"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
NOYB wrote:

It takes more than criticism of the government. For instance:

--wishing terrorist attacks will hit the fly-over areas of our
country

--constantly denigrating the intelligence and capabilities of our
troops

--wishing ill health or harm on a sitting president

Those kind of comments would make someone a traitor, IMO.

So, in your world, wishes, and repeated negative comments are acts of
treason?

OK, Rick. Will you agree that they're acts of sedition then?

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp
553
ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15,
1917.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully
make
or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully
make or
convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite
insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces
of
the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or
enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter,
print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language about the form of government of the United States, or the
Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of
the
United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign
enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any
curtailment of
production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any
of
the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word
or
act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United
States
is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States
therein,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for
not
more than twenty years, or both....


Oh no, not the frippin' right-wing alien and sedition act. PAssed to
stifle dissent. No wonder Noy Brains likes it.

Indeed, I *do* like it. I hope someone dusts off the legislative annals
pretty soon, and brings it back to the forefront.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
says...

Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election
laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising
contributions
over the internet? It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to
how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that
will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

I think you're a little late to the party there doc. There's all sorts
of scurrilous freaks who're liable to thwart the system in order that
their interests are addressed.

Take the Republican's investment in Nader's campaign, for instance.

Then there's the voluminous body of evidence that puts Jim Baker and
other Republican operatives gallivanting the world in an effort to make
certain the Iran hostages weren't released prior to the Carter-Reagan
election.

The Republican governor of Florida and his operatives who invest in a
"felons list" that ends up preventing thousands of legitimate voters
from from voting?

Is this the kind of election manipulation of which you speak? Or is it
just foreign interests that frighten you?

Just foreign interests.

NOYB wrote:

Every time those on the left are caught doing something shady, the
argument
changes to "well that's not as bad as...."

Why is it that every time a "conservative" is caught committing fraud, robbery,
or treason, you have to make excuses for them by saying "all you lefties are
complaining about this"?

DSK

NOYB wrote:


Dodge what? I've been talking about an existing loophole which allows
foreign entities to skirt our campaign contribution laws...and you're trying
to argue that it's OK for Democrats to commit seditious acts because those
on the right did it too.

Please quote where I said any such thing.

Try not to lie too much, I know you have little fact and no logic, but outright
lying wll earn you even fewer points than dodging the question.

DSK

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:39:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Should Dean win the Presidency, he'll owe more to guys like George Soros
than Cheney could ever owe to Halliburton.

No problem, we'll just invade another country and award Open Society
Institute a no bid, open ended contract. Soros will be able to make his
money back overcharging us for gasoline.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:39:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Should Dean win the Presidency, he'll owe more to guys like George Soros
than Cheney could ever owe to Halliburton.

No problem, we'll just invade another country and award Open Society
Institute a no bid, open ended contract. Soros will be able to make his
money back overcharging us for gasoline.

The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

Now Soros is out to burn Bush because Bush "didn't bring in the Gulf
connection" for him.

Isn't OSI supposed to support campaign finance reform, and government
openness? What a laugh!

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:52:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

LOL You've cut the best part of that quote: "He was not much of a
businessman."

Now Soros is out to burn Bush because Bush "didn't bring in the Gulf
connection" for him.

Harken was peanuts to Soros. If he's out to burn Bush, it's because he's
seen Bush up close *and* Soros has known liberal credentials.

Isn't OSI supposed to support campaign finance reform, and government
openness? What a laugh!

In article . net,
says...

Let's compare the two Hilter ads submitted by people nobody ever heard
of to the current spiritual leader of Republican anti-tax initiatives...

I give to you the formidable Grover Norquist...



Out of Their Anti-Tax Minds

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, January 6, 2004; Page A17


This is the way things happen in my business. In October the extremely
influential GOP activist and White House insider Grover Norquist was
interviewed by Terry Gross on her National Public Radio program, "Fresh
Air." By December a portion of that interview was reprinted in Harper's
magazine, where, over the holidays, I happened to see it. I am writing
about it today because, among other things, Norquist compared the estate
tax to the Holocaust.

This remark, so bizarre and tasteless that I felt it deserved checking,
sent me to the transcript of the show, where, sure enough, it was
confirmed. In it Norquist referred to the supposedly specious argument
that the estate tax was worth keeping because it really affected only "2
percent of Americans." He went on: "I mean, that's the morality of the
Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. I mean, it's
not you. It's somebody else."

From the transcript, it seems that Gross couldn't believe her ears.
"Excuse me," she interjected. "Excuse me one second. Did you just . . .
compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?"

Norquist explained himself. "No, the morality that says it's okay to do
something to a group because they're a small percentage of the
population is the morality that says the Holocaust is okay because they
didn't target everybody, just a small percentage." He went on to liken
the estate tax to apartheid in the old South Africa and to the communist
regime of the old East Germany. How he neglected Iraq under Saddam
Hussein I will never know.

It's hard to overstate Norquist's importance in contemporary Washington.
He is head of Americans for Tax Reform, is an intimate of Karl Rove, the
president's chief political aide, and has easy access to the White
House. He presides over a weekly meeting of important Republican
activists and lobbyists where the agenda -- at least Norquist's -- is to
ensure that taxes are reduced to a bare minimum, the government is
starved and everyone, the rich and the poor, is taxed the same, which is
to say almost not at all.

The Bush administration has mindlessly applied this doctrine. It has
three times reduced taxes -- mostly on the rich -- careening the federal
budget from a surplus to a deficit without end. The rich, who can afford
their schools or health care, will not suffer. But the poor and the
middle class will hurt plenty -- and state and local taxes, often the
most regressive, will go up.

To my mind, the Holocaust should be compared only to itself. I make some
allowance for, say, Rwanda or the massacre of Muslims at Srebrenica or
the gulag of Stalin's Soviet Union. But when it comes to legalized
murder by a state, almost nothing can approach it -- not in its size,
not in its breadth and not in its virtually incomprehensible bestiality.
The morality of the Holocaust, I would argue, is somehow different from
that of the estate tax.

For some time now, the estate tax has been a demagogue's delight.
Republicans, including George Bush, like to call it the "death tax." It
is said to have produced the demise of the cherished family farm --
although the government can offer not a single example. It is, however,
the tax most hated by those who hate taxes the most.

Inexplicably, Norquist's "Holocaust" has somehow left quite a few
survivors. Among the 10 richest Americans, for instance, are five
Waltons -- heirs to the fortune left by the storied Sam, the founder of
Wal-Mart. Forbes magazine says they are each worth $20.5 billion. The
rest of Forbes's list of the 400 richest Americans is peopled by other
heirs, although some got only a billion or two.

In fact, the moral equivalency Norquist concocts is his own -- and it
speaks volumes about the morality of anti-tax Republicans. To them, the
rich owe nothing -- just like the poor, they would say. (The difference
between rich and poor escapes them.) This is unbridled selfishness in
the guise of ideology and makes wealth the moral equivalent of ethnicity
or religion or even sexual preference. To Norquist, distinguishing
between rich and poor is like making a selection at Auschwitz. It not
only trivializes the Holocaust, it collapses all moral distinctions.

When Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond, the longtime segregationist (and
laundry room Lothario), he revealed a mentality that not even Senate
Republicans could publicly support -- and Lott had to resign as majority
leader. Norquist has gone even further, likening the morality of mass
murder to the imposition of a tax on the rich. At his next meeting of
GOP activists, someone ought to ask him if he's out of his mind. If no
one does, it's because they all are.

In article . net,
says...

This wouldn't be news if it weren't for the RNC. The two ads were
submitted to MoveOn under a contest and MoveOn took no position as to
their validity or worthiness.

Both ads were given very low marks and never had the slightest
possibility of airing. That didn't stop Ed Gillespie, ****ing idiot,
from claiming that MoveOn could end up using these ads in a national
television campaign.

In fact, the contest brought hundreds of creative ads from all over the
country. The finalists are a far cry from comparing Bush to Hitler.

This would be a big yawn if the RNC hadn't have made hay of it.

This wouldn't be news if it weren't for the RNC. The two ads were
submitted to MoveOn under a contest and MoveOn took no position as to
their validity or worthiness.

Typical.

Whatever the most extreme person on the left says, the rw establishment grabs
hold, raises it aloft, and says "See! This is what *all* liberals think!"

When Pat Robertson makes a statement that God has already called the 2004
election in favor of GWB, he's dismissed as a lovable old kook, not a
spokesman.
When Anne Coulter accuses everyone left of center in the country of "treason",
it's defended as freedom of speech.

The right needs to walk carefully. Very easy to trip over a double standard and
land smack on your nose.