How can an honest person who is not an idiot make this statement? There is no way that one can rationally argue that only one side in a disagreemant is causing the division. This reeks of the sort of solipsism one usually finds only among toddlers.
Spider, hon, you really ought to take the constitutional rights thing over to GD. It’ll probably get a better response there.
Also, posting the same request over and over in the same manner doesn’t really constitute a debate. Really :).
Umm, why would Barking Spider respond to this thread by making a new one in a different forum??? That makes no sense. And, he is putting the same request over and over for a reason. He is trying to point out that no one has shown how all this is unconstitutional and that they are making baseless claims.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
**
That is not what Ashcroft said. Note that the line “critics of the administration’s response” is from the journalist. Ashcroft refered to “those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty.”
A subtle difference. Surely you believe that, in time of war, reasonable people will place some restraints on their own speech. And hopefully, unreasonable people can be restrained by social pressure. All I see Ashcroft doing here is attempting to apply a little social pressure to encourage the more inflammatory types to tone it down a little.
So far I am impressed with the way that this administration has avoided curtailing our rights as was done during previous wars. During WWI a minister received 15 years for telling his congregation that Christians couldn’t take part in the war. And he was only one of thousands who were prosecuted under the Espionage Act.
During WWII Roosevelt established the Office of Censorship. And when the Chicago Tribune violated its protocols he wanted to use the Marines to shut down the paper and charge the publisher (editor?) with treason. His critics were charged under the Sedition Act.
I agree that some recent administration proposals are somewhat “iffy”, but we have survived far worse and I think it is fair to say that we are still a long way from “Fascist” territory.
As an aside: here in California the State Attorney General is able to use records of gun purchases in order to confiscate guns, so I don’t see why the FBI can’t see such records. Do you have a cite for this?
Umm… he is postin the same request over and over to be a fucking dick. People have responded with what is seemingly unconstitutional, violation of lawyer patient confidentiality trashing our right to a fair and speedy trial for example, and his reply is a childish nuhhh uhhh the courts havent determined that.
If you swallow a poison that the FDA hasn’t defined, it doesn’t make it any less poisonous.
minty green is cool. This is basically just a me too post to agree with you. Ashcroft is insane.
It took me 20 years to help pass the “Death with Dignity Act” in Oregon, the one and only state that allows assisted suicide. And guess what the motherfucking Ashcroft is trying to do – overruling the law in Oregon.
Doesn’t this SOB have other priorities or anything better to do for the country than fucking around with a democratically passed bill in Oregon?
I watched the congressional hearings on his nomination. He clearly stated that if nominated, he would separate his religious beliefs from the affairs of the state. Now that he has the power, look how quickly he has become a double-crossing bastard. He is a liar and a threat to our democracy, and should be removed from his post immediately. He lied to the nation to get nominated. The bastard has no right to abuse his power to stop my right to die with dignity. How can we get rid of this asshole?
Uhhhh, get him to move to OREGON 
Umm…none of our territory has been invaded?
Maybe we don’t have the Red Armies marching all over U.S. soil or anything like that, but last I checked, we’re down four big airplanes, several large buildings and several thousand lives.
I agree with a lot of what has been said in this thread about Ashcroft overstepping his bounds, but I also think it’s unrealistic to expect that Americans are going to walk away from the situation without having civil liberties impacted negatively in some way. We all have an expectation that the Constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure on the part of the government, but do we expect that our definition of “unreasonable” isn’t going to change at all, given what’s happened to our country?
Since the tug-of-war between freedom and government’s exercise of power is characteristic of ANY nation, and not just our own, we should be prepared to adjust expectations a little in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I’m not saying we have to let John Ashcroft use the Constitution as his personal roll of Cottonelle, but we shouldn’t expect that we can enjoy the same level of freedom that we did in the days just prior to 9/11.
Phew, I just read this whole thread, and all I can say is…
MINTY GREEN FOR PRESIDENT!!!
That OP just rocked the house. Great use of language.
Okay, I return you to your regularly scheduled BBQ fest.
I’ll have the spare ribs, thanks.
Jet Black