paranoid yet?

[allthumbs]

Fuck em' all - nuke the pissants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Greg_W]

...but I don't think someone who has such strong ties to such extreme groups belongs in that position.

 

Unless that someone has strong ties to the extreme groups that you agree with I am sure.

[allthumbs]

[freeclimb9]

BTW, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have jumped on board the kick-saddam's-ass train.

[allthumbs]

They knew they'd be excommunicated by the USA if they didn't.

[iain]

Since I can't think of any extreme religious groups with which I am associated that's difficult to answer. My parents sent me to Unitarian sunday school when I was little so I'm pretty indifferent about it all. I also have degrees in science, so I tend to need proof or at least suggestive evidence to believe things hence my difficulty with "faith".

[Greg_W]

Iain, what about environmentalist groups? I would call these groups "extreme", for sure, and they have made the environment their religion.

[Muir_on_Saturday]

i think turkey jumped ship

[iain]

I wouldn't want to see ELF running the Attorney General's office.

[Greg_W]

What about the Sierra Club? Or any of these freak-o groups who believe that animals and trees are more important than people, concrete, and skyscrapers.

[Greg_W]

I think that Turkey has, historically, been an ally of the U.S. Don't we have airbases there or some sort of agreement? They're not stupid, nor is Saudi Arabia; although Saudi Arabia ought to be on our shit list as well.

[allthumbs]

The Saudi royal family needs to go next. They're shitballs.

[j_b]

Just don't pretend your beliefs aren't religion until you can come up with some objective proof that they are not.

 

He does not have to. He is not the one making an irrational claim entirely based on faith. I am sure you'd look favorably upon anyone making governmental decisions based on a system of belief without any factual basis (like say aliens are prominently among us today or cabbage is the only food you need). After all according to your standards you could not 'prove' him wrong either ...

 

I would think that the right to live is the most fundamental of our liberties. If providing some non incriminating information to a government entity guarantees that right then I for one am fine with it

 

our right to live is threatened by our own predatorial policies toward other nations, not by some supposed outside threat. I fail to see how profiling everyone will address our government being hijacked by an extremist minority.

[Greg_W]

our right to live is threatened by our own predatorial policies toward other nations, not by some supposed outside threat. I fail to see how profiling everyone will address our government being hijacked by an extremist minority.

 

Our right to live FREE is most assuredly being threatened by the Islamic Terrorists who have targeted our country and our way of life. Profiling will help law enforcement focus on those individuals who will most likely be involved with said extremist minority groups.

 

I know you probably think that we should just shower everyone with love and flowers and all types of other hippy shit that won't work, but you're deluded. When someone threatens you you don't just roll over, you stand up and let them know that if they're going to come after you there will be lots of pain on their side of the fence too.

[MtnGoat]

"Iain's point was the same one I was making. I don't think he, I or anyone else on this board wants to philosophize about the relativity of morality in various religions."

 

Of course you don't, and you don't want to include your relativity. That would be admission their actions in service of religion, are precisely the same as your injection of your religion or belief system into politics, and that's not ground that's very comfortable.

 

It entirely poisons the case for denigrating others due to religion, and their actions in service of of it. This way, the folks that don't want to discuss it get to point at some christians for example, and say look at those aholes using their religious views in politics, while you get a pass. Pretty sweet arguing position, it automatically cedes you the high moral ground. Where there really, actually, is none if you intend to claim you are better and more balanced because you are supposedly objective in an area where no objectivity exists, moral values and their "rightness".

 

"The rest of us were debating first the likely practical application of citizen intell collected by our government, and then once again the fitness of Ashcroft in his job, in light of the principles that our nation is supposed to be founded on."

 

As with the disconnect between slavery and those principles, this is another such case. Since you brought up religion and it's application to govt, I'm bringing up *yours* and it's application to govt. Entirely germane.

 

"Since you brought it up, amending the constitution because of omission versus amending it in direct opposition to the clearly stated intentions of its framers are two wildly different things. Saying they are the same is...silly."

 

I am making the point that if their document needed amending to remain consistent, there is no reason this cannot apply elsewhere.

 

 

"Iain's point is valid. We have an individual who is, in light of this, ill-suited for his job. He is a religious fundamentalist, a zealot on the scale of the average US citizen. And either he is using his zealous beliefs as a prism for choosing what to focus his work on, or he ain't too smart. Or both"

 

and yet I have seen no evidence presented that he has thrown out a case due to his convictions, or failed to enforce the law as is his duty. Lots of claims, on no direct evidence. Seems a lot like religion.

 

 

[j_b]

Our right to live FREE is most assuredly being threatened by the Islamic Terrorists who have targeted our country and our way of life

 

I forgot your concept of freedom included that of driving a guzzler at will and securing by all means the resources needed to sustain such habit.

 

I know you probably think that we should just shower everyone with love and flowers ...

 

actually I think everyone has the right to self determination including that of not imitating us.

[iain]

and yet I have seen no evidence presented that he has thrown out a case due to his convictions, or failed to enforce the law as is his duty. Lots of claims, on no direct evidence.

 

I will try to line-item in a tedious fashion as you love, but first, let's say you accidently shoot your mailman because you think there is a trespasser on your well-guarded property. Would you mind being tried for manslaughter by a judge who's kid was killed by an unsecured handgun? Is there direct evidence that he will be biased against you, a gun owner?

[allthumbs]

Iain, that tired old argument doesn't wash anymore. What if's are lame.

[iain]

I'm just saying I don't need to list out case-by-case evidence to say there is a problem at hand. I just threw in the gun control crap to push some buttons, etc.

[RobBob]

Anybody notice that it looks like the folks who are so staunchly defending Ashcroft appear to be the fundamentalists here, and are attempting to do so by telling us the sky is green and the grass is blue? I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who is not staunchly religious use practical logic in defending Ashcroft and his record.

[Greg_W]

I'm just saying I don't need to list out case-by-case evidence to say there is a problem at hand.

 

I think you're wrong here, Iain. I think, especially in such a position as Attorney General, past record is VERY important. When justices are nominated for the various high courts their past case records are analyzed to get a feel for how they view their role and the role of the courts. I don't think you can knee-jerk this one when there is a catalog of evidence (his record in Missouri) to turn to.

[MtnGoat]

"It would take a powerful individual indeed to defend abortion doctors by the laws in our books when one's religion considers the act bloody murder and a sin."

 

Only if your evalution of their religion ignores any other commitments they've made, which you assume they don't also value. I find it interesting that you think someone who may feel abortion is murder cannot see past that to find another murder likewise as wrong. Seems to me it's actually more ethically consistent to see both as murder, instead of one and not the other. The entire western world and it's humanistic growth was innately christian and yet recognizes murder as wrong, some here point out that the founders were religious and yet they stood against murder, how is this possible if Christians cannot see murder for what it is?

 

You have not actually shown here, nor has robbob, that he has ended any prosecution of individuals captured for murder by reason of his religious beliefs, and neither of you has commented on the seeming expectation that attorney generals are to personally take roles in enforcement and prosecution for specific crimes. Still all we have is yours, and others assertions he can't do his job with the only evidence being your religious critique of his religion relative to yours.

 

 

[Greg_W]

I forgot your concept of freedom included that of driving a guzzler at will and securing by all means the resources needed to sustain such habit.

 

Nice oversimplification, you fucking liberal panty-waste. By the way, I support your right to live free and drive some pussified pseudo-electric car, if you so choose.

[iain]

Calling a form of transportation "pussy" reveals a lot. do people really feel they are badass by driving an f-350 or inadequate driving a yugo? That stuff makes me laugh. Americans are stupid sometimes.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Americans are stupid sometimes.

 

Get OUT!