MSNBC’s poll on impeachment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
Wait till you see the results.
Perhaps if there is a God.
OOH! OOH! Mister Kotter!
Did anybody here read this:
http://rawstory.com/other/conyersreportrawstory.pdf
WARNING: PDF file
It’s the report put together by Rep. Conyers’ staff. I think it’s almost as excellent and well-supported a summary of the Administration’s crimes as the SDMB archives are.
If you care that much about it, feel free to jump right on in there and start polishing some knob.
If the worst case scenario is correct (i.e., that peddled by the professional lobbyists and fundraisers at Center for Defense of Free Enterprise and the Center for Consumer Freedom–google THESE guys and find out what dishonest sleazebags they both are), then PETA has given money to folks who had even less to do with 9/11 than Hussein did. In no way is it appropriate for the government to use 9/11 as an excuse to spy on PETA: if PETA needs spying on, make the case on its own merits.
Daniel
If you’ll bother to read what I was responding to and understand the discussion before you jump in, you’ll find that the PETA surveillance had absolutely nothing to do with the illegal wiretap case.
Your invocation of 9/11 to rebut something it has little do with is charmingly Bush-linke.
Why must you make your points in such an assholish fashion, Metacom? Jesus Christ!
Let me quote from the NYT article that was referenced:
So not only do you make your points in an assholish fashion, but you’re wrong. that my invocation of 9/11 is of-point.
You may be right that it has nothing to do with the illegal wiretap case; but if so, it was off-topic before I got involved. It does have to do with the government’s post-9/11 attitude.
Is it possible for you to debate civilly, or must you rampt the attitude up to 11 all the time?
Daniel
No, I’m not.
I don’t fucking care. If you’ll… Read what I said in context (I know, it’s hard to go back four short articles, but try), you’ll see that what happened was this:
[ol]
[li]Clothahump said: “I have yet to see any indication that the government is listening in on the ladies of the knitting society exchanging cookie recipies.”[/li][li]Atticus Finch said: “Yeah, just on PETA, Greenpeace, and Catholic Workers. Do you read the news or just some right-wing blog?”[/li][li]Now, even though I agree more with Atticus Finch on this issue as a whole I responded with “Well, PETA does have financial links to terrorism …” because Atticus Finch’s rebuttal seemed pretty weak–at least two of the groups listed probably should be tracked by the government, because there is evidence that they’ve been involved with terrorism. [/li][li]Atticus came back with a comment that seemed to indicate he wasn’t aware of PETA’s financial ties to the [EA]LF.[/li][li]I pointed them out.[/li][li]Enter Left Hand of Dorkness, PETA apologist extroardinaire, claiming that PETA gave less money to the 9/11 terrorists then Hussein.[/li][/ol]
Can you see how completely out of place your comments are? It smacks of knee-jerk reactionary idiocy. “OMG!!! OH NOES!!! SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT PETA!! PRESS THE 9/11 BUTTON!! PRESS THE 9/11 BUTTON!!!”.
I wasn’t arguing that PETA had ties to Islamic terrorism. I wasn’t arguing that PETA gave more money then Hussein to the 9/11 terrorists. I was simply suggesting that the government would have more reason to investigate PETA then they would knitting groups.
I was debating (not even debating, really–more just participating in the discussion) civilly until you popped in with your innapropriate 9/11 rhetoric and condescending “gave less money to the 9/11 terrorists then Hussein did” bullshit. This being the pit, I have qualms about going to 11 when I think someone’s being stupid.
Why not?
9/11 made the US government and people more aware that terrorism is a very real threat and as a result steps are being taken to prevent it. Why should 9/11 not serve as an excuse to spy on all kinds of terrorist groups and their supporters?
If I get mugged walking down the street, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to start locking my house up at night with more diligence. This is true even if my house has never been broken into, and the mugging took place far away from it. The mugging serves as a reminder that the world is a dangerous place and that you should take precautions, even in ways that weren’t directly related to that one incident.
Just because a certain terrorist group like ALF or ELF doesn’t have anything to do with 9/11 doesn’t mean that we should give them a free pass. They absolutely should be feeling the pinch of the hightened security that’s resulted from 9/11.
I did read what you said in context. I’ve read it several times, and I get a different conclusion than you do.
Maybe PETA should be tracked by the government. But their increased tracking is because of 9/11, and I was saying that this is bogus. Whether they should be spied on ought to be independent of 9/11, and it’s not.
I was not saying that you were linking their tracking to 9/11. If that’s the conclusion you drew, you were incorrect. And extremely jerkish about it: rather than reading my words carefully, you made an incorrect assumption about them.
You should have qualms about it, but you apparently don’t. I wasn’t being stupid; I was addressing a flaw in government policy that hadn’t been addressed adequately.
Once more: this is a thread about how the government has, post-9/11, engaged in activities that may violate civil liberties. One of those activities is spying on PETA. The government is using authority granted because of 9/11 to engage in activities that are not linked to 9/11. I think that’s dumb.
Clear now?
Daniel
Because it’s an excuse. Why not use it as an excuse to do all sorts of other quasi-related shit too, like spy on organized crime rings or remove appeals rights for murderers? 9/11, after all, made us aware of the danger of organized crime and of murder.
9/11 is a 500 pound gorilla. It gets trotted out to justify all sorts of poorly-thought-out programs precisely because it’s so difficult to object to. What, do you support the terrorists? the argument goes. If you don’t back my program, you’re supporting the terrorists!
If PETA deserves to be spied on, make the case on its own merits. Don’t pull in 9/11, the emotional dynamite, to bolster your argument.
Daniel
Organized crime and common murderers have nothing to do with terrorism, though. I don’t think it’s a stretch to use 9/11 to justify anything related to terrorism, such as PETA financially supporting domestic terrorist groups such as ALF.
This is something else entirely. Maybe this has happened in some cases. We absolutely should be aware of these sorts of arguments. However, that hasn’t happened in this thread. Nobody is accusing anyone of supporting the terrorists.
You are off base on this.
Should the government ignore terrorist activities just because they aren’t directly linked to 9/11? Should they even focus more or less on a given terrorist group based on whether or not it has links to 9/11? I say no. 9/11 made us all more aware of terrorism in general, and as a result we are spending more time and effort on preventing it. We should solely be focusing on which groups present the greatest threat, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.
To do anything else would be reactionary, shortsighted and just plain dumb.
Somebody, don’t recall who, referred to 9/11 as Bush’s little black dress - he can slip in on for any occasion.
A clarification for both of you: I dislike PETA, overall. I think they’re dishonest publicity whores who do more to contribute to the idea that pro-animal people are nutbags and sleazebags than just about anyone else. They have specific programs that I believe are good (the way they point up mistreatment within specific organizations, for example), and if they separated these programs from the rest of the organization, I’d support those specific programs financially; but as they’re part of PETA, an organization I don’t respect or like, they’ll never get a dime from me.
The charges against them of supporting ALF generally appear on far-right sites that obviously have an axe to grind; I neither believe them nor disbelieve them. I do not support ALF or ELF or giving money to either group. If PETA has broken laws in doing so, I support prosecuting PETA for doing so.
What I do not support is a knee-jerk hatred of PETA or a credulity as concerns them in which folks are willing to believe anything said about them or are willing to criticize them without understanding them. When PETA is dishonest, they’re often dishonest in a very calculating manner; if you believe they’re just being stupid, you’re underestimating them.
I’ve said this before, but perhaps not this clearly.
Daniel
ALF does not present the greatest threat: they’ve not killed a single person. PETA represents an even lesser threat.
ALF and ELF should be treated as criminals, but if we’re going to focus on groups that present a threat to human life, there’s like a thousand groups that should come first.
ALF and ELF get focus because of political motivations, not because of the threat they represent. They are useful to anti-environmentalists as bogeymen.
Daniel
You still don’t get it. What you’re saying (that PETA shouldn’t be tracked because of 9/11) is stupid not because it’s incorrect, but because it’s irrelevant in the conversation you injected it into which it appeared. I wasn’t arguing that PETA should be tracked because of 9/11, I was simply pointing out that the groups Atticus Finch listed may be a bit more nefarious then knitting old women.
Since you seem incapable of taking that at face value and feel obliged to draw the “emotional dynamite” of 9/11 into that little side argument, I’m not going to say any more on this issue then that.
Is that an official warning?
BWAAHHAHAHAHA! That’s an “11” on the “irony” meter.
I disagree.
ALF and ELF are organized terrorist groups. They are beyond simple “criminals” and should be treated differently. I also disagree with you on the level of a threat that these groups represent.
However, we don’t need to see eye to eye on everything regarding these groups. My larger concern is your notion that we shouldn’t be focusing on anybody except those related directly to 9/11 regarding terrorism. I think this attidude is shortsighted, weak and dangerous. It makes me nervous to see how widespread it is. John Kerry seemed to think along the same lines that you do about this, and for that reason I’m very glad that he’s not president, despite the many dissapointments of Bush’s second term.
Metacom. I am aware of what you were saying. I have repeated it back to you to show you that I am aware of what you were saying. I was NOT saying that you were linking 9/11 to spying on PETA.
I AM SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ESTABLISHING THAT LINK, AND THAT THIS IS STUPID OF THEM.
Now is it clear?
Daniel
You can bite me as well, Hentor. I’m not backpedaling from anything.
I just love the way you clowns try to spin shit when it doesn’t go your way. Go read my question again. That’s what was asked. Nothing more, nothing less. And nothing to spin here, so move along.
Sigh.
No, Nemo, I am not. As I have said, many times. I am asking where the outrage was for Carter and Clinton’s actions, as opposed to the outrage being exhibited for Bush.