|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
I am in shock.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Shalome
As I read this article, my mouth actually fell open in shock. I have never had that happen before. I am in awe at the depths of hypocrasy, doublespeak/doublethink, jingoism, and the fact that the speech pretty much ignored many distubing events in very recent US history...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/11/ashcroft.ap/index.html
Posted by: Null Actor
I look forward to the Five Minutes Hate.
Posted by: SKYHN
Maybe he will change his song to:
Let the Lord soar....Like hes never soared before...
Im Catholic but I dont go to church or pray. Its just not something I want to devote my life to. I still have freedom. Im about 1000% sure I will never join Al Qaeda. I think Mr. Ashcroft needs to stop spewing religous propaganda. We know terrorists are bad and they hate those that arent of their religion. Religion teaches people to love all, but who really does love Osama besides his Mama?
Posted by: redwench
a religious government figure engaging in hypocrisy? thats never happened before.
Posted by: laborat
Ashcroft is the same person who lost a Senate Race to a dead guy. You tend to get religious or at least superstitious or maybe even political when that happens.
Posted by: Null Actor
I think the dead guy would be doing a better job right now.
Posted by: rockjock
He was addressing a catholic university. What did you think he would speak to?
Political speach and double speak are synonymous and have been for much longer than the term "double speak" was coined.
"Congress meets tomorrow morning. Let us all pray: ‘Oh Lord, give us strength to bear that which is about to be inflicted upon us. Be merciful with them, oh Lord, for they know not what they’re doing. Amen.’"
Will Rogers
Posted by: Shalome
It's not necessarily the religious content.
It's the fact that anyone on the "other side" could be making the same speech.
It's also the fact that he talks about our great freedoms and ways of life that need to be defended, while he and other members of the government have actively pursued ways to curtail some of these freedoms.
Posted by: AltronHGX
Ryoko~~~~~~~` >>;
Posted by: rockjock
 Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
It's also the fact that he talks about our great freedoms and ways of life that need to be defended, while he and other members of the government have actively pursued ways to curtail some of these freedoms.
|
How true. He seems strange to me as he defends the second ammendment but hammers others in the name of terrorism. He, and other politicians, have taken oaths to defend the constitution but apparently only when it is politically expedient.
Posted by: justinious
Quote:
Originally posted by laborat
Ashcroft is the same person who lost a Senate Race to a dead guy. You tend to get religious or at least superstitious or maybe even political when that happens.
|
lol
Ashcroft has been, and always will be IMHO, a tool for the NRA and right-wing extremists. Believe it or not, his rhetoric has been moderate since he became AG.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by rockjock
He, and other politicians, have taken oaths to defend the constitution but apparently only when it is politically expedient.
|
That's always been the case. When people allowed politicians to act of their own free will, and decided to ignore politics, not vote, not participate in any way, they allowed the government to become a self serving corrupt institute.
Posted by: AK47
Man, our lives would be so nice if there wasnt news.
Ignorance is the greatest.
Posted by: rockjock
Quote:
Originally posted by justinious
Ashcroft has been, and always will be IMHO, a tool for the NRA and right-wing extremists. Believe it or not, his rhetoric has been moderate since he became AG.
|
Tool of the NRA? What a load of political propaganda. Ashcroft has taken a stance on the second amendment that is supported by every think tank study, liberal or conservative, that says it is written for the people. Historically, the liberals fund a scholastic study which comes back with a result they do not want to hear. The report is then buried in favor of disinformation propaganda. This is about the only topic I will agree with Ashcroft on.
Yes, I am a NRA member so by your definition I must be a right-wing extremist. So be it. If you don't like the second then I challenge you to change it by legitimate means, as in legislative changes. You know, the law making body. It is a sneak attack to try to change the definition, demonize honest citizens, or getting the courts to do it. The two items that have had the largest effect on crime statistics are truth in sentencing and the concealed carry.
Sorry Shal, I got carried away from the original thread. If one of the mods wants to move this to its own thread, be my guest.
Posted by: Chako
Hmmm...interesting reading. I apologise for the length of this reply, and I haven’t even touched
on the NRA. 
I find it interesting that Ashcroft makes a solid distinction between Christians and terrorist...when the
truth is told..there aren't any.
It is out of pure convenience that a quick label of "terrorist = Muslims" can be made. Generally,
this dubious distinction can be geared towards the idiots of this world. Idiots who think up such
idiocy, and those who soak it up as gospel. He did not come out and say it, however, there is no
doubt in my mind that he was referring to this crass notion.
Truth is, terrorism has always been a tool for the underdog. It is a cheap and effective tool used in
the political scene to garner power and possibly the grand prize of all prizes, political leadership.
One need not look far for this scene. Take a look at Cuba, and at other countries of today.
Furthermore, terrorist of one stripe, are called freedom fighters on the other. The US have been
wont to use them whenever convenient, as with other nations. If one looks at the broader picture,
terrorism and guerilla fighting are pictures of the same coin. Distinctions can be made, but
eventually, the same label can be had for half the price.
We as civilized people like to think the world as black and white. Ashcroft seems to think that
terrorism is cut and dried. He seems to think that Muslims are evil and intent on killing freedom.
Personally, I find the whole notion hilarious. When one digs down deep, it is not religion that is
the root of all evil, although, one can give good arguments for it. No, it is politics. All acts of
terrorism are done for politics. Not religion..but politics. Religion is an easy tool, but the driving
ambition has and will always remain...politics.
The US has used terrorist in the past...for politics. The Middle East uses them...for politics.
Irishman use them...for politics. Many nations have used them..for yep..you guessed it..political
reasons. Religion is there, but I surmise that it isn't the prime factor for terrorism. Ashcroft hints
that Muslims are the prime evil and that the US should batten the hatches and look out for them.
Well, once you blow all the foam off of that keg..you will see that everything has happened due
to politics.
You can note right now that terrorist have also been Christians. Terrorist come in different sizes,
shapes, colour, creeds, and ethnicities. The one thing that links them together though, are ideals
driven by politics. One may surmise that Muslim faith is open to martyrdom and hence are likely
to produce terrorist. And yet, one cannot help but make links to Japanese bushido warrior codes
that enabled suicidal attacks. Western society encountered this fanaticism in WW2. Today, this
would be labelled as terrorism. I am sure of that, for aren't kamikazes pilots terror weapons?
Aren't Palestinians loaded with explosives the same thing?
The distinction that one is ok because they attacked service men, and the other isn't because they
attacked civilians is purely academic. You will note that more weapons were targeted towards
civilians during WW2, then in any other conflict. With this in mind, terrorism does not hold the
distinction it may have had prior to WW2. Hence, the notion that terrorism is only directed
towards civilians is a false concept. More importantly is the horrible thought (at least for us
Westerners), of giving up ones precious life for an ideal. Yet, we see this all the time in India
where people set themselves on fire as an act of protest. Complex world full of complex issues.
Things are never as simple as politicians would have you believe.
Posted by: Null Actor
Yes, but if people believe they are simple, they also believe their government has the solution. Since they believe the government has the solution, they believe the gov't is doing the right thing. Since they believe the gov't is doing the right thing, they are content to ignore it and let it do whatever the hell it feels like.
Posted by: justinious
Sorry Rockjock, it wasn't my intention to lump the 2 together. Let me also state that I am pro 2nd Amendment and also an ex-hunter. My post wasn't meant to offend anyone (except Ashcroft maybe ), and my associating of NRA with right-wingers was solely from my disagreement with thier policies and politics.
Posted by: laborat
I think the NRA is too damn liberal...rightwingers too now that I think about it...EVery person in the US should be required to carry a gun but only after they have killed an intruder with their bare hands..
Posted by: TotalRecall
Leftwingers, rightwingers, liberals, republicans, democrats, tailsniffers,... all masks to cover conformity. Lose the groups, or at least create many more individual groups.
People are no longer fighting for what they believe, but rather blindly following their party.
Posted by: Spork Lover
Im gonna invent a new sandwich that is borderline in the realm of being called a sandwich and call it the ashcroft. he is my hero
Posted by: Shalome
LOL!
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Would you like fries with that ashcroft?
Posted by: Shalome
I'll take an ashcroft on wheat, hold the mayo, extra cheese...
nice sig, laggy...
Posted by: justinious
Quote:
Originally posted by TotalRecall
Leftwingers, rightwingers, liberals, republicans, democrats, tailsniffers,... all masks to cover conformity. Lose the groups, or at least create many more individual groups.
People are no longer fighting for what they believe, but rather blindly following their party.
|
Amen Recall..........
I finally broke my dad's habit of blindly agreeing with Limbaugh.
Posted by: rockjock
Quote:
Originally posted by justinious
Sorry Rockjock, it wasn't my intention to lump the 2 together. Let me also state that I am pro 2nd Amendment and also an ex-hunter. My post wasn't meant to offend anyone (except Ashcroft maybe ), and my associating of NRA with right-wingers was solely from my disagreement with thier policies and politics.
|
Nice of you but not necessary. But the challenge still stands on the 2nd or any other topic. Don't like it? Vote! If your in Chicago, vote early and often. jk. I am conservative but not party affiliated. I see that you note that you are pro 2nd but ex-hunter. I would be interested in hearing your objections to the NRA but probably in a different thread.
The NRA too liberal. lol. Now that I think about it, maybe they are too willing to compromise. Defend the constitution as is stands or work to change it.
Ashcroft sandwich with Limbaughger cheese please. I'm not sure the dog would eat it.
Posted by: JANNA
i dont see any problems with what ashcroft said in that speech. he was speaking to religous nuts so he gave a religous nut style speech. but i would like to know is exactly what constitutional rights of ours have been infringed without due proccess of law??
oh and no quotes from reporters. reporters quoting what other reporters say is not factual the person writing that article said that the govt is abridging our rights in pursuit of the animals that blew up the trade center. he said that without any corraberating evidence. this ammounts to slander or lies. i would lean toward lies aimed at garnering readership rather than slander.
terrorism in my book is bombings aimed at a country where one side refuses to participate in a war. i storngly disagree with bush in calling this a war in that from sept 11 on it allows the osama knuckle dragging crowd an air of legitimacy in future murders. i would never have used the term war and directing it individuals the way bush did.
Posted by: laborat
He couldn't have very well used the term, "Police Action" that wouldnt have gone over... but i agree Janna...war is a little open ended...shoot them all and dont tell us about it is okay with me...People in government these days spend so much time covering their butts its a wonder anything gets done at all....
|
|
|
|
|
