John H wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:05:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense? Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?
Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

John H

Searching contrainer ships is a lot different from carving away at the
Constitutional rights of citizens, but I wouldn't expect a d.f. like you
to appreciate the difference.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:51:29 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Not cheerleading, stating a fact. Your 'hiding out' argument is
specious and ridiculous, as mentioned earlier.

In other words, as far as you're concerned, what happens in real life,
in the real world, is 'specious and ridiculous.' OTOH everything that is
bragged about by the BushCo advertising moguls is 'stating a fact.'

Interesting way of looking at things. Do you stub your toes a lot when
you walk around with your eyes squinched up like that? Or do you just
sit at home and take your walks in Bushie fantasy-land?

DSK

Your argument that Bush was hiding out and therefore not worthy of
credit for actions taken with regard to 9/11 is specious and
ridiculous. I don't believe I've extended that observation to
everything in 'real life'. If I were to here Bush bragging about his
tremendous concern for the environment, or trying to explain why those
earning $5 million a year really 'need' a tax cut, then I would
probably find fault with his statements.

But then again, some folks tend to exaggerate things.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I wonder how the liberals felt about the Sedition Act of 1918, and FDR's
Executive Order 9066 signed in 1942...AT THAT TIME?

A number of them hated it... along with a number of conservatives.
Please also note that those acts were eventually overturned.

Please also note that Republicans mostly disliked FDR, and the
right-wing branch of the GOP actively hated and undermined him, and
spread the most awful rumors they could think of. Some were outright
Nazi sympathizers.

If you really wanted to drum up ridicule for BushCo and the neocons, you
might google up a few exapmles and hold them up as praiseworthy
patriots... not that I'm trying to give you advice how best to achieve
your goals, Comrade


However, the Patriot Act was done to undo the wrongs set by years of
rulings
by activist judges who tried to make laws from the bench.

Wow, now here is a classic. First, you obviously feel the Patriot Act
should be a permanent addition to the American legal scene (or should we
say, a permanent subtraction from the Constitution). Secondly, you are
again displaying that wonderful hypocrisy and the strong double-standard
that are the hallmark of the BushCo cheerleaders. Not long ago you were
smirking about activist judges making law from the bench, saying how
great it. Only it was about abortion then.


I never advocated judges making abortion laws from the bench. However, I
*did* advocate prosecuting (using the state Fetal Homicide Laws) the women
who have abortions, and the doctors who perform abortions.

The laws are there. I'd like to see 'em utilized.

John H wrote:



Your argument that Bush was hiding out and therefore not worthy of
credit for actions taken with regard to 9/11 is specious and
ridiculous.

What actions taken with regard to 9/11? Bush didn't do dick on 9/11,
except get himself to a safe hiding place and, I suppose, order some
jets in the air after the damage was done.

In fact, Bush still hasn't done anything significant in regard to 9/11
that makes this country safer. It's almost all window dressing. And what
isn't window-dressing limits the liberties of us all.

"John H" wrote in message
...

I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would
like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense?

"Homeland defense" is too broad a term. But, it suits the suits nicely
because most citizens are too lazy to tweaze the term apart into its
different elements. Just because we need to secure our cargo ports more
effectively (since they are barely secured at all) doesn't mean we have to
give the police Orwellian powers. They are two different aspects of the same
program.

Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?

I have no idea if Harry said that. But the fact is that until voices were
raised last summer, virtually NOTHING was being done about securing cargo
ports. From what I've read, there's still next to nothing being done,
compared with all the big ideas that were floated in the months after 9/11.
However, last week's news mentioned that the CG has been authorized to crack
down on traffic to & from Cuba. The government spokesperson said it was part
of the homeland security effort. Call me crazy, but it sounds more like
pandering to Cuban voters in an election year. That should go far in
protecting us from them pesky A-Rabs.

At least someone woke up recently and has provided a bunch of feds in boats
to patrol the harbors here in Rochester. With enough dramamine, you can
cruise from Canada to here unseen in almost any weather. Most days, it's a
cakewalk. Wait...I remember....it was Louise Slaughter, our Dem
congresswoman. She nagged the appropriate parties until they woke up.

Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

Warning - cynicism ahead: How can that be? We've been shooting at them for
the past year.

"John H" wrote in message
...

I understand Bush's commercials portray people cuddling babies and school
children saying the pledge of allegiance. Bush has no connection
whatsoever
to patriotism or raising healthy children. Both candidates will simply
throw
**** at the wall until election day, and hope enough of it sticks.


One could say that an anti-abortion policy may have a bearing on the
cuddling of babies. I know, it would be a stretch, but...

You understood my comment. Bush contributes nothing at all to better
families. No president does. But, at least some of them are capable of
offering challenging ideas that give audiences something to think about.s

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:52:06 -0800, jps wrote:

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On 4 Mar 2004 09:06:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

03-04) 05:10 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

President Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials
using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage
of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public
policy and the war on terror.

Good idea, b'asskisser. Cut and paste. Then no one can say a word
about your spelling and grammar.

Bush did a superb job of providing leadership to the country during a
time when panic could have reigned supreme.

Kerry's ads are taking advantage of a conflict in which, according to
Kerry, thousands of innocent women and children were raped, killed or
mutilated.

Which is worse?

John H

Well then, using another "defining moment" in our history, why shouldn't
Kerry use images of our American dead and wounded coming back from Iraq?

That's a real equivalent in bad taste and emotional blackmail.

jps

Would those images somehow portray a job Kerry has done? Seems like he
voted to send them, but then voted not to resource them.

You're talking about images of the World Trade Center?

Uh, the "job that was done" in that case was American-trained Saudis
flew American planes into a symbol of American capitalism.

I'm hoping Bush didn't arrange that just as I'm certain you hope that
Kerry didn't arrange for dead and wounded kids to come back from Iraq.

jps

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:09:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would
like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense?

"Homeland defense" is too broad a term. But, it suits the suits nicely
because most citizens are too lazy to tweaze the term apart into its
different elements. Just because we need to secure our cargo ports more
effectively (since they are barely secured at all) doesn't mean we have to
give the police Orwellian powers. They are two different aspects of the same
program.

Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?

I have no idea if Harry said that. But the fact is that until voices were
raised last summer, virtually NOTHING was being done about securing cargo
ports. From what I've read, there's still next to nothing being done,
compared with all the big ideas that were floated in the months after 9/11.
However, last week's news mentioned that the CG has been authorized to crack
down on traffic to & from Cuba. The government spokesperson said it was part
of the homeland security effort. Call me crazy, but it sounds more like
pandering to Cuban voters in an election year. That should go far in
protecting us from them pesky A-Rabs.

At least someone woke up recently and has provided a bunch of feds in boats
to patrol the harbors here in Rochester. With enough dramamine, you can
cruise from Canada to here unseen in almost any weather. Most days, it's a
cakewalk. Wait...I remember....it was Louise Slaughter, our Dem
congresswoman. She nagged the appropriate parties until they woke up.

Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

Warning - cynicism ahead: How can that be? We've been shooting at them for
the past year.


You made the pejorative comment about the 'atmosphere of fear' which
we were to accept as normal. My point was that you contradict yourself
by making such a comment and then complaining that we aren't doing
enough to protect ourselves (in *any* way, shape, or form).

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:08:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

Well then, using another "defining moment" in our history, why shouldn't
Kerry use images of our American dead and wounded coming back from Iraq?

That's a real equivalent in bad taste and emotional blackmail.

jps

Would those images somehow portray a job Kerry has done? Seems like he
voted to send them, but then voted not to resource them.


John H

I understand Bush's commercials portray people cuddling babies and school
children saying the pledge of allegiance. Bush has no connection whatsoever
to patriotism or raising healthy children. Both candidates will simply throw
**** at the wall until election day, and hope enough of it sticks.


One could say that an anti-abortion policy may have a bearing on the
cuddling of babies. I know, it would be a stretch, but...


Sweet Jesus, you're not still using the "no spin zone" moniker, are you?

In article ,
says...
John H wrote:
Not cheerleading, stating a fact. Your 'hiding out' argument is
specious and ridiculous, as mentioned earlier.

In other words, as far as you're concerned, what happens in real life,
in the real world, is 'specious and ridiculous.' OTOH everything that is
bragged about by the BushCo advertising moguls is 'stating a fact.'

Interesting way of looking at things. Do you stub your toes a lot when
you walk around with your eyes squinched up like that? Or do you just
sit at home and take your walks in Bushie fantasy-land?

DSK

You made me laugh out loud, for real.

jps