At this late date it is clear you still haven't even bothered to read word 1 of what the Ashcroft-Kerry connection means (it was posted on freerepublic). It is clearly what animates you, beyond all reason. The short version is that the camp that was created was done so at the direct advice/order based on "intelligence" provided ex parte by a District Attorney (over the objections and criticism of a REAGAN-era appointee to the Federal bench, in commentary that read like Scalia's stinging dissent against the Bush Administration in Hamdi). By the way, the term "camp" comes from the Federal Judge (Reagan appointee) at the center of the controversy who called it a "concentration camp." Now THAT would be over the top -- the sign is TIMID by comparison with commentary in conservative papers in New Hampshire and elsewhere. The connection is that Kerry's buds in the Boston City Council worked to pull permits for protests and signs, etc. for practically every single conservative group in the region (targeting especially anti-abortion protesters), thus forcing them into the "pen" -- while the filthy communists got the streets.
The "speech zone" idea was the creation of Leftists (see www.thefire.org) and institutionalized as law enforcement policy under Reno starting with the 1996 conventions. A federal judge tossed it in 2000, so they backed off that year. However, under Bush they have been implementing them virtually everywhere he goes -- the same PC Left-wing nonsense that animates Horowitz, Savage, Buchanan (running critiques of the speech zone policies in American Conservative), and so on. That's the point -- the Justice Department and Kerry have something in common -- PC commitment to socialistic regulation of non-elite political activity and speech under the Orwellian title of "speech zones." Now get a grip. The "focus" here is on the real problem that Rush and Savage complain about repeatedly, that Clintonistas are peppered throughout the top ranks of Justice, DoD, FBI, Marshals, etc. When Carter, Reagan, and Clinton came to power there was a clean sweep of the bureaucracies. NOT under the "bipartisan government" of Bush 43>>>If that's a marginal issue to you then we have different interests, but certainly nothing warranting the mindless vitriol you spew.
That woman, by the way, told me she worked on the Safeguard ABM system [targeting China, by the way, not the Sovs], while you were chewing gumballs. You can see her hanging out in one photo with the guy holding the anti-abortion sign (who was a vet from Korea). What the hell have you ever done for the cause except spew venom on a site for back-benchers?
Exactly right, which is why I said you take on too much. Just because some post on FR is talking about it, does not mean the outside world knows about it. Hell I read FR, am right wing and I think you 2 are crazy-not much hope Joe 6 Pack. Its this kind of inflamatory, vague sign that is so foreign to the average American that is asserted rather than explained that gets you labeled EXTREME.
The short version is that the camp that was created was done so at the direct advice/order based on "intelligence" provided ex parte by a District Attorney
Lets get to the even shorter story, cuz I could care less how this "camp" was created (I assume your non sequitar is about how the Gitmo camp was created. Are you against detaining the terrorists there? The Bill Of Rights is not a suicide pact.)
The "speech zone" idea was the creation of Leftists (see www.thefire.org) and institutionalized as law enforcement policy under Reno starting with the 1996 conventions. A federal judge tossed it in 2000, so they backed off that year. However, under Bush they have been implementing them virtually everywhere he goes
How is it Bush's fault that this happened at the DNC?
PC commitment to socialistic regulation of non-elite political activity and speech under the Orwellian title of "speech zones." Now get a grip. The "focus" here is on the real problem that Rush and Savage complain about repeatedly, that Clintonistas are peppered throughout the top ranks of Justice, DoD, FBI, Marshals, etc.
I don't see any "focus" from you and your lady friend at all---that's your problem! None of this is explained by your equation of The hated AG and the Demo candidate.
When Carter, Reagan, and Clinton came to power there was a clean sweep of the bureaucracies. NOT under the "bipartisan government" of Bush 43>>>If that's a marginal issue to you then we have different interests, but certainly nothing warranting the mindless vitriol you spew.
I asked you repeatedly what 20 people ranting in a cage accomplishes? You failed to answer. I can see why you call that spewing because its a pretty impossible question to answer from the extreme political set. That is because not only are you not gaining converts from the handful of people that might pass by to join you, I would go so far than when you make vague, scattershot attacks on everybody that have no meat to them, you end up turning more people off that on. I for one am against your position and I am a right winger who thinks Bush has been too bipartisan. Its just your selfrighteous extremism is a major turn off for the average person. I have little problem with Gitmo as it exists, and I think discouraging Ashcroft is reckless, irresponsible, and "kookish"
That woman, by the way, told me she worked on the Safeguard ABM system [targeting China, by the way, not the Sovs], while you were chewing gumballs.
That is, if she was telling the truth, which is unlikely.
You can see her hanging out in one photo with the guy holding the anti-abortion sign (who was a vet from Korea). What the hell have you ever done for the cause except spew venom on a site for back-benchers?
First of all, I am not a part of your kookish cause. (You sound like some 60s radical talking about "the cause" like everybody's gonna know what you're ranting about.)Quite simply I have been an educated, successful, informed, reasonable American voter. Something you and her, undoubtedly throwing your vote away on some 3rd party failure, are not.