Why Can't John Ashcroft just shut the fuck up already

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Every time he opens his mouth its like fingernails grinding across a chaulkboard.

He is the Constitutions most dangerous enemy.

I don't fucking care if he is a "christian"

I don't fucking care how "moral" his ideas are

I don't fucking care that daddy was a "preacher"

I don't fucking care if he was in the "choir" and can sing a freaking gospel favorite.

The man is a danger and a menace to society. He should go climb back in whatever whole Pope Bush Jr. dragged him out of.

 

[Velius]

Personally all those things that zealot psychos think are good about him just make me more wary of him. All that crap just takes away any credibility he could ever have, IMO.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

The thing is I am a fundamentalist christian and I find the man a menace.

I mean supposedily he is supposed to be pandering to the religious right, which I am supposed to a firm representative of. And his decrees are not pandering to to anything of my views. Total left of them.

As much as I cringe saying it Clinton pandered to my views more than Ashcroft does.

 

[Velius]

Now that's fucked up LOL...Yeah, I hate Bush too. He such a moron it makes my teeth hurt.

 

[Laurel]

I agree. When Reno screwed up at Ruby Ridge, I criticized her. So did many on the right and the left. What I don't understand is how he can act so blatantly against the rights of states and against the Constitution and so many on the right who were critical of Reno won't say a word against him.

If Janet Reno had put forth the Patriot Act, the right would've howled.

If Janet Reno had gone to court to fight against a Patient's Rights act that Oregonians had voted in favor of TWICE, the pro-states rights crowd would be screaming.

Why the silence? Is party loyalty really more important than principle?

And what's wrong with the Democrats? Have they been castrated? Bunch of sycophants. Where are the people who will fight for what's right?

 

[Suzi]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

*listens intently*

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I agree. When Reno screwed up at Ruby Ridge, I criticized her. So did many on the right and the left. What I don't understand is how he can act so blatantly against the rights of states and against the Constitution and so many on the right who were critical of Reno won't say a word against him.

If Janet Reno had put forth the Patriot Act, the right would've howled.

If Janet Reno had gone to court to fight against a Patient's Rights act that Oregonians had voted in favor of TWICE, the pro-states rights crowd would be screaming.

Why the silence? Is party loyalty really more important than principle?

I been trying Laurel I try hard not to be party loyal over principal, Its just so maddening sometimes, not that I think Pope Bush is much better himself.

 

[Velius]

Someone needs to round up all the politicians for a "Politics Ball", then spike the booze with some nicotine sulfate or something.

 

[tonyzee23]

Every time he opens his mouth its like fingernails grinding across a chaulkboard.

He is the Constitutions most dangerous enemy.

I don't fucking care if he is a "christian"

I don't fucking care how "moral" his ideas are

I don't fucking care that daddy was a "preacher"

I don't fucking care if he was in the "choir" and can sing a freaking gospel favorite.

The man is a danger and a menace to society. He should go climb back in whatever whole Pope Bush Jr. dragged him out of.

that dangerous man?
wasn't he the same national sercuriy advisor who after the pentagon was attack went back in many times and dragged people out with his bare hands?

bush? yeah the enemy right? so if he spent all his time getting his dick suck by an intern he's be a beter guy right? maybe he needs his wife to kill vince foster? oh he's dead ain't he? hey could he get impeached and lie under oath to congress? oh wait maybe he can cut taxes give us all money back, kill a bunch of terrorits make the world a safe place to live and still get no credid from democrats who can't get their heads out of thier ass long enough to think.

 

[Velius]

Yeah okay, let's just ignore the fact that Bush is a complete and utter idiot. And John Ashcroft is a psycho. I bet if he had his way we would all live under martial law or something.

I could give a shit if Bill Clinton got sucked off by a transvestite hooker, much less an intern.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I am a christian rightwinger

The whole oral in the oval, I don't give a fuck about concerning Clinton.

I never haver , never did never will, that didn't affect his policy.

His policy was what upset me about clinton equally as much as bush policy is upsetting me.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Why Can't John Ashcroft just shut the fuck up already

that dangerous man?
wasn't he the same national sercuriy advisor who after the pentagon was attack went back in many times and dragged people out with his bare hands?

bush? yeah the enemy right? so if he spent all his time getting his dick suck by an intern he's be a beter guy right? maybe he needs his wife to kill vince foster? oh he's dead ain't he? hey could he get impeached and lie under oath to congress? oh wait maybe he can cut taxes give us all money back, kill a bunch of terrorits make the world a safe place to live and still get no credid from democrats who can't get their heads out of thier ass long enough to think.

I think the grammar buddy and the spelling buddy are gonna have a stroke when they see this.

 

[Angeline]

I was hoping

it was a regional dialect of some sort.

I'm thinking that maybe we could get G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North to help out with this. Y'know, real patriots.

 

[Velius]

Todd, indeed. Bush's policy makes me want to strangle things. I can't believe he is going to be my commander in chief soon.

English teacher, no doubt about that LOL.

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: Why Can't John Ashcroft just shut the fuck up already

 

[Wrong Element]

I agree. When Reno screwed up at Ruby Ridge, I criticized her. So did many on the right and the left.

Do you mean Waco? Ruby Ridge happened in August 1992. George H.W. Bush was still president. You wouldn't be the first person who has made that mistake; I've seen numerous published references to Janet Reno being responsible for Ruby Ridge (after the Elian Gonzalez thing, Newsweek wrote, "Janet Reno: Better late than never. Waco. Ruby Ridge. The third time's the charm." )

I suppose the mistake happened this way: Conservatives hated Ruby Ridge; they hate Janet Reno; they're not sure exactly when Ruby Ridge happened but they know it was back there sometime around when Clinton became President; therefore, it must have been Janet Reno's fault.

The rest of your post was just great, though.

 

[Laurel]

Shit. I hate it when I get so riled I fuss the facts. Thanks for the cx, WE.

 

[Laurel]

Here's a conservative who's not a fan of GWB:

The Republican Sickness

by Harry Browne

Do you ever wonder why conservative Republican journalists and commentators support a man like George W. Bush — someone whose proposals for foreign aid, health care, education, farm subsidies, and constitutional violations contradict everything the conservatives claim to stand for?

They suffer, I believe, from a sickness.

A Republican sickness.

Like a virus, it can start very subtly, but eventually it takes over one's whole being.

An individual believes in small government, low taxes, and the free market. He decides that Republicans seem slightly more freedom-loving than Democrats. At least, that's what the Republicans claim.

So he supports the Republican candidates. In fact, he quickly comes to decide that good Democrats are so rare that he might as well vote the straight Republican ticket.

And he comes to believe that only when the Republicans have complete control of the government will he finally get the small government, low taxes, and free market that he longs for.

full article
http://www.harrybrowne.com/articles/Republican Sickness.htm

 

[Laurel]

Another:

America, meet your leaders

by Harry Browne

Poor President Bush.

He apparently wants to invade Iraq more than anything else in the world. And just when he thought he had sufficient support to do so, foreign leaders started backing out.

So he went to the U.N. and gave a stirring speech – saying Saddam Hussein must allow weapons inspections or the U.S. will invade – only to have Hussein agree to allow the inspectors in.

What is the point?

In his quest to go to war, the president is supported by writers and commentators who never saw a war they didn't like. That may be because they never have to go to war themselves – they just send others to their deaths.

To these people, the object isn't a democratic Iraq or U.S. security. The object is war.

The goal isn't peace in the Middle East or removing dangerous weapons. The goal is war.

full article at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28992

More Harry Browne at
http://www.harrybrowne.org

 

[Texan]

Here's a conservative who's not a fan of GWB:

The Republican Sickness

by Harry Browne

Laurel,

Harry Browne is NOT a conservative. He's a Libertarian. He doesn't like ANYTHING government does. He is both anti-Democrat and anti-Republican. Even Unclebill is closer to a Republican than Harry Browne. (I say that with complete respect for Unclebill.)

 

[Laurel]

The way I learned it, politics is a spectrum: conservativism at one end, liberalism at the other.

All beliefs fall at some point on this spectrum.

Socialism, communism, and progressives fall to the left (liberal).

Republicans and Libertarians fall to the right (conservative).

I think he brings up good points about the problems with the current Republican party - that they're forsaking their "smaller government" beliefs to satisfy the Religious Right section of their constituency.

As far as the Dems go, they're a bunch of pansy-assed woosy cowards without the strength of their convictions. Browne put into words some of the frustration I feel with the current left. In one article, Browne even states he wishes Gore would've been President, because if Gore had tried to pass the Patriot Act, the Repubs in Congress would have fought it. Unlike the Dems, who spinelessly pass everything.

Government works best when there's disagreement, when no party can get too much legislation through. This is not the case now. It sucks.

 

[Lost Cause]

Another bashers hate thread.....

So what's new? Oh yeah, Bush was a supersonic jet pilot! So under your premise, all jet pilots must be idiots! Ashcroft is doing a fine job, well aware of the Constitution, and providing fodder for your hate of Christians in general. All you whiners sit in your pissed diapers and scream bloody murder about things you've never participated in, nor have all the facts about!

*You do provide a good chuckle now and then with your hysterics!

 

[Laurel]

Re: Another bashers hate thread.....

So what's new? Oh yeah, Bush was a supersonic jet pilot! So under your premise, all jet pilots must be idiots! Ashcroft is doing a fine job, well aware of the Constitution, and providing fodder for your hate of Christians in general. All you whiners sit in your pissed diapers and scream bloody murder about things you've never participated in, nor have all the facts about!

*You do provide a good chuckle now and then with your hysterics!

So you think the Patriot Act is good legislation?

 

[Texan]

The way I learned it, politics is a spectrum: conservativism at one end, liberalism at the other.

All beliefs fall at some point on this spectrum.

Socialism, communism, and progressives fall to the left (liberal).

Republicans and Libertarians fall to the right (conservative).

I think this may be part of your "problem" (I say that with affection) On the liberal side of your spectrum, you put three "ideologies," while on the conservative side of your spectrum, you put two "political parties."

Being Republican is not an ideology, it's a political party affiliation. Republicans don't follow any one ideology any more than do Democrats. While Libertarian is a political party, it is also a fairly definable ideology. Libertarians tend to have some beliefs that are obviously closer to Republicans than to Democrats, but they are far from a natural step on an ideological spectrum.

I think the reason many people think Libertarians are closer to Republicans has to do with the strong dislike Libertarians have for "collectivists." Democrats tend to advocate collectivist/populist policies, so Libertarians are really more anti-Democrat then they are pro-conservative.

Also, remember that many Libertarians believe that most conservatives would really be Libertarians if they only knew what Libertarians really stand for. Because of this, many Libertarians believe the success of the Republican Party is the main reason the Libertarian Party can't become a viable political power.


I'm not trying to nit pick, I just wanted to point out that Harry Browne doesn't like Republicans because he is a Libertarian. If you go to his website, you will see that he doesn't seem to like anyone, he sure doesn't like Democrats.

 

[Laurel]

While Libertarian is a political party, it is also a fairly definable ideology. Libertarians tend to have some beliefs that are obviously closer to Republicans than to Democrats, but they are far from a natural step on an ideological spectrum.

Precisely my point. I've read Harry Browne for years. And up until the last few years, Browne's editorials have been scathing attacks on the Dems, with little if any criticism of the Republican party. Lately, that's changed. And the disclaimer on his website that his opinions are not representative of the Libertarian party has increased in size since he started taking on Bush, which is interesting.

The political parties aren't ideologies, but they do have principles. Or they did.

What would you have picked for three ideologies that fall to the right?