Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/17/2001 9:59:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 9:54:26 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
This should make everyone proud. John Ashcroft for President. Transcript is as follows: [url]www.jbs.org/reviewonline/120201_transcript.htm[/url] Review of the News, Week of December 2, 2001 The Perils of Totalitarian "Patriotism" Hello and welcome to Review of the News Online. I’m William Norman Grigg, Senior Editor for The New American magazine – an affiliated publication of The John Birch Society. In his December 6th remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft put the proposition quite plainly: Criticism of the federal government’s anti-terrorism policies is nothing less than treason: "To those … who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." This message has a familiar sound; where have we heard it before? In a 1995 commencement address at Michigan State University, which was delivered shortly after the terrorist bombing at Oklahoma City, Bill Clinton declared: "If you say the government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are wrong… There’s nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country." A few weeks later, in remarks before a hand-picked audience in Billings, Montana, Clinton insisted that Americans have a patriotic duty to "shout down" critics of government actions: "When you hear somebody doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and stick it in the sky and shout them down."
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 10:00:23 PM EDT
(continued) Whether spoken by John Ashcroft or Bill Clinton, this is the language of totalitarianism. And while the Bush administration has not yet described shouting down its critics as a patriotic duty, one of its key allies – a veteran of the first Bush administration – is prepared to do so. According to Paul Bedard of U.S. News and World Report, former "Drug Czar" William Bennett is creating an organization called the "Committee on Terrorism in American Culture." One of its first projects, reports Bedard, will be to "use TV and radio ads, special conferences, and a patriot SWAT team to shush anti-patriots." Perhaps Bennett’s so-called "Patriot SWAT team" could model itself on the World War I-era American Protective League, or APL -- a citizen auxiliary to the Justice Department that monitored, harassed, bullied, and occasionally lynched people it suspected of being inadequately committed to the war effort. One APL affiliate in Missouri distributed "warning" cards to people who criticized the federal government. A white card was a "caution" to the recipient that he had been overheard making "dangerous and disloyal" statements about the government. A blue card was a more pointed warning; and a red card meant that "Summary Action" would be taken unless the recipient provided proof of a change of attitude. This thuggish exercise was carried out by an APL chapter that called itself "the Committee on Patriots and Patriotism." In the republic created by our Founding Fathers, patriotism was defined as loyalty to the United States Constitution. It was a love for America as a free and independent nation ruled by law. This type of love cannot be extorted through threats, or instilled through television commercials. And it certainly will not flourish in the terrified silence that would be created through the suppression of principled dissent. Where John Ashcroft denounces those who warn about the potential loss of personal liberty, James Madison instructs us that the "first duty" of Americans is to display a "prudent jealousy" regarding our liberties. According to the Father of our Constitution, Americans must "take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties…. The Freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 10:01:21 PM EDT
(continued) Thomas Jefferson, from whose pen flowed much of the modern language of liberty, similarly warned that "confidence [in men] is everywhere the parent of despotism…. In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." From the perspective of our Founding Fathers, Americans have only two choices: Either we bind our leaders by the restraints on power contained in the Constitution, or we allow them to become rulers with the power to bind us in the shackles of tyranny. Even in wartime, when our attentions are focused upon depraved and murderous foreign enemies, Americans must remember that it is our own government that remains the largest potential threat to our individual rights and prosperity – if we allow our government to become free from the limits of law. In the name of protecting Americans from terrorism, the Bush administration is steadily destroying the remaining restraints on the powers of the executive branch. As it does so, its top officials consistently invoke what Noah Webster called "the old stale plea of necessity." In a November 30th address to a group of federal prosecutors, Attorney General John Ashcroft censured what he called "a few voices who have criticized" the Bush administration. "Some have sought to condemn us with faulty facts or without facts at all. Others have simply rushed to judgment, almost eagerly assuming the worst of their government before they’ve had a chance to understand it at its best." Mr. Ashcroft would apparently have us ignore the warning of John Adams: "Whoever would found a state and make proper laws for the government of it must presume that all men are bad by nature." Speaking at the same event, the President insisted: "There is no doubt about our intentions, and there shouldn’t be." But as Senator Daniel Webster warned, "Good intention[s] will always be pleaded for every assumption of power…. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 10:01:53 PM EDT
(continued) Some conservative defenders of the Bush administration would insist that the President and Attorney General Ashcroft are honorable men of character who can be entrusted with extraordinary powers. But they should remember English philosopher John Locke’s warning that liberty is most imperiled during the reign of "good rulers." This is because their evil successors "draw the actions of those good rulers into precedent and make them the standard of their prerogative -- as if what had been done only for the good of the people was a right in them to do for the harm of the people, if they so pleased...." Conservative defenders of the Bush administration must remember that the powers they are willing to grant to George W. Bush and John Ashcroft today may be exercised by – let’s say -- President Hillary Rodham Clinton and Attorney General Alan Dershowitz tomorrow. Indeed, since the Bush administration has claimed that the "war on terrorism" will last for decades, there will be plenty of time for these extraordinary powers to be "strengthened by exercise" – and for overtly left-wing administrations to use them against targets of their own choosing. This is why lovers of liberty have a patriotic duty to defend the constitutional restraints upon government power now – while it is extremely unpopular to do so. Thank you for listening. Please join us again next week.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 10:55:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 10:52:35 PM EDT by Goad]
If John Ashcroft wasn't defending the Constitution owners of AR15s would be registered at a minimum and felons probably. If you can not differentiate Ashcroft and Clinton you need help with reality. I believe the John Birch Society is wrong on Ashcroft and constitutionally protected freedoms. Good post Imbroglio.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 5:46:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Goad: If you can not differentiate Ashcroft and Clinton you need help with reality.
View Quote
Imbroglio? Has a problem with reality? Say it ain't so!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 5:51:05 AM EDT
"Meet the new boss, Just the same as the old boss." (now I'm gonna go warm up the lava lamp and sniff some glue)
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 5:59:39 AM EDT
Bill Clinton declared: "If you say the government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are wrong… There’s nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country." Umhuh
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:12:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: (continued) Some conservative defenders of the Bush administration would insist that the President and Attorney General Ashcroft are honorable men of character who can be entrusted with extraordinary powers. But they should remember English philosopher John Locke’s warning that liberty is most imperiled during the reign of "good rulers." This is because their evil successors "draw the actions of those good rulers into precedent and make them the standard of their prerogative -- as if what had been done only for the good of the people was a right in them to do for the harm of the people, if they so pleased...."
View Quote
this is the point, i believe. even if we can trust Bush/Ashcroft, who's hands will these measures fall to in 5 years? be careful, Imbrog, i can just hear BigBore and garandman now..."how dare you even question the tactics of these trusted leaders? by doing so, by bringing their deeds to light, you are just furthering the liberal agenda!" [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:27:04 AM EDT
OK, let's analyze this. First, this statement by the Bircher, charachterizing Ashcroft's remarks.:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: In his December 6th remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft put the proposition quite plainly: Criticism of the federal government’s anti-terrorism policies is nothing less than treason:
View Quote
Then, Ashcroft's ACTUAL remarks:
"To those … who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
View Quote
So, does Ashcorft REALLY equate gov't criticism with treason? Well, he DID NOT use the word "treason" so that's a good indication he did NOT equate it with treason. Further, I've got to imagine Ashcroft has a pretty good handle on the Constitutional defintion of treason. I don't believe "eroding national unity" or "diminishing resolve" are included in the Constitutional definition of treason. If they were, we should have brought Alec baldwin and OJ Simpson up on treason charges, not to mention Homer Simpson. [rolleyes] And a good argument can be made that these people "crying wolf" are infact dimishing the resolve we have to stop terrorist acts in this country. In short, teh gov't is FIANLLY performing one of their Constitutional duties (i.e. nati0onal defense) , and some people still just don't feel whole unless they can bash the gov't. I have a hard time beliving that someone (Ashcroft) who assures me the 2nd Amend is about my personal right to own "assault weapons" is trying to infringe on my Constitutional rights elsewhere, as he has already GUARANTEED me the right to countermand his actions with my firearm. Keep it up boys, the leftists are salivating over us shooting our own.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:30:06 AM EDT
...told ya so!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:34:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2001 6:28:34 AM EDT by ErickM]
John Ashcroft has upheld the 2nd as an individual right and vowed not to create new gun laws. This is all that matters to me. He also said he is going to hire more US attorneys to vigorously prosecute the existing good gun-laws we have. This proves to me his comittment to fighting crime and making the US a safer place. I guage all political figures only on their stance on reasonable gun-ownership, for this is really all that should matter to anyone. (unless you're a liberal.)
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:41:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2001 6:37:54 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By fatty: ...told ya so!
View Quote
I NEVER said Ashcroft should nto be questioned. I made assertions that the logic was erroneous, and therefore the conclusion flawed. And then I stated irrefutable fact - the leftists are REALLY enjoying "conservatives" (aka Libertarians) attacking conservatives (Ashcroft) thereby neutralizing his effectiveness in reaffirming our gun rights. I would advise the Libertarians to look at who their Ashcroft- bashing is aligning them with. The simple fact is if teh Libertatians get their way and they hamstring John Ashcroft, the ONLY political agenda that will benefit is that of [size=6]the LEFTISTS.[/size=6] The Libertarians WILL NOT gain the political power they so desperately crave, and apparently will do ANYTHING (even damage the re-affirmation of our gun rights) to get. FYI - I am NOT a Republican. They are too far left for me. But I am a realist, consigned to teh fact that ONLY Republicans (and only some of them at that )have ANY chance of saving the Republic.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:46:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ErickM: John Ashcroft has upheld the 2nd as an individual right and vowed not to create new gun laws. This is all that matters to me. He also said he is going to hire more US attorneys to vigorously prosecute the existing good gun-laws we have. This proves to me his comittment to fighting crime and making the US a safer place. I guage all political figures only on their stance on reasonable gun-ownership, for this is really all that should matter to anyone. (unless you're a liberal.)
View Quote
yeah, that's ok, in a "playfully political sense", but if you want to get serious about it, you'll have to get over the short-sightedness that plagues some of us here. Ashcroft may be PERFECT, time will tell, but reguardless, HE CAN AND WILL LEAVE OFFICE SOMEDAY, and then all these "national defense" measures might revert to the hands of the very liberals that sit silently stewing over his current tenure. some here remind me of political "permanents" as i call them. minds closed to all future possibilities, to any periferal "ripple effects". never hearing the argument, just preparing their rebuttal, while the speaker presents. a favorite liberal tactic.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 6:55:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2001 6:54:27 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
People TRY to not understand what Ashcroft meant, because they have an axe to grind. He was talking about exaggeration and hyperbole. If you find it necessary to blow the situation out of proportion, you are being dishonest. What cause is served by dishonesty? State your case, but don't expect me to be happy if you lie to me, regardless of your point. That's what he meant. Democrats (and Imbroglio)hate Bush and Ashcroft. They think it serves their cause to lie to people and twist facts, to make their point. They do this with gun stats and info, all the time. Frankly, I'm deaf to it.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:01:17 AM EDT
Fatty - What you are doing is NO different than the shogunners and deer riflers criticising us "evil assualt weapon" owners. Ashcroft is more for you than against you. If you have a personal issue with him, beseige him with letters. Have you even written the man with your concerns?? Or are you waiting him to visit AR15.com to consider the merits of your bitching??? I beleive the man does have a day job that keeps him kinda busy. Add to that your nipping at his heels, and he may NEVER get anything other than the "playfully political sense" done. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:14:32 AM EDT
I personally do not trust ANY government official - elected or appointed until they have earned my trust......and I can't think of anyone I trust on the Federal level yet. OK - so I was a John Birch Society member once, I was homeschooled, I'm now a Libertarian, etc,etc.......I still don't trust them. You think I'm a nut? I'm active duty military......defending America - maybe from itself......I don't trust any of these motherf#####s
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:14:43 AM EDT
[url]www.m-w.com[/url] defines [b]Treason[/b] as: 1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family Now someone, especially a government appointee, accusing somebody else of: [list][*]aiding terrorists[/*] [*]eroding national unity, and[/*] [*]diminishing government and/or national resolve.[/*][/list] Well, that sure sounds like a pretty good case of treason to me. Being raised in a strict Bircher home, watching silently as my brother was sent off to "the camps" (well, honestly JBS Summer Camp wasn't all that bad, he got to go horse back riding and shit like that), it bothers me not one wit to point out when they're off their rockers. Unfortunately this is one of those times where they're exactly right. The most important part of the Bill of Rights isn't the 2nd. It has no "most important" part - it shocks me when people think they can pick and choose their rights to satiate their palate. This ain't no fucking salad bar, it's my country. And for all of you that want to callme names, like liberal or leftist, well, do you know what it means when to base an argument on childish name-calling? It means you're a retard!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:15:07 AM EDT
garandman, what you're doing is NOT reading my posts, because you are a political permanent. you see what you want to see, you read what you want to read. some "realist" [rolleyes] for the last GODDSAMN time! i NEVER, EVER in my whole life, here or anywhere else, criticized mr. Ashcroft or his policies, or even his regime. the article above never bashed him either. MY point is the future, if you go back and R-E-A-D my posts, ALL the words, not just the ones you allow to pass through your protective filters, you will see that i, and the auther of the article, are worried about [red][size=3]WHO WILL TAKE THE HEALM NEXT TERM WITH ALL THESE NEW LAWS IN PLACE[/red][/size=3] SHEESH!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:15:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: ....Imbroglio hate (s) Bush and Ashcroft. They think it serves their cause to lie to people and twist facts, to make their point. They do this with gun stats and info, all the time. Frankly, I'm deaf to it.
View Quote
Actually, Imbroglio, being the enigma (I said "enigma" NOT "enema" [}:D] ) he is, is slightly hyperbolising the Libertarian position, in order to show the suicidal insanity and power gluttony that has taken a good thing (the desire to protect Constitutional rights) and created the monster that is the present day modern Libertarian Party (which essentially models anarchism) At least, that in my estimation, is the net effect of Imbroglios posts here. That said, I was glad to see Imbroglio back to his usual tricks here, and not posting anymore of that touchy-feely Santa crap. [}:D]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:18:10 AM EDT
Dolomite - Try a Constitutional defintion. Webster is irrlevabt here. No one would be put on trial for Websters denition of treason.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:20:20 AM EDT
Holy crap that was fast! G-man, where does one find a Constitutional Dictionary?
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:28:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2001 7:20:04 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Please take a little more care in how you edit my posts, garandman [;)]. I wouldn't want my words to be taken out of context.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:30:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fatty: garandman, what you're doing is NOT reading my posts, because you are a political permanent. you see what you want to see, you read what you want to read. some "realist" [rolleyes] for the last GODDSAMN time! i NEVER, EVER in my whole life, here or anywhere else, criticized mr. Ashcroft or his policies, or even his regime. the article above never bashed him either.
View Quote
In my book, when someone says Ashcroft is trying to silence oppostion by unfairly applying the label of "treason" that IS criticism.
[red][size=3]WHO WILL TAKE THE HEALM NEXT TERM WITH ALL THESE NEW LAWS IN PLACE[/red][/size=3] SHEESH!
View Quote
This point is SO irrelevant, it almost is NOT worth addressing. You should ALREADY know the answer to this. Let me illustrate: "If we just had a few more gun laws, we could keep killers from getting guns." Now, back on point - Do you REALLY think someone SO despotic and tyrannical to do what you assume will be done in the future, really cares at all that there is a LAW allowing him to do it???? It would be like Mussolini saying "Gee, I'd REALLY like to establish a Fascist state here in italy, but gosh golly gee, tha law just doesn't allow for it." See my point???? Law is irrelevant to the dictator. Do you REALLY think what Ashcroft has now brought out into the open WASN'T being done all along by teh Clinton Administration, and teh Bush Administration before that, where it suited there purposes, but only in secret???
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:52:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: OK, let's analyze this. First, this statement by the Bircher, charachterizing Ashcroft's remarks.:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: In his December 6th remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft put the proposition quite plainly: Criticism of the federal government’s anti-terrorism policies is nothing less than treason:
View Quote
Then, Ashcroft's ACTUAL remarks:
"To those … who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
View Quote
So, does Ashcorft REALLY equate gov't criticism with treason? Well, he DID NOT use the word "treason" so that's a good indication he did NOT equate it with treason.
View Quote
"aid terrorists" pretty much sums it up.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 7:53:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Please take a little more care in how you edit my posts, garandman [;)]. I wouldn't want my words to be taken out of context.
View Quote
Sorry. No intense offended...uh, offense intended. [BD]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 8:15:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: In my book, when someone says Ashcroft is trying to silence oppostion by unfairly applying the label of "treason" that IS criticism.
View Quote
i don't remember reading that Ashcroft is trying to do anything like that...and you know how i feel about "your book"
This point is SO irrelevant, it almost is NOT worth addressing. You should ALREADY know the answer to this.
View Quote
-referring to my "the future matters too" quote, yes, yes it does matter.
Let me illustrate: "If we just had a few more gun laws, we could keep killers from getting guns."
View Quote
i must lack the intellect to decifer why you even typed this...
Now, back on point - Do you REALLY think someone SO despotic and tyrannical to do what you assume will be done in the future, really cares at all that there is a LAW allowing him to do it????
View Quote
yes, because this is still America, and even the most criminally-clever of "despots" within this country still has to at least pretend that they are within the law. i mean, really, just because a dumbocrat is elected, you think that we all revert into some Orwellian farce where no laws matter? please.
It would be like Mussolini saying "Gee, I'd REALLY like to establish a Fascist state here in italy, but gosh golly gee, tha law just doesn't allow for it."
View Quote
no, it wouldn't be like that at all.
See my point???? Law is irrelevant to the dictator.
View Quote
maybe, but what we have here, in reality is called a president.
Do you REALLY think what Ashcroft has now brought out into the open WASN'T being done all along by teh Clinton Administration, and teh Bush Administration before that, where it suited there purposes, but only in secret???
View Quote
again, i am not too worried about the Bush/Ashcroft regime, i AM worried about the future, long after the good guys have been voted away. i don't understand why, if "the price of liberty is eternal vigalence", that you can't just be happy that some are more vigilant than others. i'll tell you what, YOU be vigilant of the present, and I'LL be vigilant of the future. OK?
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 8:24:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fatty: i don't understand why, if "the price of liberty is eternal vigalence", that you can't just be happy that some are more vigilant than others. i'll tell you what, YOU be vigilant of the present, and I'LL be vigilant of the future. OK?
View Quote
HERE is the problem. For those who CLAIM to be conservative, and have an issue with Ashcroft.... [size=6]DO IT FREAKIN' PRIVATELY[/SIZE=6] Don't air you gripes PUBLICLY in a fashion to undermine public confidence in the ONE man who has both the power and resolve to reaffirm our firearms rights. Don't do teh Leftists work for them.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 8:25:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fatty: i don't understand why, if "the price of liberty is eternal vigalence", that you can't just be happy that some are more vigilant than others. i'll tell you what, YOU be vigilant of the present, and I'LL be vigilant of the future. OK?
View Quote
HERE is the problem. For those who CLAIM to be conservative, and have an issue with Ashcroft.... [size=6]DO IT FREAKIN' PRIVATELY[/SIZE=6] Don't air you gripes PUBLICLY in a fashion to undermine public confidence in the ONE man who has both the power and resolve to reaffirm our firearms rights. Don't do teh Leftists work for them.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 8:32:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: HERE is the problem. For those who CLAIM to be conservative, and have an issue with Ashcroft.... [size=6]DO IT FREAKIN' PRIVATELY[/SIZE=6] Don't air you gripes PUBLICLY in a fashion to undermine public confidence in the ONE man who has both the power and resolve to reaffirm our firearms rights. Don't do teh Leftists work for them.
View Quote
i was almost going to reply, but for the sixth time this week, you refuse to read my words, you inject your own opinions in matters of fact, you refuse to get my message and continue your ramblings as if i was Ashcroft's biggest enemy. b-buy now!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 8:42:46 AM EDT
fatty - Apologies for lumping you in with the Ashcroft bashers. I see now that was my mistake. But I still think that if you feel what Ashcroft is doing today MAY result in problems years later, you should beseige his office with correspondence PRIVATELY. Since you didn't indicate you have written him, as i recall, I am left to concude the depth of your concern is ONLY enuf to come into a public forum and grouse about it, when we can be pretty sure Ashcroft will never see it. At best, that is an ineffective approach. AT worst, you are doing the Leftists work for them.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 8:56:02 AM EDT
now that's a post i can reply to! writing Ashcroft about the future, which he will be powerless to change (because he'll be retired) is an excercise in futility. my message IS to all of you! i want YOU not to forget, i want YOU to be vigilant, not good 'ole Johnny A., he's doing a bang-up job! all too often, it is the short-term memory of my fellow Americans that worries me most!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:06:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fatty: writing Ashcroft about the future, which he will be powerless to change (because he'll be retired) is an excercise in futility.
View Quote
I gotta disagree with that. Just in teh last six months, I carpet bombed Washington with letters about 1. The DSA muzzle break. The ATF ruling was OVERTURNED, and the brake was determined legal. 2. The Demil Auth. Bill. The proviso was scrapped. Was it my letters? Who knows. But I wrote Ashcroft and Paul O'Neill (even ATF) on the DSA brake, and just about everyone on teh Demill. Both went our way. Letters DO make a difference. I think you suffer a bit to much from fatalism. here's my proposal - get all Libertarians to support Republican candidates. Then, maintain IMMENSE pressure on them to follow Libertarian (or at least Constitutional) policies. Put the Perot / Browne supporters together with the Bush supporters, and we have a uniteds front that CANNOT be defeated. The lynch pin is in the citizens CONSTANTLY writing their Reps TELLING them what to do. But my whole plan falls apart if everyone has the same fatalism that you do. I have shown letters can and DO make a difference. And if you REALLY feel Ashcroft is being unwise in what he is doing today as far as how it will affect the future, and you DO NOT share your perspective with him, please DO NOT criticise him in the future, or complain when your prophecies come true, as they will be self-fulfilled prophecies, as you did nothing to prevent them from coming true. other than post in an internet forum, which Ashcroft is NOT known to freduent. Not a flame, my fellow patriot, just a suggestion as to methodology.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:13:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: other than post in an internet forum, which Ashcroft is NOT known to freduent.
View Quote
... no but i'm sure he'll get the message from "his people" that DO frequent this site! [:D] just remember that one man's fatalist, is another man's realist. i write my fingers raw when i think it will help, but writing a letter to Johnny A. warning him of the demo-barbarians at the gate, would just be silly - in fact, it may just relieve me of any credibility at all. but hey, we "gun-nuts" are already paranoid freaks anyway, aren't we???
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:22:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fatty: but hey, we "gun-nuts" are already paranoid freaks anyway, aren't we???
View Quote
That's right!!!!!!!1 And we woundn't want to dissappoint our fans over at teh BATF!!!!!!!!!!!! [BD]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:28:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: And we woundn't want to dissappoint our fans over at teh BATF!!!!!!!!!!!!
View Quote
[:D]
Top Top