previous post:


Where do you see: NO ONE voted for Bush... are you that dumb????

It was said that nobody was ELECTED ... can you understand the difference ????

Actually, it is not. Rational deliberation leading to a choice founded in your own values can hardly be called cowardice, imo.

That's your opinion, then. To me, an act where you avoid something you fear, that you could face, is a form of cowardice. However, I am not interested in arguing semantics. I think you understand my basic position already.

self interest isn't it?

we can't all choose to be martyrs and sacrifice our life for the 'greater good'

but for those who want to, nobody's going to stop them

The webmaster of RaiseTheFist.com got nailed with the Patriot Act. He spoke out against the government, and they found something to take him down with.

We still seem to be arguing the semantics of "selfish" versus "self interest" versus "cowardice". I think there are more interesting things going on in this thread than that, don't you?

Unfortunately, it's wicked late here. I am headed to bed. I look forward to seeing where the discussion goes without me.

Referring back to the poll...21% felt that the Patriot Act does not go far enough...and 22% felt that it goes to far...one can assume that both pro and con must be informed or they could not make a decision that it goes to far or not far enough. So lets assume for the sake of argument that the 48% majority that are OK with the Paatriot Act are not informed...it still breaks down to a virtual 50-50 split for the informed ones.

The House and Senate are a virtual 50-50 split...the last Presidential election was a virtual 50-50 split...the people pro or con about the Administration is a virtual 50-50 split with the majority of the split favoring the Administration. This is usually pretty much the same way that it is for every Congress and every Administration...with varying temporary fluctuations.

In this country there are three ways to change policy...one become an activist...two stay in touch with your congressman and the whitehouse...third is to vote.

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. One of the reasons for that is that it is important to protect some minorities, even when the majority prefers something else. The Constitution has elements to stop even a large majority from taking this country in some directions. That's why some kinds of laws are illegal. I feel that includes the Patriot act, though only time will tell.

They say the apple never falls far from the tree. This is definitely true in the case of the Bush family. This little story about Dubya's Daddy is quite an eye opener:

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Time and the Courts will determine the legality of some, or all, aspects of the Patriot Act. Congress enacts laws...Law Enforcement enforces the law...and the Courts decide the legality of the Laws.

funny that isn't it

which god?

if it's the christian god, wouldn't that make the US a theocracy?

no wonder they're so interested in the middle east

"my god is better than your god. how dare you believe in allah. here, have a cluster bomb ..."

Wow.

I agree. I just worry about who put the Supremes in their seats. The best hope may be that some day, hopefully soon, the pendulum will swing the other way and we will get people in power who can undo some of the damage. Hopefully before too many people are jailed on trumped-up charges.

It was said that the President was not ELECTED

Main Entry: [3]elect
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin electus
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 : to select by vote for an office, position, or membership <elected her class president>
2 : to make a selection of <will elect an academic program>
3 : to choose (as a course of action) especially by preference <might elect to sell the business>
Synonyms: CHOOSE 1, cull, mark, opt (for), optate, pick, prefer, select, single (out), take
Related Words: decide, determine, resolve, settle; conclude, judge; accept, admit, receive

By definition, Bush was not chosen? You keep calling me dumb, but you confuse yourself with your own posts :1orglaugh

Source please?

But wait, there's more:

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a law- suit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place.
Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?
Murnane: It's bullshit.

Sherman: What is bullshit?

Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.

Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.

Murnane: You're welcome

:glugglug

google.com

use it you lazy fuck

What about upstanding citizens? We're pornographers. And you're a spammer with 8 computers running if I remember correctly. I'm sure using <>< could be considered terrorism under the patriot act.

Google is not a source...it is a search engine.

you don't say?

I remembered the quote from over a decade ago and just used google to find many, many references to it: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...e+not+citizens

but theking couldn't have used google himself? oh no ... that wouldn't have been annoying enough. and he's got to stay in character, otherwise people might start thinking he was pathfinder... ;)

Yes I promote porn, that doesn't make me a non upstanding citizen. I never admitted I was a spammer... I have 10 computers and none of them use ><> for anything and like I said, I can and will adapt or move on. :)

Funny stuff...and a candidate is entitled to an opinion...and even a President.

it does in ashcr<b></b>oft's eyes

do you not understand that?

or are you ignoring the issue and crossing your fingers that it will pass you by and won't affect your business and your livelihood?

Well, I don't see snopes anywhere in that listing...

Absolutely. I'm glad at least he was honest about it.

However, I wonder what the reaction would have been had he used "muslim", "liberal" or "negro" instead of "atheist".

That would be because it isn't an Urban Legend.

It's on the public record. He said it and he obviously believes it.

it does amuse me that 'leaders' in the US consider those who *don't* believe in fanciful and supernatural tales as wrong, and as having a dangerous outlook

funny shit

If Ashhahahahaha or anyone thinks I am less of an upstanding citizen for what I do, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. There's Republicans and Democrats that agree and disagree with him. Until it becomes illegal, I am not doing anything but being morally challenging. As of now, I pay my taxes and I am not breaking any laws. Maybe I stretch the code of ethics and piss off some services, but if you think the whole net should go unregulated, as it already is... you are a fool. Right now, it's basically a free for all. To our benefit for the most part, but eventually it will turn into a nightmare.

This keeps getting better. Earlier you said "I think the net and porn industry on the net do need more policing than there is. If I had a child, I wouldn't want them surfing TGPs as easily as they could." And it turns out you're a porn spammer! How many kids do you think receive your spam? Thanks to people like you the internet will get more policing, but it won't matter to you because you can "adapt to the change".
Why do I get the feeling you are either from Florida or Texas?

What the fuck are you talking about? :1orglaugh I do NOT email spam.

And I am from NY... I guess you didn't read the LOCATION text to the left of my posts :winkwink:

Of course you don't. Those 10 computers you have are simply trying to figure out how to defend Deep Blues a4 Kb3 attack.

If this is what you believe my dear, you are sadly mistaken. I know several people who did nothing illegal, yet promoted "adult content" who were taken to jail, had all their equipment confiscated (NONE of them have gotten it back either), and basically had their lives ruined because of ALREADY existing laws. If Bush looks for a scapegoat, it's gonna be porn, because it's right there and ripe for the plucking. And the incidents I'm talking about were in the states. The shakedown IS coming, it's already begun.

I don't have to defend myself to you... but if you can ever prove that I am an email spammer, I wouldn't deny it. Of course, no proof exists, so you are wrong :thumbsup

Problem is they can take just about anything and twist it to use against you, and it wouldn't take much. I've seen them do it time and again, and no matter HOW smart you are, if they want you, you're going down. In their eyes, you do porn, you are NOT an upstanding citizen. Period.

I'm willing to bet, the cases you mention from existing laws, were violations of local obscenity laws. The Supreme court already ruled long ago, to let obscenity be determined locally. So yeah, there are already one traffic light towns, with bored law officials, cracking down on porn peddlers, using the existing laws. That's old news... and really, nothing we can do about it. The majority will always rule against porn. We can protest until we're blue in the face, but it won't change much. Most of the bad rep porn has received, is from people being bombarded with email spam for it. That's where all the complaints stem from, major ISPs like AOL bringing it up to Congress. It would have been an issue, no matter who was in office, because of that in itself.

LadyMischief:

You hit that on the head! :)

It takes the movement of one sheet of paper from the right side of your desk to the left side... and Ho! We got a conspiracy charge! Couple that with a load of warped Christian fundamentalists running the place and it's the death row walk :winkwink:

To reiterate, porn and internet crimes associated with, are just another example of injustices that already exist, long before the internet ever existed. There will always be something they can twist, just to get a conviction... if they want that person badly enough. There are all sorts of old laws, we have all seen them passed around the net; like "It's illegal to have sex on your lawn, with socks on in certain small towns in Nebraska" etc. If the local authorities or feds have it in for you, they will bring anything and everything to the surface that they can. Do you think the government is going to be able to bring charges up, on every US pornographer? Highly unlikely. There's prostitution legal in Nevada, adult magazines, stores etc ...I truly don't believe that porn is going down in flames.

my :2 cents:
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/