quade 4 #1 June 9, 2004 So, is it just me or is Ashcroft getting a free ride in the press today because of the Reagan stuff? I mean, he's refusing to turn over a memo to Congress and I think he -might- be held in contempt of Congress pretty soon, but the press isn't saying too much on the subject today. CNN has it burried in the law section. Story It'll be interesting to see were this goes in the next day or so.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 June 9, 2004 QuoteSo, is it just me or is Ashcroft getting a free ride in the press today because of the Reagan stuff? I mean, he's refusing to turn over a memo to Congress and I think he -might- be held in contempt of Congress pretty soon, but the press isn't saying too much on the subject today. CNN has it burried in the law section. Story It'll be interesting to see were this goes in the next day or so. Just returning the favor you did for me by correcting my spelling a week or so ago. Burried is spelled buried. You're welcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #3 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo, is it just me or is Ashcroft getting a free ride in the press today because of the Reagan stuff? I mean, he's refusing to turn over a memo to Congress and I think he -might- be held in contempt of Congress pretty soon, but the press isn't saying too much on the subject today. CNN has it burried in the law section. Story It'll be interesting to see were this goes in the next day or so. Just returning the favor you did for me by correcting my spelling a week or so ago. Burried is spelled buried. You're welcome. But you missed "were" which is spelled "where".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #4 June 9, 2004 "Ashcroft would not comment directly on the 2002 departmental memo that laid out a rationale in which the president was not necessarily bound by anti-torture laws or treaties because of his authority as commander in chief to protect national security." I guess if I was Mr. Ashcroft I wouldn't want to tell anybody about it either. This is just another good example of this administration playing hide the salami with memos Halburton, white house leak, ect,ect. With a republican chair on the SJC,I wouldn't hold my breath. blues jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, is it just me or is Ashcroft getting a free ride in the press today because of the Reagan stuff? I mean, he's refusing to turn over a memo to Congress and I think he -might- be held in contempt of Congress pretty soon, but the press isn't saying too much on the subject today. CNN has it burried in the law section. Story It'll be interesting to see were this goes in the next day or so. Just returning the favor you did for me by correcting my spelling a week or so ago. Burried is spelled buried. You're welcome. But you missed "were" which is spelled "where". Damn Kallend. You're downright useful occaisionally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #6 June 9, 2004 QuoteSo, is it just me or is Ashcroft getting a free ride in the press today because of the Reagan stuff? I mean, he's refusing to turn over a memo to Congress and I think he -might- be held in contempt of Congress pretty soon, but the press isn't saying too much on the subject today. CNN has it burried in the law section. Story It'll be interesting to see were this goes in the next day or so. Buried? It's right here, on the front page of My Yahoo!. There's another one here, also on the front page of My Yahoo!. Finally, another one here, this time on the front page of - wait for it - http://www.foxnews.com/. Quade, we've said it before, CNN is no good for you. "Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 June 9, 2004 Well those no good liberal media elite bastards! I guess they were holding out on me. In reality, the stuff is now starting to come in, but earlier in the day almost nobody was talking about it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 June 9, 2004 See how -fun- that is!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #9 June 9, 2004 Good question. By the way, how the hell is that investigation getting on about the White House ratting out the ambassador's wife as a CIA operative. Oh, it's only a felony ? Never mind.... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #10 June 9, 2004 He won't get a pass Paul. Even the media is getting past the good that Reagan did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 June 9, 2004 The thing is if the memo is as damning as it is rumored to be (hey, I'll admit the leaked parts may be out of context), then I'm just totally blown away with how messed up the situation in the Administration is. What it would mean is that "they" (meaning at least Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, maybe Cheney and maybe even GWB) really ought to be brought up on some pretty serious charges. I totally understand why Ashcroft would want to keep it from Congress, but I don't see how he can in the long run. What's next? EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? How many times can that card be played?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 June 9, 2004 The thing about it is, that the memo and its contents are discussing the legality of what they were doing. Justifying how it would be legal for the POTUS to invoke war time CIC privelage to wage war as desired WITHOUT violating domestic or international law. And how anyone who acted under those orders also wouldn't be answerable for it due to the Nuremburg defense in that they did not have a moral choice to disobey a direct order of the CIC. In other words, they covered their asses. I don't think criminal charges could be brought against them. And as far as not releasing info to Congress, as we've seen before, and appointed advisor to the POTUS doesn't have to. It will be interesting to see if any of the people charged with abuse claim the Nuremburg defense. In the end, it appears to me that GWB and the administration will be shielded. But how repugnant would it be for the public to find out that they actually ordered torture? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #13 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo, is it just me or is Ashcroft getting a free ride in the press today because of the Reagan stuff? I mean, he's refusing to turn over a memo to Congress and I think he -might- be held in contempt of Congress pretty soon, but the press isn't saying too much on the subject today. CNN has it burried in the law section. Story It'll be interesting to see were this goes in the next day or so. Just returning the favor you did for me by correcting my spelling a week or so ago. Burried is spelled buried. You're welcome. But you missed "were" which is spelled "where". Damn Kallend. You're downright useful occaisionally. "Occasionally". You're welcome.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #14 June 9, 2004 QuoteSo, is it just me or is Ashcroft getting a free ride in the press today because of the Reagan stuff? I mean, he's refusing to turn over a memo to Congress and I think he -might- be held in contempt of Congress pretty soon, but the press isn't saying too much on the subject today. CNN has it burried in the law section. Story It'll be interesting to see were this goes in the next day or so. When you talk directly to God, the laws of men are of no consequence.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #15 June 9, 2004 QuoteWhen you talk directly to God, the laws of men are of no consequence. Not true. That was a random unprovoked attack on Christianity. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're attempt at attacking the faith of John Ashcroft in order to discredit him is an obvious misunderstanding of what his faith teaches concerning the law. Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God's Law. Our supreme duty is to obey God. Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict, we are to "obey God rather than men." That doesn't give us a free ticket; however, to do what we want and say "I'm above the law because I'm Christian." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #16 June 9, 2004 QuoteNot true. That was a random unprovoked attack on Christianity. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No. You missed the point. It was an attack on the "Divine right of kings", a principle that held up ancient monarchies. He was aluding that the current administration seems to think it *is* a monarchy. Thankfully, it seems like they're in for a reminder. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #17 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhen you talk directly to God, the laws of men are of no consequence. Not true. That was a random unprovoked attack on Christianity. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're attempt at attacking the faith of John Ashcroft in order to discredit him is an obvious misunderstanding of what his faith teaches concerning the law. Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God's Law. Our supreme duty is to obey God. Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict, we are to "obey God rather than men." That doesn't give us a free ticket; however, to do what we want and say "I'm above the law because I'm Christian." I think it was meant that Ashcroft seems to inject his theology and dogma too often into a government that is supposed to be secular. His whackjob Pentecostal sect is not one I am comfortable having a follower as AG.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #18 June 9, 2004 QuoteI think it was meant that Ashcroft seems to inject his theology and dogma too often into a government that is supposed to be secular. His whackjob Pentecostal sect is not one I am comfortable having a follower as AG.... This has already been hammered to death before but this country is secular in the sense that no religion is sponsored over another. That doesn't mean that religion is not or should not be in government. I'm not Pentecostal, however, labeling them as a "whackjob sect" in your argument is unfair without giving specific examples of why. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #19 June 9, 2004 QuoteThis has already been hammered to death before but this country is secular in the sense that no religion is sponsored over another. That doesn't mean that religion is not or should not be in government. I'm not Pentecostal, however, labeling them as a "whackjob sect" in your argument is unfair without giving specific examples of why. Gee, let's see: -Babbling in church and claiming God is making you "speak in tongues." Uh, yeah, right.... -Sexual repression that goes so far as to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy a curtain to cover the Justice statue's bare breast... Ashcroft pandering to the Kristian Koalition by favoring a ban on abortion including cases of rape, incest, and danger to mom's life Advocating brainwashing, racist, elitist schools such as Bob Jones University, which until recently forbade interracial dating, and still requires their students live like Jews under the Gestapo.. He's a fucked up whackjob. He ought not be the AG of some pissant, backwater shithole county, much less the entire US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #20 June 9, 2004 Do you have experience with the Pentecostal Church in order to make your claims? Everything you've stated is exagerated to the point of being ridiculous. You're obvious hatred of Christianity has no bearing as to whether John Ashcroft is justified in applying his principles of faith in his job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #21 June 9, 2004 His characterization of Pentecostalism is no more prejudiced than many others' characterization of liberals. Of course, liberals never use broad strokes to characterize conservatives It's silly. As is Ashcroft's wanting to put clothing on all the classic Greek statues. If Ashcroft applies guidelines to his work, fine. When he goes beyond that, and tries to engineer society into something that he finds comfortable, then he's abusing his position of power. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #22 June 9, 2004 I do not dislike Christianity... I dislike Ashcroft trying to create the Christian Taliban in the US. Can you point-by-point disprove anything I've said? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #23 June 9, 2004 QuoteHis characterization of Pentecostalism is no more prejudiced than many others' characterization of liberals. Of course, liberals never use broad strokes to characterize conservatives It's silly. As is Ashcroft's wanting to put clothing on all the classic Greek statues. If Ashcroft applies guidelines to his work, fine. When he goes beyond that, and tries to engineer society into something that he finds comfortable, then he's abusing his position of power. Wendy W. You know...........I think I have to agree with you on this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #24 June 9, 2004 QuoteI do not dislike Christianity... I dislike Ashcroft trying to create the Christian Taliban in the US. Can you point-by-point disprove anything I've said? Nor could you prove that the US government is turning into one such as the Taliban. That is yet another utterly ridiculous exaggerated comparison. I've had face-to-face dealings with members of the former Taliban and am quite aware of their form of government and what they did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #25 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhen you talk directly to God, the laws of men are of no consequence. Not true. That was a random unprovoked attack on Christianity. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're attempt at attacking the faith of John Ashcroft in order to discredit him is an obvious misunderstanding of what his faith teaches concerning the law. Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God's Law. Our supreme duty is to obey God. Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict, we are to "obey God rather than men." That doesn't give us a free ticket; however, to do what we want and say "I'm above the law because I'm Christian." It was not an attack on Christianity at all. Jesus did not preach arrogance and hubris like we see from Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
