Fuckwit Ashcroft Bludgeons Justice

The BBQ Pit
41

Well, let’s see, you’ve made a sweeping generalization in the first paragraph, with nothing of substance to back it up. Sort of supports my assessment of you, doesn’t it sweetheart?

Secondly, you’re repeating yourself, which again goes to your complete lack of imagination. Why not “ignorant cocksucker”? Has a ring, don’t you think?

Lastly, if Ashcroft and his cronies have their way, I won’t have to leave to find a dictatorship. The citizenry of this country have fewer and fewer choices with each passing month. I would ask that you look at this site for an enlightening definition of the Fascist State by none other than Benito Mussolini:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

It’s too long to quote in its entirety, but in part it says:

Mr. Ashcroft is, in the opinion of many, the embodiment of the pro-fascist politician. The marriage of the State and the corporate world is one definition of fascism.

What does this have to do with the article I posted the link to? The overthrow of a government doesn’t always come with a bang; it comes bit by bit. Citizens of this country wouldn’t allow a sweeping change in government that would deny the Constitutional rights we all hold dear. But bit by bit, nibble by nibble, the likes of this ogre would chip away at those rights under the guise of “national security” until we wake up one morning to find ourselves firmly in grip of a government out of control.

Everything Ashcroft does is suspect, and not just to me. His every move needs to be scrutinized and openly discussed. Did I stretch the article to fit the rant? You bet. And I’ll do it again in the future, if it makes people pay attention and think for themselves.

Now please call me a “stupid motherfucker” again, just to remove all doubt as to your brainlessness. Thanks in advance.

42

I do appreciate the admission. Often, persons who choose to lie to advance their agendas also choose - perhaps understandably - to deny their lies. I expect they feel that the effect of the lie is lessened if followed by an admission of the lie.

You, however, are unruffled by such a possibility. You announce proudly that you lied, and further that you intend to lie again in an effort to advance your agenda.

This makes debunking your future lies easier, in that, in addition to showing the actual lie, I have only to provide readers of your future threads a link to this page, where you have helpfully laid out your commitment to lying.

It is seldom that I’m given such help in the quest to fight ignorance.

  • Rick
43

Chefguy, here’s a shovel. Dig yourself out:

The article you cited says not that Ashcroft got this brand spanking new idea but that it is his job to enforce a new law. As such it is not him bludgeoning justice but Congress, if anyone, doing so.

Unless, of course, your “stretching the article to fit the rant” applies to this as well, in which case I join Bricker in thanking you for hoisting yourself up by your own petard. Makes life much easier for all concerned:)

44

Hmmm…I’m not sure how you arrived at “lier” from what I said in my post. If I went off excessively in my rant (not sure how that’s possible in this forum), how does that take away from what I perceive to be the message of the article, which is that there is a concerted conservative effort to create a blacklist of liberal judges? The enforcement of a bad law doesn’t make the enforcer noble. The “I’m just doing my job” argument has been the cop-out of every morally bankrupt politician and thug throughout history.

45

This forum is on a board devoted to the eradication of ignorance. None of its fora are immune from the requirements to convery a truthful message.

If there is a concerted conservative effort to cerate a blacklist of liberal judges, then you have every right to complain, debate, and, indeed, even rant about it. But the target of your rant should be those actually responsible.

Unless you contend that this law is so morally repugnant that any decent person would resign as Attorney General rather than implement the law, your attack against Ashcroft was either misplaced - in error - or deliberately calculated to deceive.

Your reaction…

…certainly gives rise to the fair inference that it was deliberately calculated to deceive.

While I admit there are people here that need to be encouraged to think for themselves, you’ll find them in the minority. The majority of readers here need only an honest statement of the facts, together with the thesis you believe should be inferred from those facts, to spark a well-informed discussion.

I know you didn’t ask for advice from me, but I’ll offer it anyway: forget trying to rant about Mr. Ashcroft on this issue. Hie yourself to GD, and offer a reasonable proposition about the conservative effort to create a blacklist of liberal judges. You might even title the thread, “Conservatives seek to blacklist liberal judges.” I am willing to bet you’ll get plenty of righteous indignation in agreement, plenty of support of the plan from the conservatives here, and most of it on boths sides on-point and well-informed.

In contrast, this thread has consisted mostly of you being roasted for your apparent inability to tell who’s doing what in government, your unwillingness to admit you may have erred, and your (rather shocking) statement that you’re unconcerned about niceties like the actual facts.

It’s your choice, of course, but I have to say I believe more people might be persuaded by the course I suggest.

  • Rick
46

Well thought-out response and appreciated. I don’t believe that I ever said I was unconcerned about the facts, but won’t argue further. Things sort of went to hell when the personal invective started, and looking back this probably should have been a topic for either GD or IMHO to avoid that sort of thing. Guess I’m done here. Oh, and I misspelled “liar”. Damn!

47

I was all ready to write a well thought out post totally agreeing with this (most especially the first 3 points) but then I read the rest of the thread and have decided not to bother.

So I’ll just say “what Zenster said” and note that this worries the hell out of me as a European because we follow the US lead more often than not. I can’t really begin to imagine how the gay population and non-christians are feeling right now in the US.

48

I have something to say about John Ashcroft supporting States’ Rights. When Oregon made medicinal marijuana legal, he stepped in and said, “NO!” So much for States’ Rights. He is totally anti-democratic, and like his clone Antonin Scalia, the worst thing to happen to the United States since the KKK.

I also have a theory. George II (Long live the King) nominated him solely to appease the Fundamentalist wackos who voted for him. He never expected the Democratic party (especially after what happened in the election) to roll over like contrite puppies and rubber-stamp his nomination. It happened that they did, and we got John Ashcroft. IIRC, it was a close vote, but even so…

What was the Senate thinking???

49

I’m gonna have to side with the law and order types here. (sorry about the characterization)

While I despise Ashcroft, I see nothing wrong here. There are sentencing guidelines for reason. Several, probably. One being that* some* judges would rather send convicted criminals home with a pat on the head rather than sentence them to jail time.

Case in point: The guys that ran on the field and attacked the Kansas City Royals first base coach? They got probation. For attacking a complete stranger for no apparent reason, they gotprobation. (The reason was to get on TV. One of the mooks called his GF before the attack and told her to watch)

I know, I know, this was a state case, not a federal case. But the same reasoning aplies. Some judges need to be looked at.

I will agree that there was no call for the personal insult. But this is NOT a case of our government becoming a fascist dictatorship. It’s a case of the AG doing his job.

50

I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion, and I’m not the only one. This link is a recent editorial that discusses the issue better than I have. http://truthout.org/docs_03/081203D.shtml