Prosecuting dissenters - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #31 12-15-2003, 02:50 PM

The NRA has about 2-3 million dues-paying members. Most are middle-aged, middle-income. They vote in much higher proportion and pay more taxes than the general population. I'd guess they have a dramatically lower crime rate than the general pop, too. At least I've never heard of a crime wave started by NRA members.

Their members, by purchase of hunting & fishing licenses and firearms, support conservation way more than the typical taxpayer, certainly more than most tree-huggers.

Given their relative contributions to human misery, I'd rather live in a town full of NRA members than a town full of marxists. Just as an example, mind you.

Botnst

psfred · #32 12-15-2003, 04:37 PM

"Communism" "Naziism" "Totolenarianism" (I cannot spell, by the way), they are all the same. Oligarchy of some sort, at the expense of everyone else.

John Ashcroft is the most antidemocratic Attourney General in my lifetime, I do believe he even beats Kliendienst, who arrested half the Government workers in DC one day because they were "protesters". He, at least, didn't say they weren't citizens or not covered by Constitutional guarentees because someone made up some other word to describe them.

Very scary, Bush and Ashcroft. Go to jail at the whim of some government bureaucrat? Forever, no lawyer, no communication with anyone, tried by a secret court you don't even get to identify?

Doesn't matter what the excuse is, the behavior is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court will eventually rule, probably unanimously, that it is in fact prohibited, but that will probably be after Bush leaves office. Wouldn't want to step on the hand the feeds you, after all......

Peter

Botnst · #33 12-15-2003, 04:41 PM

I assume you're refering to his enforcement of the USA Patriot Act? The AG's job is to enfore laws, not interpret them. The Congress & administration passed and signed the law. Blame it on them, they're responsible. I don't recall the vote but it was strongly bipartisan.

I hope the SC does declare it unconstitutional.

Enforement of it doesn't make Ashcroft as big a threat to liberty as the people who wrote it and signed it into law.

Botnst

Honus · #34 12-15-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Botnst
Enforement of it doesn't make Ashcroft as big a threat to liberty as the people who wrote it and signed it into law.

I disagree. Laws are designed to have a significant amount of play in the joints. Prosecutors are constantly called upon to exercise discretion in deciding whom to investigate, whose phone to tap, which old statute to use against political opponents, etc., etc. That is why we need an ethical Attorney General, one with some sense of right and wrong - an Elliot Richardson or an Archibald Cox, to take two examples. Mr. Cox was never Attorney General, but his career, particularly his role in standing up to the Nixon gang in 1973, exemplifies the sort of character that we need, but do not have, in our Attorney General.

Ashcroft is at least as big a threat to the American way of life as are Tom Delay, et al.

Wes Bender · #35 12-15-2003, 05:44 PM

.... I wondered why nobody tried to lure me on board with booze and prostitutes.... Who says you can't learn something on this Forum?

Wes

Botnst · #36 12-15-2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dculkin
I disagree. Laws are designed to have a significant amount of play in the joints. Prosecutors are constantly called upon to exercise discretion in deciding whom to investigate, whose phone to tap, which old statute to use against political opponents, etc., etc. That is why we need an ethical Attorney General, one with some sense of right and wrong - an Elliot Richardson or an Archibald Cox, to take two examples. Mr. Cox was never Attorney General, but his career, particularly his role in standing up to the Nixon gang in 1973, exemplifies the sort of character that we need, but do not have, in our Attorney General.

Ashcroft is at least as big a threat to the American way of life as are Tom Delay, et al.

What, you think the law is okay but Ashcroft is bad? The law would be okay if only we had, "one of ours" enforcing it?

Gimme a break. The law is bad, regardless of whom is in power. I know that it would be far worse with that wacko Reno in power. Hell, even without a Patriot Act she incinerated a bunch of men, women, and children. She'd have a field day rounding-up kooks with this law.

Botnst

mikemover · #37 12-15-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mzsmbs
Mikeover, others,

Ok, so you may not be on Greenpaeces side ever but over all this starts the dialogue. It brings this issue to the top and may involve other people thus possibly garnering support. Maybe their actions were because of lack of "good" discussion. I sure have never heard of illegal mohogany etc... Have you?
If you bash Greenpeace I'd love to hear what you think of EF-morph-ELF? or WWF, Sierra etc...?

good 1 w/ MLK Jr.!

Many Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and Sierra Club members have perfectly good intentions, but are misguided by thier radical leadership, and/or the media hype surrounding environmental issues.

The ELF are flat-out terrorists, criminals, and anyone involved with thier activities should be prosecuted as such.

Protest is fine, and I am 150% in support of everyone's right to protest anything they want. But you can protest without breaking the law. Breaking one law to draw attention to the fact that someone else is breaking another law is NOT the solution.

Mike

mikemover · #38 12-15-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Botnst
What, you think the law is okay but Ashcroft is bad? The law would be okay if only we had, "one of ours" enforcing it?

Gimme a break. The law is bad, regardless of whom is in power. I know that it would be far worse with that wacko Reno in power. Hell, even without a Patriot Act she incinerated a bunch of men, women, and children. She'd have a field day rounding-up kooks with this law.

Botnst

Preach on brother! hahaha...

You're right on target, as usual. The Bush-haters don't have a problem with the oppressive laws, they're just upset that one of thier own kind isn't the one enforicing them!

It's the Patriot Act itself that is dangerous...NOT the person hired to enforce it.

Mike

psfred · #39 12-15-2003, 07:07 PM

ATF and the FBI weren't exactly up front with Reno, she got blindsided by Waco. Hard to run things when your employees lie to you.

The Patriot Act is at least partiall unConstitutional on it's face. It should never ahve been introduced, let alone passed or signed.

Lets hope the SC doesn't roll over and play dead on this one. I have hopes, but several members seem to have way too much "respect" for who apointed them, in spite of the fact that sitting on the Court has a transforming effect on people (Earl Warren for one). Kinda sobers people up, I suspect. Would scare the crap outa me, thinking of the implications of my decisions.

That said, Ashscroft has never been a man to let the law interfere with what God tells him to do -- his reputation in Missouri isn't very encouraging, and his filing of blatantly false arguments with the courts ain't encouraging.

I don't doubt his own personal rectitude, at least on the surface, but his is a zealots life, direct from Heaven, and anyone who disagrees is a demon.

Peter

Botnst · #40 12-15-2003, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by psfred
ATF and the FBI weren't exactly up front with Reno, she got blindsided by Waco. Hard to run things when your employees lie to you.
...

Peter

That's sure seems to be true.

When you're in charge, you're responsible for your subordinates. She should have fired the lot of them from Deputy Director on down or resigned if she couldn't do that. She did neither. Instead, she defended them and herself. That is immoral.

Botnst

Honus · #41 12-15-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Botnst
What, you think the law is okay but Ashcroft is bad? The law would be okay if only we had, "one of ours" enforcing it?

Gimme a break. The law is bad, regardless of whom is in power. I know that it would be far worse with that wacko Reno in power. Hell, even without a Patriot Act she incinerated a bunch of men, women, and children. She'd have a field day rounding-up kooks with this law.

Botnst

I didn't say anything about the Patriot Act. I was talking about Ashcroft. I understood you to say that the Attorney Generall is no threat to liberty because he or she does not make the laws. If that was your intent, I think you are mistaken because prosecutors have so much discretion in enforcing the laws.

Honus · #42 12-15-2003, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
Preach on brother! hahaha...

I have no comment in response, I just had to quote this part back. It's as if I needed confirmation that, yes, he really did say, "Preach on brother! hahaha".

mzsmbs · #43 12-15-2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

The NRA .... by purchase of hunting & fishing licenses and firearms, support conservation way more than the typical taxpayer, certainly more than most tree-huggers.

So do people who have inveronmental license plates in my state and I guess the factory which bought a license to pollute.
But, the fishermen and hunters, of which I am one, for the most part only care about conservation and DEVELOPMENT of "rec" areas. For the most part hunters/fishermen here don't care about the air in NH or AZ nor do they care about the spottet owl or the old growth in the NW. So you can't really call that environmental. You can conserve in one place and trash in another but overall that's not earth friendly. That is why Greenpeace and Sierra Club exist.

Now breaking the law is another matter which, of course I do not condone but, I have sped at times and consumed fermented beverages in public.

you can only take this tree from my cold dead hands :p

mikemover · #44 12-15-2003, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dculkin
I have no comment in response, I just had to quote this part back. It's as if I needed confirmation that, yes, he really did say, "Preach on brother! hahaha".

Just trying to inject a little humor...but I do strongly agree with what he said.

Mike

wbain5280 · #45 12-16-2003, 05:15 AM

Has it ever occured to anyone here that there are far too many Federal Laws? Far more than the Constitution allows? If you look at it, available at http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution.html , there are really only 18 areas the Feds have any business in. The exagerated 'commerce' clause has been used to justify anything and everything, when the original intent was to have a giant free trade zone.

IMHO.