TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Americans... what are your views on....
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
These are the same people voting 
id think its pretty important.
I personally think bush is a complete idiot, but i also belive that he is too dumb to make all his stupid decisions on his own and i think there are a small goup of people with an retardation equal or greater than that of bush running the joint. the bottom line is that just cause he steers teh government and runs the military doesnt mean that it is every americans will to walk around the world rattling the sabre. in the end, 1 man with a team of speach writers taht cant even make him sound smart has to convice a room full of retirees and geriatrics that war = good and thats that, no referendums or public voting... so i dont hate americans, they are practically the same as canadians... tho not as good looking, and or cool as us canuks..
And as for all the capitalism conspiracy going around. it exists in every country around the globe including canada.... the only thing is that our media and everyone elses media likes making fun of bush so much that they just cover his fuck ups more often... The biggest problem i find is that it is the us citizens who will end up suffering for bushes fuck ups. liek the whole iraq and afganistan issues... he has just created a whole new generation of would be pilots who dont bother to learn how to land... look at the palestine-israel conflict. that section of the world holds grudges. and neither side will ever admit defeat or wrongdoing.. i dont pretend to know all the facts in middleastern politics but look at the trends. some of these countries have been fighting eachother for 100s of years. so everytime the west puts their foot in that end of the world, they just blame the US for all their problems. granted they can blame the us governmetn and foreign policy for osme of their hardships but its the american public they take it out on, not the military or government. Furthermore, i think whoever wins this next election should step back and maybe foccus on the home front a bit. there are shit loads of problems stateside that should be fixed up before they go fuckin up other poeoples business. the homeless issues, unemployment, inflation, crime rates in the citys. i think that these are far more noble tasks than ousting so called dictators from other countries. peopole who live in glass houses shouldnt thro stones, so in my opinion the US government should clean their room before they go redecorating otherpeoples. my last point on the subject, I have never been to iraq so i dont know what sadam was like beyond what i saw on CNN and the american syndicated news programs (which i dont trust as far as i can throw it) but if a country really wants to get rid of a regime/dictator. it should be up to thier own people to rise up and throw em out. that way if they find out later they had it off way better before, they got no one to blame but themselves, not to mention that they have the pride of self liberation. look at the states they booted the british out ( and then got your lilly asses served by us canadians circa 1812) but now if for arguments sake the afgani's and the iraqi's find they are poorer and more opressed by their new governmetns thant hey were with saddam and the taliban, who are they going to blame, not themselves. so the bottom line is dont piss in other peoples pools unless they ask you too. hopefully you guys vote in teh new guy, and hopefully he doesnt turn out to be a complete fuck head. Hey at least when we have a slightly retarded PM in canada, sure he pisses alot of people off with his bad english and worse french, but he is the only politician that made me laugh harder than SNL...
my longwinded $0.02
im not reading that till its in paragraphs. my +0
im in engineering... i dont do paragraphs sorrry LOL... i might re formatt it when i get up tommorow
Re: Re: Americans... what are your views on....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nalin you have to remember that you're asking a bunch of kiddies that have never known true discomfort, never witnessed horrors or had to live under disgustingly cruel conditions with nothing to look forward to, never seen a loved one die right in front of them, always had their stomachs full, etc. in essance if you're looking for people to agree with you that bush should have his throat slit but only after being dipped head first in cow manuer (which any person that doesn't have their brainwashed/ignorant head in their selfish ass can see), you're wasting your time. it always disgusts me how stupid people chose to be because they live all snug and cozy. this forum is for discussing things that dont matter like why tiesto sucks, or what dj you know for a fact uses drugs, or any variety of girl problems like feminine odours, not for serious issues with people that largely don't care as long as they're confy.  |
Look, i don't want this turning into a harshing thread people.
Lets try and keep it civilised yeah?
Re: Re: Americans... what are your views on....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by igottaknow He's got a well-funded propaganda machine, but even without it the country would be evenly split. People basically vote for their party's candidate regardless of his performance and record. The undecided independent voter in a few crucial states will determine the election�s outcome. Since most support Bush because of his "Christian" values the rest of the other stuff doesn't matter to them so long as he's anti-abortion, anti-gay right, anti-drugs,... |
| quote: |
'The Wizard of Oz Letter' Bush pulls back the curtain on who really runs the White HouseWEB EXCLUSIVE By Eleanor Clift Newsweek Updated: 1:50 p.m. ET April 02, 2004April 2 - This was the week the curtain got pulled back on the Bush presidency. In exchange for allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath, President Bush gets to bring along his vice president when he appears privately before the commission. A top Republican strategist dubbed the legal document striking the unusual deal �the Wizard of Oz letter� because it strips away the myth that Bush is in charge. Until now, it�s been all speculation about Vice President Cheney�s influence. With the revelation of the tandem testimony, nobody with a straight face can deny Cheney is a co-president or worse, the puppeteer who pulls Bush�s strings. Aside from being fodder for the late-night comics, the arrangement confirms Bush�s inability to articulate anything without a script--or a tutor by his side. There�s a reason lawyers don�t take testimony in groups. The whole idea is to get individual recollections and then compare stories to uncover contradictions. Try thinking about it this way: can anyone imagine Bush�s father in a similar situation bringing his vice president? (For those who need a refresher course, the elder Bush was a rocket scientist compared to his son, and the vice president was Dan Quayle.) Even President Reagan testified alone on the Iran-contra scandal. He didn�t insist on having Vice President Bush sit beside him. Of course, Reagan couldn�t remember much of anything. His faculties were failing as a result of Alzheimer�s disease, which he later revealed. Still, Reagan permitted his testimony to be videotaped. This is a defining moment in the Bush presidency because it reveals weakness at the top. What Cheney and the tight circle around Bush are protecting is the myth they have created since 9/11 of a war president astride the world stage. Anybody who punctures that imagery is destroyed. Richard Clarke is only the latest in a series of insiders who have pulled back the curtain. At the center is an incurious president who is so inarticulate that he can�t be left on his own to make a sustained argument on behalf of his policies without falling back on rehearsed talking points and sound bites. The Democrats must be greatly tempted to lampoon Bush, but they should leave that to Jay Leno and Jon Stewart. John Kerry is smart to stay out of the way when it comes to the 9/11 commission. The Bush strategy is to muddy the picture, castigate Clarke as a disgruntled partisan, and portray his criticisms as nothing but politics. But Clarke�s book is flying off the shelves, and his revelations will be followed later this month by a sequel to �Bush at War� from Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, which the White House is nervously anticipating. Also due by the end of April is a memoir/expose by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who angered the administration last year when he went public with his finding that Iraq had not sought uranium from Africa. Wilson�s wife was then exposed as a CIA operative by columnist Robert Novak, who was acting on information provided by the administration. Wilson�s book is titled, �The Politics of Truth.� It could be subtitled: �What I Didn�t Find in Africa.� Wilson praises Clarke for how he�s handling himself in the media spotlight. �He�s a ferocious bureaucrat,� says Wilson, �and I mean that in the positive sense of the term. He learned to operate in that environment.� When 9/11 commissioner Jim Thompson confronted Clarke on the gap between what he is saying now and the rosy briefings he gave while working the White House, Clarke explained that was politics. Wilson says an effective response would have been to point out to the many lawyers on the 9/11 commission that White House aides are paid to make the case for the president just as lawyers make the case for their client. �If you can�t abide it, then you step away,� says Wilson. �Clarke was in it for the long haul, to roll back Al Qaeda.� Clarke said under oath that he would not accept a job with the Kerry campaign, and he asked an activist group (MoveOn.org) to stop using his voice on an ad bashing Bush. What Clarke said has been said before, that the Bush administration was slow to recognize the terrorist threat before 9/11 and that going to war in Iraq was unnecessary and has made us less safe. The difference is who�s saying it. Clark is not some Washington time-server. He�s the ultimate serious guy who knows what he�s doing and cares passionately about countering terrorism. He was Bush�s crisis manager on 9/11, the man who sat in the chair in the Situation Room while other top aides fled to safety. The person whose reputation got hurt the most during the Clarke counterattack was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who went to the Senate floor to threaten Clarke with perjury. It was crude character assassination, and it opened the door for Democrats to make the same accusation against Condoleezza Rice, who has made more conflicting statements than Clarke. The danger is not that Rice might actually be prosecuted, but the charge is political mud, and it might stick. � 2004 Newsweek, Inc. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orbax Oh yeah. I also payed over 250 thousand dollars in taxes a few years ago. Ill vote for anyone with some dang tax cuts. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ http://www.formoore.com/wrongbush.html |
| quote: |
| George W. Bush betrayed Roy Moore. When Justice Roy Moore and his supporters declared that the Ten Commandments have a place in the America's courts of law, George W. Bush cut and run. Bush pretended that he didn't even know us, like Peter denying Jesus. |
| quote: |
| George W. Bush betrayed Lieutenant General William Boykin. When Boykin told the truth about America's war against terror, saying that it is really a war against Satan, Bush denied knowing anything about it. We know very well that Bush and Boykin have talked about this very thing in the White House together, but again Bush pretended that he didn't even know about it. |
| quote: |
| Bush has taken part in Shinto ceremonies, bowing down to idols at a Shinto temple in Japan. Blasphemy and idolatry is not Christian behavior. Judge Roy Moore would never do such a thing. |
| quote: |
| George W. Bush has actually increased the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which funds blasphemy! |
| quote: |
| Bush has sent American soldiers to serve under United Nations authority. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by cviper omg. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry after reading that. IMO, religion & politics don't mix very well and should be kept apart as far as possible. |
This should really be in the political forum, but anyway, he's a complete dumbass. I'm glad to see in a Newsweek poll that Kerry is ahead of him.
I just don't like George W. Bush as a person.
He's a fucking spoiled brat, had his daddy wipe his ass all these years to get him where he is now. How the hell do we follow a guy like that? I know cheney made most of Bush's administration, and practically runs the white-house because Bush is an uneducated idiot when it comes to civil affairs. Just by the way his dumb face looks you can tell he doesn't have the intellect to lead this country on his own without being told what to do.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nalin you have to remember that you're asking a bunch of kiddies that have never known true discomfort, never witnessed horrors or had to live under disgustingly cruel conditions with nothing to look forward to, never seen a loved one die right in front of them, always had their stomachs full, etc. in essance if you're looking for people to agree with you that bush should have his throat slit but only after being dipped head first in cow manuer (which any person that doesn't have their brainwashed/ignorant head in their selfish ass can see), you're wasting your time. it always disgusts me how stupid people chose to be because they live all snug and cozy. this forum is for discussing things that dont matter like why tiesto sucks, or what dj you know for a fact uses drugs, or any variety of girl problems like feminine odours, not for serious issues with people that largely don't care as long as they're confy. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ I guess you can probably buy your way out of the draft then. There's another famous individual who did the same during Vietnam, but I cannot quite put my finger on his name... I do know his daddy was an honerable war hero though. |
President Bush, if given the chance, will appoint religious extremists like John Ashcroft to the US Supreme Court.
What has Ashcroft been up too lately?
He's further to the right than his own conservative Missouri birthplace:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ba...-home-headlines
| quote: |
Administration wages war on pornography Obscenity: For the first time in 10 years, the U.S. government is spending millions to file charges across the country. By Laura Sullivan Sun National Staff Originally published April 6, 2004 WASHINGTON - Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn. In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains. Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel. The Justice Department recently hired Bruce Taylor, who was instrumental in a handful of convictions obtained over the past year and unsuccessfully represented the state in a 1981 case, Larry Flynt vs. Ohio. Flynt, who recently opened a Hustler nightclub in Baltimore, says everyone in the business is wary, making sure their taxes are paid and the "talent" is over 18. He says he's ready for a rematch, especially with Taylor. "Everyone's concerned," Flynt said in an interview. "We deal in plain old vanilla sex. Nothing really outrageous. But who knows, they may want a big target like myself." A recent episode of Showtime's Family Business, a reality show about Adam Glasser, an adult film director and entrepreneur in California, had him worrying about shipping his material to states more apt to prosecute. It also featured him organizing a pornographic Internet telethon to raise money for targets of prosecution. Drew Oosterbaan, chief of the division in charge of obscenity prosecutions at the Justice Department, says officials are trying to send a message and halt an industry they see as growing increasingly "lawless." "We want to do everything we can to deter this conduct" by producers and consumers, Oosterbaan said. "Nothing is off the table as far as content." Money and friends It is unclear, though, just how the American public and major corporations that make money from pornography will accept the perspective of the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Any move against mainstream pornography could affect large telephone companies offering broadband Internet service or the dozens of national credit card companies providing payment services to pornographic Web sites. Cable television, meanwhile, which has found late-night lineups with "adult programming" highly profitable, is unlikely to budge, and such companies have powerful friends. Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast, which offers "hard-core" porn on the Hot Network channel (at $11.99 per film in Baltimore), was co-chair of Philadelphia 2000, the host committee that brought the Republican National Convention to Philadelphia. In February, the Bush campaign honored Comcast President Stephen Burke with "Ranger" status, for agreeing to raise at least $200,000 for the president's re-election effort. Comcast's executive vice president, David Cohen, has close ties to Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Tim Fitzpatrick, the spokesman for Comcast at its corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, declined to comment on the cable network's adult programming. But officials at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which Roberts used to chair, said adult programming is legal, relies on subscription services for access and has been upheld by the courts for years. "Good luck turning back that clock," said Paul Rodriguez, a spokesman for the association. Ashcroft vs. consent In a speech in 2002, Ashcroft made it clear that the Justice Department intends to try. He said pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast." Given the millions of dollars Americans are spending each month on adult cable television, Internet sites and magazines and videos, many may see themselves not as victims but as consumers, with an expectation of rights, choices and privacy. Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance, and has fought unrelenting criticism that he has trod roughshod on civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is taking on the porn industry at a time when many experts say Americans are wary about government intrusion into their lives. The Bush administration is eager to shore up its conservative base with this issue. Ashcroft held private meetings with conservative groups a year and a half ago to assure them that anti-porn efforts are a priority. But administration critics and First Amendment rights attorneys warn that the initiative could smack of Big Brother, and that targeting such a broad range of readily available materials could backfire. "They are miscalculating the pulse of the community," said attorney Paul Cambria, who has gone head to head with Taylor in cases dating to the 1970s. "I think a lot of adults would say this is not what they had in mind, spending millions of dollars and the time of the courts and FBI agents and postal inspectors and prosecutors investigating what consenting adults are doing and watching." The law itself rests on the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller vs. California, which held that something is "obscene" only if an average person applying contemporary community standards finds it patently offensive. But until now, it hasn't been prosecuted at the federal level for more than 10 years. Since the last time he faced Taylor, Flynt's empire has grown into a multimillion-dollar corporation with a large, almost conservative-looking headquarters in California, where he and executives in dark suits oversee the company's dozens of men's clubs, sex stores and more than 30 magazines. "He's basically crusaded against everything I've fought for for the past 30 years," Flynt said. "This is for consenting adults. They have the right to view what they want to in the privacy of their own home. And even if they don't enjoy these materials, they still don't want to be looking over their neighbors' shoulders." Cases and results Taylor, who has been involved in the prosecution of more than 700 pornography cases since the 1970s, including at the Justice Department in the late 1980s and early '90s, declined to be interviewed. But he did talk to reporters for the PBS program Frontline in 2001, when he was president of the National Law Center for Children and Families, an anti-porn group. "Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity," he said. "Some of the cable versions of porno movies are prosecutable. Once it becomes obvious that this really is a federal felony instead of just a form of entertainment or investment, then legitimate companies, to stay legitimate, are going to have to distance themselves from it." The Justice Department pursued obscenity cases vigorously in the 1970s and '80s, prosecuting not necessarily the worst offenders in terms of extreme material, but those it viewed as most responsible for pornography's proliferation. Oosterbaan said the department is employing much the same strategy this time, targeting not only some of the most egregious hard-core porn but also more conventional material, in an effort "to be as effective as possible." "I can't possibly put it all away," he said. "Results are what we want." The strategy in the 1980s resulted in a lot of extreme pornography - dealing in urination, violence or bestiality - going underground. Today, with the Internet, international producers and a substantial market, industry officials say there is no underground. Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general, who focused on child pornography, which is considered child abuse and comes under different criminal statutes. The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans. That tolerance could prove to be the obscenity division's biggest obstacle. Americans are used to seeing sex, experts say, in the movies, in their e-mail inboxes and on popular cable shows such as HBO's Sex and the City. There is no real gauge of just how obscene a jury will find pornographic material. The majority of defendants indicted in federal courts over the past year have taken plea agreements when faced with the weight and resources of the Justice Department. More than 50 other federal investigations are under way. In 2001, though, one interesting case emerged from St. Charles County, Mo., the heart of Ashcroft's conservative Missouri base. First Amendment lawyer Cambria defended a video store there against state charges that it was renting two obscene videotapes that depicted group sex, anal sex and sex with objects. Cambria won, convincing a jury of 12 women, all between the ages of 40 and 60, that the tapes had educational value and helped reduce inhibitions. They reached the verdict in less than three hours. The department's most closely watched case involves "extreme" porn producer Rob Zicari and his North Hollywood company Extreme Associates. The prolific Zicari is charged with selling five allegedly obscene videotapes, which he now markets as the "Federal Five," that depict simulated rapes and murder. Almost reveling in the charges, Zicari's Web site says, "The most controversial company in porn today! Guess what? Controversy ... sells!" The case hangs on a strategic move by the Justice Department that could make or break hundreds of future cases. Instead of bringing charges in Hollywood, where Zicari easily defeated a local obscenity ordinance recently in a jury trial, department officials ordered his tapes from Pittsburgh, Pa., and charged him there, hoping for a jury pool less porn-friendly. Industry lawyers and top executives contend that the courts should rule that because the tapes were ordered on the Internet, the "community standard" demanded by the law should be the standard of the whole community of the World Wide Web. The Internet is filled with ample evidence of even more hard-core or offensive material from abroad, they say, and someone in Pittsburgh should not be able to determine what someone in Hollywood can order. Either way, Nguyen, father of a 2-year-old girl, and his co-workers spend their days scouring the Internet for the most obscene material, following leads sent in by citizens and tracking pornographers operating under different names. The job wears on them all, day after day, so much so that the obscenity division has recently set up in-house counseling for them to talk about what they're seeing and how it is affecting them. "This stuff isn't the easiest to deal with," Nguyen said recently while at his computer. "But I think we're going after the bad guys and we're making a difference, and that's what makes it worthwhile." |
Some of Ashcroft's older work:
| quote: |
Senate approves police searches and seizures without warrants. Compiled by Dana Davis The United States Congress is on the verge of passing a Republican sponsored bill that would eradicate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Article IV of the Bill of Rights states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In addition, this bill extends its authority to impede upon the First Amendment Right of "Freedom of Speech." The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, "To provide for the punishment of methamphetamine laboratory operators, provide additional resources to combat methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse in the United States, and for other purposes," has already passed through the Senate and was being deliberated by the House of Representatives as of press time. In effect, what the provision does is empower the Federal Government, State Government and local law enforcement agencies, to enter private property - homes, businesses, automobiles, etc. for any "criminal searches" without a warrant and without any legal obligation to inform the private property owner that a search and seizure was conducted until months later, if at all. If the bill becomes law, then it would grant the Federal Government power to obtain "intangible" evidence -- hard-drive data, photographs or copies made of any documents or family or personal belongings, diaries, etc. - without ever having to inform the owner that their property was searched. If physical evidence was taken then the government could wait up to 90 days later, before having to notify the owner that a secret search of their property ever occurred. David Kopel, director of research for the Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank focusing on Constitutional issues, said the bill was aimed especially at computer hard drives, which could be copied in an owner' absence and examined without the owner's knowledge. The Senate's version of the bill (S. 486) was sponsored by Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri). The House Bill (H.R. 2987) was sponsored by U.S. Representative Chris Cannon (R-Utah). It's primary initiative is to increase criminal penalties for the sale, production and distribution of methamphetamines, appropriate funds to crack down on "meth labs" where the drug is processed, and fund methamphetamine treatment programs. However, tucked away deep inside the legal jargon of the bill are two provisions which go far beyond the realm of methamphetamine anti-proliferation or even the war on drugs. One measure pertains to police search and seizure, while the other attempts to dictate Internet communication. Under present law, a property owner must be notified immediately of any possession seized in a criminal search, but the "Notice and Clarification" section of the methamphetamine bill (S. section 301, H.R. section 6) amends U.S. Code by stating, "Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `With respect to any issuance under this section or any other provision of law (including section 3117 and any rule), any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed pursuant to the standards, terms, and conditions set forth in section 2705, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.' A source within the Senate Judiciary committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, admitted that the language in the search and seizure provision "slipped by everybody" in the Senate. "(Hatch and the Justice Department) buried it deep in the bill, and nobody noticed until the thing had already passed." "The Secret Searches measure is so outrageous that it would have no chance of being enacted as a bill on its own, when subjected to public scrutiny and debate," Kopel asserted. "So instead, the DOJ has nestled the Secret Search item deep inside a long bill dealing with methamphetamines." Jeanne Lapatto, spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee and its chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said she was unaware of the specific provisions in question, but defended the goals of the bill. "This is a bipartisan bill," Lapatto said. "During hearings, no one had any problems with the overall goal of the bill, which is curbing the horrible problem of methamphetamines." Another approach the bill takes to "curbing" methamphetamine usage is by making it a crime to create a hypertext link on the Internet to any site that "directly or indirectly advertises" drug paraphernalia, or distributes information about the processing or purchase of drugs (S. section 203, H.R. section 3). Under the provisions of the act, an Internet service provider, who is notified by a district attorney or representative of the Drug Enforcement Agency, that one of their hosted sites is in violation, would be required to remove the site within 48 hours or face federal criminal penalties. On top of that, another provision of the bill would make it punishable by up to ten years in prison, "To teach or demonstrate. or to distribute by any means of information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of a controlled substance." U.S. Representative Bob Barr (R-Georgia), member of the House Judiciary Committee, is leading the fight against this bill in the House. Barr asserts that the search and seizure provisions of the bill, "Have nothing to do with methamphetamines," and he believes that had the search and seizure provision been introduced as a separate bill, its chances for passage, "Would be very, very problematic." "These are not minor changes," Barr added. "These are substantive and far-reaching changes to the criminal law on search and seizure. It's unconscionable that someone would try to sneak these provisions into an unrelated bill." A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which supports the provisions, declined to comment directly, but did release a recent letter from Assistant Attorney General Robert Ruben to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Illinois). In his letter, Ruben praised the bill for providing, "Important and necessary tools for deterring the spread of methamphetamine manufacturing and abuse in our nation." Speaking on behalf of House sponsor, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), legislative director Chris MacKay said the no-notice provision was necessary for, "Police to perform their job effectively." According to MacKay, the provision was designed to allow police to search with minimum risk to their safety and without suspects destroying evidence before they arrive, adding, "Anything we can do to win the war on drugs is worth doing." Tribune Combined Report, using with permission, amongst other sources, information compiled and written by Justin Torres of CNSNews.com and David Kopel of the Independence Institute. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orbax The only reason im not in the military is because I dont want to do boot camp. Id be proud to serve my country in whatever capacity possible |
Something not too many people know is the Bush administration created a fake news report which was broadcasted on 33 different local news networks. They had a fake reporter "Kate Ryan" who doesn't even exist give a biased positive report on Bush's new medicare plan. This sounds like something straight out of 1984. I will definitely not be voting for this liar and consider him to be one of the worst leaders we've ever had.
On a side note, I also DESPISE Ashcroft. A few years ago he ordered a blanket placed over a nude female statue in D.C. That did not go over too well here in Virginia, as we have a naked woman as the centerpiece of our State Flag. Also I think Ashcroft's handling of the Auther Andersen situation was awful. He destroyed 80,000 jobs in the middle of an economic resession just because one partner in Texas fucked up the Enron deal. They put all the blame and media attention on Arthur Andersen when less than 1 percent of the company was involved in the whole mess. Is it also just a coincidence that Enron was a huge contributer to the Republican party while AA wasn't? Get rid of Bush and have Ashcroft go with him.
The hottest thing to happen for the Anti-Bush campaign-
http://www.myspace.com/2794891.usr
couple of friends of mine hating bush.. Ever get into a conversation with them about it, and they'll get pretty intense. Hot + intelligent + T & A = deadly.
Bush doesn't want you to see this picture:
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ Bush doesn't want you to see this picture: |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by blazed it compared to almost 3 million lost jobs this is a chump change figure. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 3xx3r7 Do you really think he would even care if he sees this? |
all of you complaining about the us "policing" the world should shut up. especially those of you from Europe, i seem to remember a time not so long ago when practically every part of the 3rd world was governed by a european power. if anything what america does isn't that bad...we aren't installing physical governments in those places, but trying to end oppressive leadership.
Re: Re: Re: Americans... what are your views on....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ I'm not some mindless voter who only tows the party line. I know your man is Ralph Nader, and I don't hate Ralph Nader. I think he's a good man, but if he couldn't even get a meager 1000 signatures in the liberal state of Oregon needed to get on the ballot there (a state where he got some 4-5% of the vote in 2000), I think his chances of winning are about as close to 0 as you can get... |
People who don't recognize Bush for the moron that he is disturb me in a very profound sense. While I agree with some of his policies, having a totally inept individual for a leader is just not acceptable. I do not trust his judgment in critical situations, nor should I, given how difficult he finds it to string a couple of sentences together without embarassing himself.
There are other Republicans I would consider voting for. Bush, however, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.