Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 5
I've gotten more emails urging me to protest the nomination of John Ashcroft than I have fingers and toes. All I'm asking is, why?.

I didn't get any emails when Waco burned. I didn't get any emails about Ruby Ridge. I didn't get any emails about Elian, except funny "whazzup" jokes. I didn't get any emails about Chinese donations and a certain AG turning her head.

My point is this, here we are coming off of one of the WORST rights violating administrations in history, spearheaded by the one of the worst attorneys general ever, and people are opposing this guy before he's had a chance to do anything.

I'm a little concerned that human rights issues are only an issue when party politics are involved. Do you people really think that Ashcroft can do ANY WORSE than Janet Reno??????????

Heck, even Clinton hated her. I'd like to know how dduncan and other Ashcroft bashers can defend these inconsistencies.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
All I'm asking is, why?

Thread: Ashcroft and Vietnam
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14122295&sort=collapsed

Thread: Ashcroft Bityslaps Kennedy
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14123876&sort=collapsed

Thread: Ashcroft the liar
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14141318&sort=collapsed

There are probably more threads.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
When it comes to individual liberty, perceived right wing zealots don't have any rights. So, from the liberal side, Reno was acceptable because the liberties they were interested in were not infringed. Regardless of whether or not anyone elses liberties were infringed. Unfortunately, both sides seem to selectively define what rights are worthy.

Ashcroft is a scapegoat for the abortion rights crowd that will use any means to prevent restrictions on abortions.

Gore lost. This crowd has now transferred its battle to the Attorney General post because it is thought that this post has influence in Supreme Court nominations.

This crowd is ruthless. They will use any club available, including baseless accusations like those thrown at Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.

Unfortunately for them, the circumstances have vastly improved for the Republicans. During Thomas' confirmation hearing, the Democrats controlled the Senate, leaving Thomas with a razor thin 4 vote confirmation win.

It is virtually assured that Ashcroft will be confirmed because the Senate is marginally controlled by the Republicans. Unless some abortion zealot can come up with a smoking gun, he is in. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to create some sexual harassment story against Ashcroft.

razor.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 39
So, from the liberal side, Reno was acceptable because the liberties they were interested in were not infringed

Is it the right to stockpile weapons and explosives you're concerned about here? The right to break the law? The right to arm yourself against the police when they come to arrest you for breaking the law?

I'm puzzled by which liberties Reno was denying that psycho in Waco.

Now, we women know which liberties of our Ashcroft seeks to deprive us of. We are perfectly aware that, given his druthers, we wouldn't be entitled even to contraceptives. That virginity of unmarried women would be the law of the land, and that married women would legally become mere breeding machines -- of use and of interest only in our capacity to serve as an incubator for a fetus.

We know, as well, that Mr. Ashcroft would prefer that we not have the right to decide for ourselves what moral values we embrace. Whether or not we believe in God. Whether or not our children are indoctrinated into a religious view which we do not share.

We understand completely what kinds of rights Mr. Ashcroft sees no problem with denying Americans who are not like him.

Ms. Reno did her job -- which the Self-Proclaimed Christ Figure of Waco made an extremely unpleasant one. Mr. Ashcroft will doubtless do his job, as he sees it, too. The difference is, he'll be coming after women, minorities, homosexuals, and ordinary Americans who don't share his extreme religious views.

That's not what the job is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about enforcing the law. The people at Waco and Ruby Ridge were breaking the law, and were armed and resisting arrest. I suppose the victims of Mr. Ashcroft will come along more quietly.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe we should just quit on little Elian. Anyone with even half a brain in his head could see the kid belonged with his father.

And if you've done any follow up, you'd know that all the predictions made by the Cubans and Lotts that Elian would be paraded around as a trophy were false. In fact, the Cubans have acted far more maturely about the situation than the evil bastards in Miami, including that deadbeat uncle and the crazy cousin wailing about losing their little meal ticket.

Still, I would accept that a President has a right to an AG of his choice.

But is it true this guy really speaks in tongues?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Ms. Reno did her job -- which the Self-Proclaimed Christ Figure of Waco made an extremely unpleasant one. Mr. Ashcroft will doubtless do his job, as he sees it, too. The difference is, he'll be coming after women, minorities, homosexuals, and ordinary Americans who don't share his extreme religious views.
>>



Your self righteousness is misplaced.

When it comes to law breaking, the left has and does plenty of it, as does the right.

Beginning in the 1960s when the Supreme Court began attacking the criminal justice process and the liberal left the legitimacy of law enforcement, crime mushroomed in the United States to become a real threat to ordinary citizens, especially the minorities and residents of inner cities that the left likes to imagine as its special protectors. It was arguably the rights efforts persistent efforts to control this bad behvaior through additional prison resources and law enforcement efforts that have substantially reduced this infringement of American liberties.

Even today, the left engages in campaigns of subversion and terrorism by animal rights types, World Trade Organization and other protesters who assert a right to use force and violence to advance their political agenda in defiance of the law.

Mr. Ashcroft will have choices to make as to where he deploys the power of federal law enforcement. Certainly, more resources need to be used to root out left wingers who use force to interefere with the civil rights of others who wish to go about their business but are prevented from doing so by campaigns of harassment by left wing political groups.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 36
Waco is a huge black mark on Reno's tenure. I'm fairly sure Ruby Ridge was before her time and she did her job in rescuing Elian from his kidnappers though it seems as if she should have been able to do it with more subtlety.

As for Ashcroft, the concern many people have is the role his religious values have played in his life. I certainly have no problem with a man of faith serving in political office but I think there is a line that can be crossed.

The man apparently believes Jesus speaks to him. He speaks in tongues, believes the Second Coming is upon us, etc. All of these are viewed by some as "faith." I view them as signs of dementia, no different than the man who thinks his dog talks to who wears a tin foil hat to block the signals the government and the aliens are beaming into his head.

Therefore, I question Ashcroft's mental state - I think he may be deranged and unstable. I also fear the effects produced when mental instability and religious belief are combined.

It's one thing to be nuts. It's another to think that your orders are coming from God himself.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The man apparently believes Jesus speaks to him. He speaks in tongues, believes the Second Coming is upon us, etc. All of these are viewed by some as "faith." I view them as signs of dementia, no different than the man who thinks his dog talks to who wears a tin foil hat to block the signals the government and the aliens are beaming into his head.

What's wrong with tin foil hats? I just asked my dog, and he said that the hats work just fine.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But is it true this guy really speaks in tongues?

From what I've read: Yes.
I do wish there was tape of him being 'annointed' with Crisco.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<The man apparently believes Jesus speaks to him. He speaks in tongues, believes the Second Coming is upon us, etc. All of these are viewed by some as "faith." I view them as signs of dementia, no different than the man who thinks his dog talks to who wears a tin foil hat to block the signals the government and the aliens are beaming into his head.
>>


No doubt the Catholic Church felt much the same way about Galileo.

Apparently the narrow limits of tolerance and multiculturalism cannot be stretched to include conservative Christians these days. I suppose that ius why Democratic tolerence and multiculturalism was voted out of office and Repoublican tolerence and multiculturalism is now in power.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
<I suppose that ius why Democratic tolerence and multiculturalism was voted out of office and Repoublican tolerence and multiculturalism is now in power>

wow. one sentence which is unintentionally funnier than all the jokes which have been posted this weekend.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The man apparently believes Jesus speaks to him. He speaks in tongues, believes the Second Coming is upon us, etc.

You're really serious? He does actually speak in tongues? This isn't one of those jokes like Quayle wishing he had studied Latin?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
Apparently the narrow limits of tolerance and multiculturalism cannot be stretched to include conservative Christians these days.

There's a reason for that.

None of my black friends try to convert me to being black. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that I must be black.

None of my homosexual friends try to convert me to being gay. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that I must be gay.

None of my women friends try to convert men to being women. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that all men must become women.

I wish I could say the same of conservative Christians.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You're really serious? He does actually speak in tongues? This isn't one of those jokes like Quayle wishing he had studied Latin?

....Or Al Gore inventing the internet?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<....Or Al Gore inventing the internet?>

Welcome to NADA. If you're going to hang in these parts, you'll need some fresher material.

Check with SP.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
None of my black friends try to convert me to being black. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that I must be black.

None of my homosexual friends try to convert me to being gay. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that I must be gay.

None of my women friends try to convert men to being women. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that all men must become women.

I wish I could say the same of conservative Christians.


Many of my black, homosexual, AND woman friends want to get people to become more tolerant toward others. Treat people like they want to be treated; kind of a Golden Rule kinda thing.

It could be argued that this is the basic belief of "convervative Christians" today, and has been throughout history.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
....fresh material...hmmmm.....like quips about Quayle?

Okay, here's one......

...like Carter wishing he'd studied economics?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
Treat people like they want to be treated; kind of a Golden Rule kinda thing.

It could be argued that this is the basic belief of "convervative Christians" today, and has been throughout history.


So, then, I take it they favor homosexual couples being allowed to marry. They'd like to be treated that way, you know. They'd like conservative Christians to grant them the respect to make their own decisions about whom they love and with whom they wish to share the joys of married life.

I'm sure the gay community is going to be delighted with this turn of events. All this thime they thought the conservative Christians wanted to *prevent* gay couples from enjoying the rights and priviledges accorded to straight couples.

What a happy surprise.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Apparently the narrow limits of tolerance and multiculturalism cannot be stretched to include conservative Christians these days.

There's a reason for that.

None of my black friends try to convert me to being black. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that I must be black.
>>


Oh puh-lease. A great deal of politics is about rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies. The Dems do that, the left does that and so do the Republicans and right.

The hostility and campaigns of discrimination against conservative Christians, the Boy Scouts, corporations of various kinds, The Wealthy, people who wear fur coats or smoke cigarettes or any one of numerous other beliefs, activities groups or whatever waged by left wingers are just as much capaigns of hate and intolerence as anything done by the right.


Much of government is about imposing values on people. Politics is about which values government will impose on people.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<So, then, I take it they favor homosexual couples being allowed to marry. They'd like to be treated that way, you know. They'd like conservative Christians to grant them the respect to make their own decisions about whom they love and with whom they wish to share the joys of married life.
>>


Yes, and no doubt there are Morman men who would like to be able to marry several women. Somehow, I doubt the the National Organization of Women would look with much tolerence on this issue.


Who can marry is a political decision, and always has been. If homosexuals want to change those laws, they are entitled to work politically to that end. But they have no "right" to win.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Who can marry is a political decision, and always has been. If homosexuals want to change those laws, they are entitled to work politically to that end. But they have no "right" to win.

I think you may have missed the point, SP.

Cutter claimed that conservative Christians wish to treat people as those people wish to be treated.

Are you suggesting that what he *really* meant to say was: "We conservative Christians wish to treat people as they wish to be treated provided they can wrest the right to be so treated from our tightly-closed fists?"

Nah. He couldn't have meant THAT.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<Yes, and no doubt there are Morman men who would like to be able to marry several women. Somehow, I doubt the the National Organization of Women would look with much tolerence on this issue. >>

Huh???

Why would the NOW care? Logic would suggest that it is the right-wing Christians who would be most opposed to such laws, not so-called liberal organizations.

I absolutely think Mormon men should be allowed to marry a bunch of women although there could be a reasonable discussion about restricting tax benefits for more than one spouse.

<<If homosexuals want to change those laws, they are entitled to work politically to that end. But they have no "right" to win. >>

If you are speaking from a natural law perspective, this is true. You have no "right" not to be murdered because if you're so weak you let yourself be killed, then tough luck, pal.

If you are talking about "right" as in what is moral and ethical then most certainly homosexuals have a right to marry.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<Apparently the narrow limits of tolerance and multiculturalism cannot be stretched to include conservative Christians these days. >>

As usual, you're ranting on one of your personal issues that has no relevance to the discussion.

I don't care what John Ashcroft believes.

But when we are assessing the merits of a man who can make decisions that impact the course of our nation, I am concerned that the man appears to be mentally deranged. Perhaps he only needs a little lithium to help him stop experiencing his delusions in which he thinks God talks to him or the self-induced fugue states in which he speaks in tongues.

I would not want a schizophrenic or a clinically depressed person to be Attorney General, I would want them to seek treatment. I do not want John Ashcroft to be Attorney General because I question his state of mental health.

Hiding behing words like "God" doesn't make it any better. Tolerance is not an issue. He may well be deranged and I want him treated and carefully studied before he gets to be the chief law enforcement agent of this country.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
He may well be deranged and I want him treated and carefully studied before he gets to be the chief law enforcement agent of this country.

I want him treated and carefully studient instead of becoming the chief law enforcement agent of this country.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
<<. I suppose that ius why Democratic tolerence and multiculturalism was voted out of office and Repoublican tolerence and multiculturalism is now in power. >>

Outside of the fact that Democrats gained seats in the Senate and the House and that Al Gore won the election everywhere except in the Supreme Court, this is a valid, if poorly spelled, point.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
...None of my homosexual friends try to convert me to being gay....

Really? None of them? In my experience, either you have the wrong gay friends or you are seriously deficient in some significant way.

One of the exquisite benefits of having gay friends is their propensity for evangelical conversion. Fess up, you don't really have any gay friends do you. You were just using a literary device to advance an argument, I bet.

My gay friends never stop trying to convert me. Granted, they only want me to convert for a half hour or so at a time, but they do urge me to convert.

Phil



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Outside of the fact that Democrats gained seats in the Senate and the House and that Al Gore won the election everywhere except in the Supreme Court, this is a valid, if poorly spelled, point.

-chris


No actually, and unfortunately, Bush won over two thirds of the country - 30 states to 20 - including Gore's home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas (if there was ever a backwater, redneck capital, this would be it). Bush even won Florida. Is still winning after all the recounts.

Gore should have grabbed onto Clinton's coat-tails like a maniac, but the stupid, mental incompetent and only junior in the contest didn't have the mental capacity to make sound judgements.

As much as I lament the election of Bush, it is marginally better than having the idiot Gore in charge.

Get over it.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
One of the exquisite benefits of having gay friends is their propensity for evangelical conversion. Fess up, you don't really have any gay friends do you. You were just using a literary device to advance an argument, I bet.

Well, you're wrong.

Of course, most (but not all) of my gay friends are male, but the gay women don't try to convert me, either. I've only had one gay friend ever make a "pass" at me, and that was strictly verbal, very delicately-phrased, and my "thanks, I don't think so, honey," response graciously accepted with no harm to the friendship.

I wonder what kind of gay friends you have.

Of course, mine are mostly theatre people. And a few friends I've worked with or taken classes with. But I've never known any of them to pressure any of my straight friends to "convert," if you will. Most of them know perfectly well that one doesn't choose one's sexual orientation, and that "conversions" occur only when the individual already has certain homosexual feeling he or she hasn't admitted to yet.

Perhaps that's what your gay friends perceive in you?

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<Bush won over two thirds of the country - 30 states to 20 - including Gore's home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas >>

Yes but all of those 30 states are the bad ones.

Gore won all the good ones.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ah, Elian...

yeah, send the kid back, who cares. But the point is, even people who felt strongly about it didn't start email campaigns. I only included that because the "wazzup" jokes were funny. I needed some lightheartedness in that thread.

And Alibalibee, White and Ashcroft's main disagreements were on search and seizures in drug neighborhoods. If he really thinks its about race, then let him have his fifteen.

Who cares about Kennedy.

And, I think dodging the Vietnam war is an indicator of intelligence. Every Politician did it to some extent.

Could I please have a real reason why he's worse than Janet "shoot first, questions later" Reno?

There isn't one.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<Could I please have a real reason why he's worse than Janet "shoot first, questions later" Reno?

There isn't one.>>

His delusions and questionable mental health aren't "real reasons?"

Besides, why the comparison to Reno? If she was so horrible as you seem to think (I have no opinion on the matter) why judge the next candidate by her standard?

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
No actually, and unfortunately, Bush won over two thirds of the country - 30 states to 20

Yeah, all the nearly empty ones.

Gore won the popular vote, and was only 1 electoral point behind the magic winning number before Florida.

Without Florida he won more electoral votes and more of the popular vote than Bush.

The number of states won is entirely irrelevant. Half of those states are very sparsely populated, compared to most of the states won by Gore.

Gore was preferred by more Americans than Bush -- that's what the popular vote shows. The notion that a "state" has an opinion is silly. It has a certain number of electoral votes in our system, but a state isn't a human being. Human beings said they preferred Gore. The system got us Bush.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<Human beings said they preferred Gore. >>

Which, I suppose, is kind of ironic.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
... None of my black friends try to convert me to being black. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that I must be black. None of my homosexual friends try to convert me to being gay. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that I must be gay. None of my women friends try to convert men to being women. Nor do they attempt to get it legislated that all men must become women.

I wish I could say the same of conservative Christians.
SLL .....


Get the heck out of town SLL.

You have conservative Christians trying to convert you to being black? and gay? and to be a man?

This is not logical.

Do you mean that AssCrotch wants to make laws that all women will be men?

Or is it just that anyone that disagrees with you is deranged and heartless and mean-spirited?

Is everything narrow and exclusionary in your mind? No room for alternatives?

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
SeattlePioneer: No doubt the Catholic Church felt much the same way about Galileo.
Apparently the narrow limits of tolerance and multiculturalism cannot be stretched to include conservative Christians these days.


cutterjack: "conservative Christians".

I think you missed the quote marks, SP.

For one thing, the Church feared that Galileo was usurping their political, social - temporal - authority. It's precisely why your Constitution takes pains to separate church from state.

For another, as Pat Robertson found out, what brand of Christianity is perceived by certain US dogmatists as being "conservative" (or "fundamentalist")varies wildly from what the rest of the world sees as conservative (or fundamental, or traditional).

As an example, in my country - which may rightly be called a heartland of both Protestant AND Catholic conservatism - his tyupe of creed was seen as not merely radical but only quasi-Christian: supping with Mammon with far too short a spoon, for one thing.

It goes in spades for "speaking in tongues": that's regarded as a small and shaky (or fakey) step away from outright superstition - at the very best best a self-deluding step off the path and into some oddly pagan thorns - by many of the world's conservative (sic) Christians of the main denominations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Besides, why the comparison to Reno? If she was so horrible as you seem to think (I have no opinion on the matter) why judge the next candidate by her standard?

Thanks, that's a good point. Still, I think John is bearing the brunt of the Liberal fury. Be it a "we was robbed" mentality or whatever. But a comparison is fair if only to stop the inane shouting. Who knows, maybe having him in office will make people realize just how stupid the DoJ really is.

It's pretty obvious that the AG position is turning into the "satiate the base" appointment. Clinton picked a "woman" and W has picked a conservative.

I don't know why but people seem to think that Ashcroft will have the power to turn us all over to our alien masters. In reality, his hands are tied.

If you're gonna skewer the Republicans, fine. But for godsakes don't pretend the dems are any better!

War,

...who wouldn't vote for any of these guys.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Get the heck out of town SLL.

You have conservative Christians trying to convert you to being black? and gay? and to be a man?


Can you effin' read?

I said that my black friends don't try to convert me to being black, my gay friends dont' try to make me gay, and none of my women friends try to make men into women.

I implied that the conservative Christians I've encounters throughout my life have without exception repeatedly and without concern for my opinion attempted to convert me to Christianity.

The post used the rhetorical device of parallelism, with which, it would appear, you are not familiar.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<If you're gonna skewer the Republicans, fine. But for godsakes don't pretend the dems are any better!>>

I just don't see what it has to be a choice between the two. I mean, I understand that, in reality, it IS a choice between the two.

But it always seems that the first response conservatives have nowadays to any criticism of a conservative is to attempt to draw some comparison to a past liberal.

Someone like SeattleP can only view the world in terms of a false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative. This bias prevents him from being able to view the world rationally and to understand any of the complexities involved in many issues. When your whole world is nothing but "us vs. them" (or perhaps "me vs. them") you find it very simple to make up your mind on a whole host of matters.

<<who wouldn't vote for any of these guys.>>

Me either. Gun to my head, forced to pick between only Bush and Gore, I would likely have voted for Bush at the time though given the vote now, it would go to Gore.

As a matter of principle, however, I will not vote for any Democrat or Republican. I realize that, in my own way, I'm also making a "me vs. them" decision when I do that but I do not wish to propagate the current duopoly in government.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
It goes in spades for "speaking in tongues": that's regarded as a small and shaky (or fakey) step away from outright superstition

Try thinking about it in the obvious way, conservatives.

If the guy thought he in direct communication (both sending and receiving)with Julius Caesar, you'd be calling him a nutcase.

Because he believes he's in direct communication with God, you're -- what? -- giving him the benefit of the doubt?

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's not what the job is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about enforcing the law. The people at Waco and Ruby Ridge were breaking the law, and were armed and resisting arrest. I suppose the victims of Mr. Ashcroft will come along more quietly.

Actually, these issues are still debated. Waco is a matter of whether they were "stockpiling" or merely dealing arms. There is evidence to suggest the latter.

Waco is also problematic due to a cover up. Several mistakes were swept under the rug by (now Senator) Schumer. For instance, the "child molester" accussations were almost certainly false.

Believe me, these aren't partisan issues. These are issues of whether the gov't has the right to preemptively strike where they BELIEVE a law has been broken. Sending in a strikeforce may have invoked a reaction that our gov't had, up to Reno, avoided in these situations.

So, when people construct sinister reasons for those invasions, they are merely acting out a logical scenario. The truth probably has something to do with an inept AG and a political machine that covered her sorry ass.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Now, we women know which liberties of our Ashcroft seeks to deprive us of. We are perfectly aware that, given his druthers, we wouldn't be entitled even to contraceptives. That virginity of unmarried women would be the law of the land, and that married women would legally become mere breeding machines -- of use and of interest only in our capacity to serve as an incubator for a fetus.

This is a separate issue, and needs to be addressed as such.

First, How can Ashcroft deprive you of these rights? Where and when has he tried to deny contraceptives? The man's a politician. He was governor of Missouri, and I remember having lots of premarital sex during those days, ah.... fond memories.

This position is as reactionary as the idiots who stand outside abortion clinics. What's particularly frightening is that this is the only real difference between the two parties. If people cared as much as 1/4 about the environment as they do about this, then something would get done.

we're screwed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This crowd is ruthless. They will use any club available, including baseless accusations like those thrown at Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.

Uh, for the record, I believe Anita Hill.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Someone like SeattleP [sic?] can only view the world in terms of a false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative. This bias prevents him from being able to view the world rationally and to understand any of the complexities involved in many issues. When your whole world is nothing but "us vs. them" (or perhaps "me vs. them") you find it very simple to make up your mind on a whole host of matters.

yeah, but I think those quotes attributed to Seattle were falsified. Chances are he never gave that great speech.

What a great world we live in.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And Alibalibee, White and Ashcroft's main disagreements were on search and seizures in drug neighborhoods. If he really thinks its about race, then let him have his fifteen.

I'm a bit bemused by this response. You asked a question. You attribute to me a stance I don't recall associating myself with. You weren't a name I recalled seeing on this board, so I just thought I'd point you towards some of the Ashcroft threads (containing arguments both pro and con, where I think I may have once asked a question) so that the same old arguments wouldn't get rehashed yet again, at least, not today.

I should know better, I should.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And Alibalibee, White and Ashcroft's main disagreements were on search and seizures in drug neighborhoods. If he really thinks its about race, then let him have his fifteen.

I'm a bit bemused by this response. You asked a question. You attribute to me a stance I don't recall associating myself with. You weren't a name I recalled seeing on this board, so I just thought I'd point you towards some of the Ashcroft threads (containing arguments both pro and con, where I think I may have once asked a question) so that the same old arguments wouldn't get rehashed yet again, at least, not today.

I should know better, I should.


ok, maybe a disclaimer would've helped.

I did assume that you put some stock into the race issue.

my mistake.

War,

...who hates rehash too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
alchook got to the core of it, when he asked:
But is it true this guy really speaks in tongues?

I too, believe a President should get his AG. I don't like him, and be more politically active because of him, and I suspect the GOP will eventually suffer because of him, but a President can make his own mistakes.

But this tongues thing. Ignore the rest of this if tongues is really a manifestation of the presence of a real and active Holy Spirit. I don't believe it is, but I could be wrong. If I am, I'm obviously wrong about what follows.

Let's say there is no manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This means the people who speak in tongues are doing something they choose to do. The ones speaking in tongues are the ones creating the effect. And they do it, to put on a show. If it's not real, the people speaking in tongues are willing to set aside their personal integrity to appear more holy or spiritual than others. They are willing to lie in front of others, to gain advantage.

I don't want a person like that making the ultimate decision over who will be prosecuted and who will not, among other things.

Either tongues is a real phenomenon or it isn't. If it isn't, Ashcroft is not just a liar, he's a liar who manipulates others with his lies.

Rick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
SP said:
No doubt the Catholic Church felt much the same way about Galileo.

But SP, Galileo was right. Big difference.

Rick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Hiding behing words like "God" doesn't make it any better. Tolerance is not an issue. He may well be deranged and I want him treated and carefully studied before he gets to be the chief law enforcement agent of this country.
>>


Labeling people you disagree with as "sick" is a common device used by the intolerent to justify their views. What evidence do you have that Ashcroft is sick other than your own opinion?


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What's particularly frightening is that this is the only real difference between the two parties. If people cared as much as 1/4 about the environment as they do
about this, then something would get done.


May I assume that, as a man, you're not terribly worried about getting pregnant?

I care as much about the environment as I care about abortion rights. These are both issues which affect quality of life and which -- eventually -- will impact in direct ways on issues of life and death.

There are a lot of issues people can be passionate about. It isn't necessary to limit one's passions to one cause.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Could I please have a real reason why he's worse than Janet "shoot first, questions later" Reno?
>>


The left generally approved of the people Janet Reno had shot, and is afraid that Ashcroft will have their friends and political allies shot, instead.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I did assume that you put some stock into the race issue.

my mistake.


Well, as it happens, I do. I despise racism. But I don't think I've expressed an opinion on how Ashcroft (or White)fit into what stock I put in it.

That's mostly because before the election I'd never even heard of Ashcroft. I think my contribution was more or less to offer up an example of what we read about him furth of the US, and to read what various people were saying - and the news features and Ashcroft quotes and reported proceedings which they have cited in these threads.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
<<What evidence do you have that Ashcroft is sick other than your own opinion? >>

He speaks in tongues.

He thinks God has spoken to him.

This is evidence of a man who experiences delusions. Therefore, I question his mental state.

I would feel the same if he said that he speaks to Elvis every day or that aliens kidnap him every night and force him to have sex with cows.

Calling your delusion "God" doesn't make it any less of a delusion.

I am not certain that he is mentally ill but I strongly suspect it from the evidence currently available to me. I think the same about historical figures such as Joan of Arc.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Either tongues is a real phenomenon or it isn't. If it isn't, Ashcroft is not just a liar, he's a liar who manipulates others with his lies.

Rick,

I don't think these are the only two possible explanations for the behavior.

Mass hypnosis and mass hysteria are well-documented phenomenon, as well. People who are needy, highly-emotional and looking for guidance in the world are very suseptible to these kinds of group hallucinatory experiences.

Many of the people who engage in this sort of behavior actually believe that they're in direct communication with God.

As I said before, if it were Charlemagne or Thomas Jefferson they thought they were in direct communication with, people would see this for the hallucinatory experience it most probably is -- for some of the participants, at any rate.

It is, however, possible that Ashcroft isn't deceiving himself into believing that he's in direct communication with the Almighty, but is, as you suggest, merely deceiving others about what he's actually experiencing during these events.

In either case, I'm convinced that he is not in direct communication with God, and that whichever of the two scenarios obtains, the fact of his participation is proof that he's either emotionally unbalanced or -- as you hold -- manipulative to the point of being sinister.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
What evidence do you have that Ashcroft is sick other than your own opinion?

He speaks in tongues. Either sick or a pandering liar.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Perhaps that's what your gay friends perceive in you?

Actually, I am quite comfortable with my sexuality and orientation and friends. And my gay friends are the best type of gay friends and the best friends, period. And they are not limited to theatre types. They are everywhere. But thanks for your usual inflexible slur towards anyone different than you.

As for AC and SLL, the "empty states" and "unimportant ones"? 3 of these empty, unimportant states produced Gore, Clinton, Carter and King among others. Thanks for the dismissal of half the country that is not you. But, no, it is all about you, isn't it?

Too bad you are still so bitter and deeply in denial.

Since Clinton, the Democrats have lost the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. I'd like to believe that the SC is "non-denominational" despite the fact that you don't like some of their decisions. There could be a reason for this. Maybe you are getting as intrenched and out of step as Newt. Get over it.

No wonder the country is glad to be rid of Clinton Gore - despite how popular Clinton is.

SLL & AC
Blah, blah, blah...electoral/popular vote...
You whiners. What a bunch of babies. Have you read the Constitution? Then you would know that the States do have an opinion. If you can't live with it, pass an amendment to discard the Constitutionally established Electoral College. Perhaps it was established expressly for a situation like this. Expressly to prevent the unimportant people, as you call them, from being railroaded by the powerful important people, located in small pockets of the country at large? Absent that....Get over it. It is nothing but whining. Do something constructive and quitcherbitchin, itchbay.


SLL - it may serve you well to remember at times like this, that "with one rather insignificant exception, the universe is entirely filled with 'others'."

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<As an example, in my country - which may rightly be called a heartland of both Protestant AND Catholic conservatism - his tyupe of creed was seen as not merely radical but only quasi-Christian: supping with Mammon with far too short a spoon, for one thing.

It goes in spades for "speaking in tongues": that's regarded as a small and shaky (or fakey) step away from outright superstition - at the very best best a self-deluding step off the path and into some oddly pagan thorns - by many of the world's conservative (sic) Christians of the main denominations. >>


Galileo was attacked by the church because his scientific discoveries challenged conventional church doctrine. Ashcroft is being attacked because his unpopular views challenge the present day conventional wisdom of secularism.


The left wants to legitimize the political theories and values of its political allies and demonize the views of its political opponents. The right would prefer to do the reverse. What's new?

Government is about forcing people to accept certain values and theories by force, and politics is about which values will be forced on people by government.

Only libertarians can claim to be really tolerent, in that they oppose using government to impose values on people by force.

But in general, both left and right want to impose their views on others. They only disagree about WHICH values should be imposed.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Since Clinton, the Democrats have lost the Presidency, the Senate, and the House.

Haven't you heard? The Democrats gained seats.

Wait till 2002.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You whiners. What a bunch of babies.


I read your profile, and I think quite possibly you are the rudest person to have come on this board in quite a while.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In either case, I'm convinced that he is not in direct communication with God, and that whichever of the two scenarios obtains, the fact of his participation is proof that he's either emotionally unbalanced or -- as you hold -- manipulative to the point of being sinister.

There's another alternative: he doesn't believe he's in direct communication with God, but he sees such claims as entirely - and merely - conventional.

Maybe he doesn't actually expect anyone to believe it any more than he does himself. It's maybe nothing much more than a phatic assertion of respectability and moral authoritativeness, the sort of political requirement people from other less colourful subcultures satisfy just by doing photo-ops on the church steps of a sabbath and reciting some platitude about being against sin.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Either tongues is a real phenomenon or it isn't. >>

Glossolalia is certainly a real phenomenon.

While there are surely some people who fake it, there are just as surely people who genuinely experience this state of consciousness.

Glossolalia sounds like nothing more than gibberish - it is not, as the Greek name suggests, a combination of different languages. It is a non-language that appears to have little, if any, inherently logical structure to it. Some of the faithful believe it may be the language of heaven.

Those who speak in tongues do not seem to understand what they are saying and usually don't have any memory of the experience either.

We know people are capable of entering different states of consciousness based on varying cues so the phenomenon of glossolalia is not necessarily so unusual that one should suspect its proponents of being intentionally deceitful.

Here's one link I got from google.com that seems informative.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues.htm

<<One analytical study of glossolalia was performed by an unknown person or persons. (16) An individual's ecstatic speech was tape recorded and played back separately to individuals who believed that they had received the gift of interpreting. Their interpretations were quite inconsistent. e.g. one said that "the utterances referred to a prayer for the health of someone's children." Another interpreted the speech as "praising God for a recent and successful church, fund-raising effort." It is obvious from that study that those particular interpreters were unable to understand the glossolalia. However, they were probably not conscious of that fact.>>


-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<As for AC and SLL, the "empty states" and "unimportant ones"? 3 of these empty, unimportant states produced Gore, Clinton, Carter >>

Thank you for proving my point.

<<Thanks for the dismissal of half the country that is not you. >>

Welcome to NADA.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<I read your profile, and I think quite possibly you are the rudest person to have come on this board in quite a while. >>

That sounds like a challenge to me.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

Is it the right to stockpile weapons and explosives you're concerned about here? The right to break the law? The right to arm yourself against the police when they come to arrest you for breaking the law?

I'm puzzled by which liberties Reno was denying that psycho in Waco.

==========================
On February 28, 1993, a team of agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) launched an assault on the premises of a religious community called Mount Carmel, outside Waco, Texas, occupied by a sect called the Branch Davidians, led by a man named Vernon Howell, who had assumed the name David Koresh. This was followed by a takeover of the operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Hostage Rescue Team and a 51-day standoff, which ended in an assault on the premises on April 19, 1993, and a fire in which 76 of the occupants died, including many women and children.

Yeah, those meddling kids, stockpiling weapons and defying the police like that! They sure deserved it.


Every time I think the Repubs have the bigger morons on this board, I read a post like the one above.

cheers,
Naj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
We know people are capable of entering different states of consciousness based on varying cues so the phenomenon of glossolalia is not necessarily so unusual that one should suspect its proponents of being intentionally deceitful.

The New Testament explicitly states the tongues should not be heard in a gathering unless correct interpretation is also present in the gathering.

Tongues is either a spiritual truth or a lie. Whatever you want to call it, mass hypnosis or hysteria, it's still a lie, motivated by a lack of integrity.

Rick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Galileo was attacked by the church because his scientific discoveries challenged conventional church doctrine.
Galileo was attacked by the church because his scientific discoveries challenged church power.

. Ashcroft is being attacked because his unpopular views challenge the present day conventional wisdom of secularism.

And Ashcroft is being attacked because his unpopular views are thought to be racist, misogynistic, homophobic and contrary to the American love of liberty: and because people think his religious pontifications are at best deluded and more probably deeply dishonest.

I was under the impression that secularism in politics is not a new concept in the US.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<I said that my black friends don't try to convert me to being black, my gay friends dont' try to make me gay, and none of my women friends try to make men into women.

I implied that the conservative Christians I've encounters throughout my life have without exception repeatedly and without concern for my opinion attempted to convert me to Christianity.
>>


The black political agenda is to get everyone to vote Democrats into office, for the government to adopt policies and subsidies that will give blacks proportional representation in the economy and higher education, among other things. They desire to use the force of government to enforce these social policies.


The gay rights establishment wants to use government to promote the idea that homosexuality is just as good as and just as desireable as, heterosexuality, and to punish those like the Boy Scouts, who disagree with these views. They also want special access to health care facilities to treat AIDS and other illnesses to which homosexuals are peculiarly susceptible.


Women want government to prevent employers from recognizing that women have, statistically speaking, less of a commitment to the labor force and full time, long term employment than men. The rational preference that employers may have to hire men and pay a wage premium to get them, must therfore be suppressed by government action.


So yes. In all these cases we have government using force to impose the values of animated special interest groups. And these political interest groups are trying to force certain values on society as surely as conservative Christians are trying to do the same thing.

Only the values are different. Both aim to use government to impose certain view and suppress others.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<As for AC and SLL, the "empty states" and "unimportant ones"? 3 of these empty, unimportant states produced Gore, Clinton, Carter >>

"States" are nothing more than collections of people within artifically-defined geographical areas.

Some geographical areas have more people than others do.

Geography doesn't have a political point of view. People -- individual people -- have political points of view. Not surprisingly, some geographical areas contain more people of one point of view than another. That fact doesn't give the geographical area any more importance than any other geographical area.

The people, (at least all those whose votes were actually counted) preferred Gore over Bush. Except for our arcane notion of "states' rights," the geography is irrelevant.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Some other facts on Reno:

'Finally, despite David Koresh's pledge to surrender upon completion of his written explanation of the meaning of the Seven Seals, the FBI and the U.S. military attacked. At dawn on April 19, 1993, and throughout the morning, tanks rammed holes in the main building and pumped (in the FBI's words) "massive amounts" of CS gas into the building, despite knowing that inside were more than a dozen children. The tanks demolished parts of the compound and created tunnels for the wind to blow through. The buildings at this point were saturated with inflammable CS gas and spilled kerosene.

Around midday two U.S. military pyrotechnic devices were fired into the main building, igniting a fire which (because of the holes in the walls allowing the wind to gust through) spread rapidly through the complex of buildings and became an inferno. 74 men, women and children died — including twelve children younger than five years of age. Some people died from gunshots (a possible exit from the fire appears to have been raked with automatic gunshot fire) and some died from the effects of cyanide (produced when CS gas is burned).

Fire trucks were prevented by the FBI from approaching the inferno. After the compound had burned down the BATF flag was hoisted aloft to signify 'victory'. Subsequently the burned-out ruin was razed in an attempt to remove all evidence of this premeditated murder of innocent civilians by agents of the U.S. government. Thus occured an atrocity which many Americans believe could never happen in their country. A look at the evidence presented in the film Waco: Rules of Engagement (and in the BBC documentary broadcast in the U.K. on November 28, 1998) shows that it did happen.'

Yeah, even Ashcroft is better than Janet.

Naj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Only the values are different. Both aim to use government to impose certain view and suppress others.

Tell me something, do you think there is anything that has the quality of "the right thing"? Do you ever take a stand on anything?


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<The New Testament explicitly states the tongues should not be heard in a gathering unless correct interpretation is also present in the gathering.

Tongues is either a spiritual truth or a lie. Whatever you want to call it, mass hypnosis or hysteria, it's still a lie, motivated by a lack of integrity.>>

I disagree.

I think it is a real effect experienced by some people in the throes of religious fervor, just like visions of God. Malcolm X, for example, believed he experienced a vision of the Elijah Mohammed while he was in jail. I believe he is being truthful when he says that - but that he was in a delusional state.

When I was experiencing an intense state of grief, I had many powerful auditory hallucinations. I would hear a key clicking in the lock of the front door and the sound of the faucet in the bathroom turning off, causing the pipes to rattle. The sound felt very real to me and I had a difficult time shaking the belief that they were real.

I don't doubt that many people do fake glossolalia - there is one TV evangelist whose name I can't recall who often speaks in tongues on air and it seems clear to me he is faking it and rather poorly too.

I have also seen clips of "real" glossolalia and I don't think those people are faking it at all.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<This crowd is ruthless. They will use any club available, including baseless accusations like those thrown at Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.>>

Uh, for the record, I believe Anita Hill.


I don't believe her. Not one bit.

For the most part, people like what Thomas was being accused of have a pattern of bad behavior. It is seldom an isolated event or victim (though, granted, it could be). In a situation like that, you expect people to come out of the woodwork, once one brave individual has the intestinal fortitude to come forward.

I do not believe Anita Hill is that brave individual.

Where are the others?

Look at that ayehole Packwood. Dozens come forward. Same with Kennedy, Clinton, Bob Barker. Almost always there is a pattern for these people.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Someone like SeattleP can only view the world in terms of a false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative. This bias prevents him from being able to view the world rationally and to understand any of the complexities involved in many issues. When your whole world is nothing but "us vs. them" (or perhaps "me vs. them") you find it very simple to make up your mind on a whole host of matters.
>>


I make the "us vs them" point to make it clear that both the left and right want to impose their values on others.

But there is a lot of room for difference in how that is done.


Aristotle recommended that those in power not give in to using force to persecute their political enemies or opponents. He recommended that democrats govern to protect the wealthy and their property, and that oligarchs protect the common people from exploitation and oppression. These are wise political strategies.


Indeed, American government follows these ideas to a signficant extent. We don't throw political opponents in jail or cut off their heads. We don't close the newspapers of the political opposition. We generally try to be reasonably decent to people even when we are using government to oppress them.


So, in my view, while left and right DO use government to oppress their opponents, it is usually done with a certain moderation and respect for our opponents that treats them as fellow citizens whose behavior will be compelled to change in certain respects, rather than enemies to be destroyed.

That is a HUGE difference, and reflects a tolerence of diversity by both left and right that deserves real respect.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Because he believes he's in direct communication with God, you're -- what? -- giving him the benefit of the doubt?

SLL >>


Of course! Hell, (pardon the pun) most people throughout history have thought they or their leaders communicated with God, one way or another.


If the left wants its faith in global warming theory to be tolerated, surely it should respect Ashcroft hearing from God. Both have A LOT of similarities in my view.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
My gay friends never stop trying to convert me. Granted, they only want me to convert for a half hour or so at a time, but they do urge me to convert.

I have a hard time believing that.

I have NEVER been hit on by a gay man - and of course over the years I have known many. No one has ever mistaken me for a homosexual, and the homosexuals have left me alone.

If you are getting hit on, perhaps it is because they think you are one of them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<If the left wants its faith in global warming theory to be tolerated, surely it should respect Ashcroft hearing from God. Both have A LOT of similarities in my view. >>

I don't think they are even remotely similar.

If the global warming theory is a poor one, it would merely be an example of bad science and lazy thinking, not sympomatic of a person given to frequent delusional states.

Of course, bad science and lazy thinking are dangerous things too.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
The gay rights establishment wants to use government to promote the idea that homosexuality is just as good as and just as desireable as, heterosexuality,

Actually, they want to promote the idea that they should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Which they should. Inasmuch as this country purports to claim that all men are equal under the law.

This isn't a matter of "views." This is a matter of rights, guaranteed by the Contitution, enjoyed by some and denied to others.

Your constant refrain of "that's what politics is all about" presumes that individuals have no rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The fact that some rights have been oftendenied to minorities and women and that minorities and women have had to fight to have the rights which the Constitution guarantees acknowledged and defended by the government -- one of whose jobs is to see to it that our rights are acknowledged and defended -- doesn't mean that the rights aren't real, and that the rights are merely "points of view" some group is attempting to impose on another group.

The rights exist. They are "inalienable," even though men try to alienate them. Women had the moral right to the vote long before men were forced into acknowledging this moral right and to cease denying it. Your position seems to be that -- as AC pointed out -- no one has the right not to be murdered unless they can get that right specifically legislated. That no one has the right to be free to do anything unless that right is specifically legislated through political action.

That's a very dangerous point of view. I'm glad that the Constitution didn't make that point of view the law of the land, instead of it's precise opposite.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
His delusions and questionable mental health aren't "real reasons?"

Mob psychology, perhaps?

Some fundamentalist sects take this "speaking in tongues" very seriously. They convince themselves they are doing it.

If Ashcroft is actually doing it, it does not suggest at all that he is demented or disturbed. It merely suggests that he is one of a group that indulges in that particular ritual and is convinced of its validity.

Why not rag on Catholics for "ritual cannibalism"? Yes, it has been done, but the religious requirement that a Catholic believe that he/she is consuming the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ remains. It doesn't stop catholics from achieving high office.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you are getting hit on, perhaps it is because they think you are one of them.

Perhaps. Is there something wrong with that?

Or maybe I'm attractive to them?

Or, with you as an example, perhaps I am not abhorent to them?

I do not find you attractive. And you do not know if I am male or female. You do not know if I am straight or gay. Do you?

I suspect your are seldom "hit on" by anyone. Am I right?

Me? I am flattered by being "hit on". I am hit on frequently.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Either tongues is a real phenomenon or it isn't. If it isn't, Ashcroft is not just a liar, he's a liar who manipulates others with his lies.
>>


My guess is that you underestimate the effects of religious passion on human experience and behavior. Remember that evcen Joseph Stalin trotted out religious icons in front of the Red Army to stir up improved military performance.

Asd an atheist, I havce to recognize the fact of religious faith in almost all societies throughout history. There is no agreement on WHAT god or gods exist, but there is near universal agreement that some god exists. While I disagree with that assertion, there MUST be something deep in the human mind that tends to believe in God. I see no reason to doubt that Ashcroft can honestly speak in tongues, even if the tobgues are created in his own mind out of his religious beliefs.

I see no reason to suppose that Ashcroft is either "sick" or dishonest.



Seattyle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I'm puzzled by which liberties Reno was denying that psycho in Waco.

The fact that Vernon Howell/David Koresh has become a poster boy to many in the right is pretty incredible.

Were there mistakes made during the siege by those in charge?

Most probably.

Should the actions of the government agencies be called into question?

Yes.

However, the post-fact sanctification of Howell/Koresh is disturbing. The guy was a dangerous megalomaniacal nutcase, and just as much blame needs to be placed at his feet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I have NEVER been hit on by a gay man - and of course over the years I have known many. No one has ever mistaken me for a homosexual, and the homosexuals have left me alone.

If you are getting hit on, perhaps it is because they think you are one of them.


Jim, it's happening again.

We agree.

My experience exactly.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah, all the nearly empty ones.

EMPTY? The lands of the Grand Canyon. All the food producers. All the raw material producers. The forests, the lakes, the mountains, the valleys.

The wildlife. Yellowstone. The "amber waves of grain".

The number of states won is entirely irrelevant. Half of those states are very sparsely populated, compared to most of the states won by Gore.

With an urbanite attitude like that, I am grateful that the Founders came up with an electoral college system.

Gore was preferred by more Americans than Bush -- that's what the popular vote shows

No it doesn't. What it shows is that within the margins of error associated with our voting system, the election was a tie.

Gore won the cities. Bush won everything else.

Should the cities dominate the political landscape completely? The electoral college prevents that outcome, and its converse. Wisely, I think.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I implied that the conservative Christians I've encounters throughout my life have without exception repeatedly and without concern for my opinion attempted to convert me to Christianity.

Sounds like you don't keep very good company. I have known a lot of conservative christians over the years.

Almost all of them have at one time or another sounded me out. They heard my response (which was polite, but very definite). None of them tried again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The fact that Vernon Howell/David Koresh has become a poster boy to many in the right is pretty incredible.. . . The guy was a dangerous megalomaniacal nutcase, and just as much blame needs to be placed
at his feet.


Well said.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<<<What evidence do you have that Ashcroft is sick other than your own opinion? >>

He speaks in tongues.

He thinks God has spoken to him.

This is evidence of a man who experiences delusions. Therefore, I question his mental state.
>>


It doesn't sound as if you are a person trained in making a medical diagnosis. I haven't seen any such person question Ashcorft's sanity in the press. And I therefore suggest that your opinion is unqualified and probably mistaken.


I recall the 19th century religious group, "The Shakers" whose religious spirit led them into being controlled by God in their dances. I see no reason to believe that this was mass psychosis.


I think you merely underestimate the capacity of human beings to have various kinds of religious experiences. Because you underestimate that capacity, you appear to be ready to persecute other people, Ashcroft in particular, whose religious ideas are outside your own narrow experience.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yeah, all the nearly empty ones.

EMPTY? The lands of the Grand Canyon. All the food producers. All the raw material producers. The forests, the lakes, the mountains, the valleys.

The wildlife. Yellowstone. The "amber waves of grain".


But with fewer people.

Raw materials, forests, lakes, mountains, valleys, wildlife, Yellowstone, and amber waves of grain do not vote.

People vote.

More people voted for Gore than for Bush.

Texas didn't cast a vote at the ballot box -- it cast its votes in the electoral college. At the ballot box, Gore won easily.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<In either case, I'm convinced that he is not in direct communication with God, and that whichever of the two scenarios obtains, the fact of his participation is proof that he's either emotionally unbalanced or -- as you hold -- manipulative to the point of being sinister.
>>


As an atheist, I think he is merely mistaken.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Either tongues is a real phenomenon or it isn't. If it isn't, Ashcroft is not just a liar, he's a liar who manipulates others with his lies.

or he has convinced himself...

And even if he is a manipulating liar, then what does that make him?

A politician, of course!

TA DUM-DUM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I read your profile, and I think quite possibly you are the rudest person to have come on this board in quite a while.

I think you give me way too much credit. There is nothing rude in my profile.

I have read your profile and quite a few of your posts.

All I can say is, I am perhaps being rude on purpose. I can perhaps choose to be so or not.

Can you claim the same for your vapidity?

Me too wears very thin, very quickly when you have nothing original to contribute.

Go ahead.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Only libertarians can claim to be really tolerent, in that they oppose using government to impose values on people by force.

and only Libertarians will bring an end to this lunatic us vs them in Gov't, by scaling back the government to the point where us vs them in that context becomes irrelevant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
House and that Al Gore won the election everywhere except in the Supreme Court, this is a valid, if poorly spelled, point.

-chris


Cmon, Chris, he didn't win the Electoral College. He didn't win Florida. No one has shown that he did. He lost every recount, machine - 2 and hand - several. Even if it was really, really close.

Naj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Sounds like you don't keep very good company. I have known a lot of conservative christians over the years.

Almost all of them have at one time or another sounded me out. They heard my response (which was polite, but very definite). None of them tried again.


I've had many, many Christians try -- over my objections -- to convert me. Perhaps the reason is that they feel it's their duty -- that I'm so hopelessly "lost" that they owe it to me to try.

I don't actually mind that so much as I mind the attempt to legislate their religion into the classroom, in an attempt to influence children of parents who are not Christian to become Christian. I object to their attempt to legislate their particular (and narrow) view of morality. I object to their attempts to use public funds for private religious instruction. I object to their attempts to deny women control of their bodies.

My experience with conservative Christians is that they are determined to make this a Christian nation -- one in which their view of reality is the view which doesn't merely predominate -- but rather dominates<i/> public policy.

I object to that. I'm an American, too, and they have no right to insist that I live by their values. The Constitution quite specifically says that the laws of this nation are secular laws -- laws which derive from the principle that we each have the right to live our lives as we wish, provided that we don't harm others. We do not have the right to insist that in order to live in this country one must obey the religious teachings of anyone.

We are -- so far, and should continue to be -- relatively free from the interference which religion has imposed by law upon the lives of countless millions throughout the world and throughout history. People today are killed because they refuse to obey the religously-inspired laws of the nation in which we live.

This is not, nor should it ever be, a theocracy.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tongues is either a spiritual truth or a lie. Whatever you want to call it, mass hypnosis or hysteria, it's still a lie, motivated by a lack of integrity.

Nonsense. If it is either mass hypnosis OR hysteria, then it is not "a lie, motivated by a lack of integrity", since such a state of consciousness implies the lack of ability to formulate a lie.

If it is either mass hypnosis or hysteria, then it is a "groupthink" interaction which (except in the most extreme cases) is unlikely to have a bearing on the individual's behavior outside of the group.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<Tongues is either a spiritual truth or a lie. Whatever you want to call it, mass hypnosis or hysteria, it's still a lie, motivated by a lack of integrity.

Rick >>


This is your own intolerence speaking.

As an atheist, I do not know or understand what motivates or causes "speaking in tongues." I haven't been reliably informed of how to interpret this phenomena by science, as far as I'm concerned.

While there are no doubt some fakes, it's too widespread and heartfelt to write this off as simple dishonesty, in my opinion. My presumption is that this comes from within the capacity of human beings to experience religious belief and religious experience. ---Perhaps in that sense it's like the human capacity for love, or the ability of human beings to fight in war.

Human beings can do a lot of strange things that are hard to explain by science.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<Some fundamentalist sects take this "speaking in tongues" very seriously. They convince themselves they are doing it.

If Ashcroft is actually doing it, it does not suggest at all that he is demented or disturbed. >>

I don't think it is proof positive that he is mentally ill but it is at least somewhat suggestive. Add in the fact that he thinks God speaks to him - and not in some metaphorical sense - and I think there is ample reason to question his mental state.

As I said, I'm not certain he's deranged but the evidence available suggests the possibility and that's reason enough for me to be concerned about him being named as the next AG.

George W. Bush has also stated that he thinks God spoke directly to him and told him to run for President. I would like to say I'm concerned about Bush's mental state as well but, in his case, it's not so much a state as a borough.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That tears it, I'm puttin' a curse on this Phil guy!



Jaipur
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
It could be argued that this is the basic belief of "convervative Christians" today, and has been throughout history.

Actually, the basic beliefs of "conservative Christians" today is that those who accept Jesus are saved, those who don't are doomed, and people are ultimately judged by their beliefs, not their actions.

Which is why I think it would be a good idea to start looking elsewhere for our Presidential candidates.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Look at that ayehole Packwood. Dozens come forward. Same with Kennedy, Clinton, Bob Barker. Almost always there is a pattern for these people.

>>


Don't forget Domcratic US Senator Brock Adams and Washington State Governor Mike Lowry, both of whom lost their office after beingt outed as sexual harassers of women, practices covered up by women's groups for years for reasons of political expediency.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<I recall the 19th century religious group, "The Shakers" whose religious spirit led them into being controlled by God in their dances. I see no reason to believe that this was mass psychosis.>>

Of course it was a form of mass psychosis.

That doesn't mean it renders them incapable of functioning in society or that they were otherwise deranged.

<<I think you merely underestimate the capacity of human beings to have various kinds of religious experiences. Because you underestimate that capacity, you appear to be ready to persecute other people, Ashcroft in particular, whose religious ideas are outside your own narrow experience. >>

I am fully cognizant of the human capacity to experience religious fervor.

I am also very concerned about the sorts of people who choose to live their life in a state of prolonged fervor and delusion.

I support their right to do so, of course, but I am uncomfortable which such delusional people being trusted with important decision-making positions in government.

I am not willing to condemn Ashcroft solely on the basis of his glossolalia and his visions of Christ - but I consider them ample reason for concern. It may be that his delusions are not sufficient to disqualify him for public service but I feel the issue is an important one in evaluating his fitness to serve.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Texas didn't cast a vote at the ballot box -- it cast its votes in the electoral college. At the ballot box, Gore won easily.

SLL, are you an idiot? Bush win the ballot box soundly in Texas, not Gore.

Is English your native tongue?

This is the second time you've totally misread what I said.

Gore won more votes cast (and counted) in this country than Bush did. The only votes cast by states (such as Texas) were in the electoral college. Gore got the most votes at the ballot box.

Not at Texas' ballot box. At the ballot box.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Perhaps. Is there something wrong with that

My, aren't we touchy. I make an observation, and your response is a sneer.

I made no value judgement, just a comment.

I suspect your are seldom "hit on" by anyone. Am I right?

Not much more often than once or twice a week these days. But then, I don't get out much any more.

Actually, I suppose that your sensitivity to the comment that I and one other on this board made is highly indicative.

But I don't care. Your business. I'm the resident libertarian, and as far as I am concerned your life is your business.

But the next time you send a sneer my way, I'll pbox you so I don't have to be bothered by you any more.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
That tears it, I'm puttin' a curse on this Phil guy!

Don't bother. He's already cursed. He can't think.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Actually, these issues are still debated. Waco is a matter of whether they were "stockpiling" or merely dealing arms. There is evidence to suggest the latter.

Be that as it may, serving legal warrants is still one of the powers of the government.

And when government agents show up to do so, it may be wiser not to shoot at them.

But that's just how I would look at it.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Actually, the basic beliefs of "conservative Christians" today is that those who accept Jesus are saved, those who don't are doomed, and people are ultimately judged by their beliefs, not their actions.

Yup. Intone the right words at the right time, and you're "in the club" so to speak. Who cares how "Christian" your actual behaviour is?

Sorry if this insults anyone, but I know PLENTY of atheists who seem much more Christ-like than many of those who call themselves Christians.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<If it is either mass hypnosis or hysteria, then it is a "groupthink" interaction which (except in the most extreme cases) is unlikely to have a bearing on the individual's behavior outside of the group.>>

This is the part I question.

I fear a person given so easily to entering delusional states may be vulnerable to such problems in other phases of his or her life.

Then again, maybe not. But it's enough to concern me.

How would you feel about someone who claimed that every morning when he woke up, his dog told him what to do that day?

Maybe that person can function just fine but I'd be worried about him.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The fact that Vernon Howell/David Koresh has become a poster boy to many in the right is pretty incredible.

Were there mistakes made during the siege by those in charge?

Most probably.

Should the actions of the government agencies be called into question?

Yes.

However, the post-fact sanctification of Howell/Koresh is disturbing. The guy was a dangerous megalomaniacal nutcase, and just as much blame needs to be placed at his feet.


The problem is that the actions of the government have been actively covered up by the government, even though the whole thing happened in front of the TV cameras.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<If the global warming theory is a poor one, it would merely be an example of bad science and lazy thinking, not sympomatic of a person given to frequent delusional states.
>>


Oh, I think there is room for mass hysteria and dishonesty in the promotion of global warming theories. And perhaps equal room for that will to religious belief that I think is inheret in the human mind.

After all, when people give up a conventional religion, few wind up believing in nothing. People are highly susceptible at that point to believinbg in ANYTHING! Why not global warming? It seems like a very good vehicle for a religious cult.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But the next time you send a sneer my way, I'll pbox you so I don't have to be bothered by you any more.

Shoot, Jim, that's harsh. I sneer at you all the time, and I'm not in your p-box. (I know this because you referred to me in your post.)

<G>

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It doesn't sound as if you are a person trained in making a medical diagnosis. I haven't seen any such person question Ashcorft's sanity in the press. And I therefore suggest that your opinion is unqualified and probably mistaken.

Chris gets hyperbolic sometimes.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Me too wears very thin, very quickly when you have nothing original to contribute.

You make a claim to originality? Spare me.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
At the ballot box, Gore won easily.

If you ignore statistical error. You know better than that, Sandy.

damn lambs tail...

I wish TMF'd change that...