes him or agrees with him, Larry Klayman has now put his future and that of the organization he founded on the line. (David Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union and a Washington-based government affairs consultant.) Isn't it interesting how Klayman went from an ethical crusader to a lawsuit-happy grandstander? Seems like everyone has their own take on the issue...
Ummm...sorry, can't help you on that one. We don't have any children. That's probably part of the reason we're so damn amoral.
Batman and Franchiseblade, When the Iran/Contra situation was exposed, how did Reagan respond? He denied knowledge, but immediately took responsibility and apologized for allowing that to happen on his watch. Iran was not a threat to our national security at that time. When the Communist Chinese were found to be contributing directly to the DNC to help re-elect Clinton/Gore, how did our executive branch respond? With the help of congressional Democrats, they stonewalled all investigations. Even after illegal technology shipments to China were revealed (which gave China ICBM capability), Clinton (AGAINST THE ADVICE OF THE DEPT. OF DEFENSE!!) signed off on a supercomputer that will enable China to target their ICBMs accurately anywhere in the world. Now, which cash poor country is selling this technology to Islamist countries? China- that is who!! Don't even get me started about Clinton and the peril our country now faces because of his whoring for campaign contributions. Countries like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt will become nuclear powers with midrange missile capability during the next 10 years because of Clinton's hunger for Indonesian and Chinese cash. Wait and see, Israel and Taiwan (and the United States, by default) will be pushed to the brink of crisis because of technology transfers traded for DNC contributions. The fact that he would put himself in a position to be blackmailed makes this situation that much worse. We discharge military officers for having extra-marital affairs for a reason! GEEEEZ, when are you people going to get it??????? Oh, I forgot, you will never get it. You don't understand the importance of having a leader who possesses unimpeachable character, honor, and responsibility. It is all the about the economy, stupid? What a joke!! Iran/Contra and accounting scandels don't matter one iota when compared to a morally bankrupt President who left this world a much more dangerous place. He is the only elected President to ever be impeached, and he got off easy. Now boys, have we benefitted from my arguing my case?? Of course not- you made up your mind long ago that facts did not matter.
You misunderstood me, Mrs. JB. I was reacting to the above post from giddyup intimating that people who have children have more at stake in this war on terrorism. But you helped nonetheless. I am also one of the 'unnatural,' 'amoral' childless.
I think there are at least two. Jose Padilla, and the guy that was born to Saudi parents in LA. but hadn't lived in the states since he was a child. The fact that someone may well be guilty doesn't mean the govt. has the right to deny due process of law. In fact by the constitution that the President is sworn to uphold, those people are innocent until proven guilty. In fact due process of law worked to the extreme on terrorist, Timothy McVeigh. Due process of law also has worked well in the first WTC bombing in which the conspirators are locked up. If someone is guilty, then they can be tried without being declared to be an enemy of state, and as the examples I've listed shows, the american justice system has worked well. Anytime citizens start losing rights guaranteed by our constitution, it deserves questioning.
If he is putting his organization on the line for his cause, how on Earth can you surmise that he is no longer an "ethical crusader"? His organization is "on the line" because he may lose conservative Republican contributions. If he were merely "lawsuit happy", he would continue to attack Liberals and keep his current contributor base. Also, you rejected an earlier conservative publication because of their bias. Now that Klayman (the ethical crusader) has decided to attack the current power structure (Republicans), the conservative publications would naturally turn against him. If you rejected conservative bias before, why is it logical for you to accept conservative bias now?
