Posted on 02/06/2002 5:05:45 AM PST by francisandbeans
I take that statement as an insult to my integrity. Did you read the rest of my post?
;)
'Would you mind telling me you disagree ith in this statement?'
******
The statement does not stand well 'out of context', and it shouldn't. Those who defend smoking, the life of the unborn child, and the right to bear arms as 'Constitutional' rights, are scaring the PC people. These expressions of concern over 'liberty lost' would be seen as aiding terrorists in the context presented.
The out-of-context presentation of the Ashcroft remark is 'AGENDA' driven. And, as Ashcroft is a conservative, I would have to guess the 'smear campaign' is coming from the AGENDA of the socialist/communist 'left', and not the conservative/religious 'right'.
This is where I was coming from too...time will tell which one of us is correct.
BTW...most of you southern folks are might respectful :)
'Must' or 'can' stand alone? If they 'must' stand alone, grounds for concern exist, much like the corporate subsidiaries of 'Enron' and 'Global Crossing' were separated for financial agenda, so could Ashcroft's clauses be separated for political agenda.
So many ways to look at things, so many to want to trust.
Thanks for the 'subordinate clause' discussion, Loopy.
Put most simply, Mr. Ashcroft appeared before Congress. He read prepared opening remarks, part of which are discussed here. Since the remarks were written, the grammar used is vitally important. Words mean things; you agree with that don't you?Here Mr. Ashcroft used a sentence construction that labelled "assistant to terrorists" (1)those that did whatever is not being discussed here AND (2)those that "scare peace loving people with phantoms etc."
You may choose to ignore the words and grammar MR.ASHCROFT chose. But it is entirely disingenuous to say that those of us who understand english should do so.
The Attorney General did not equate expressions of concern with joining Al Qaeda. He just pointed out that if you hamper investigations, you aid the perpetrators. His comments were obviously aimed at the Liberal media, making it clear to them that this is not a very good time for whining about the lack of "political correctness" in law enforcement.
I did mention that we share a lot of 'common ground', didn't I? {;~)
We read the same words, we have different hearts, and we see different hearts. We desire liberty, and only 'truth' will set and keep us free. As long as we are in 'truth', we are free, dead to the world, and an enemy of 'bad' government maybe, but FREE.
PING!!!
I was pretty concerned about erosion of our liberties under Clinton, but there was plenty of evidence that such concerns were well-founded. I see no such tendencies on the part of this administration & in particular this AG.
I guess to some some this is hypocritical, but I don't think so. Until Ashcroft gives me a reason to worry (sorry, hanging a toga on a statue or simply being a christian fundamentalist do not qualify) I'll give him the benefit of a doubt.
BTW I'll admit to not being as well versed in the Patriot Act as I might be, if someone can point to something particularly onerous in that bill I'm open to persuasion.
If Robert E. Lee said "On my honor, I swear..."
Even a yank would have believed it.
If Bill Clinton had said "On my honor, I swear..."
We'd die laughing.
Speeches are not meant to be read. A speech before a live audience has to be choreographed entirely different from one on radio, or one on TV. The written word also needs a certain care you do not have to extend to speech. Give me a thread on FR and I can twist just about anyone's statements by shifting the punctuation or dropping phrases from the quotes.
I once made a comment on a thread that we should bomb the gun statue at the UN
...with sunflower seeds for all the pigeons.
Take Pat Buchanan's famous- or infamous- 'culture war' speech from the Republican convention. It was an incredible speech- my favorite one of all those voiced during that convention. But he was slayed for it. (Don't take that last sentence literally.) Every word was taken out and twisted and he was painted as a reincarnation of Hitler. It was as if other people had witnessed an entirely different speech.
Take Reagan's comment that "Bombing will begin in five minutes."
Now, if you were in Russia, and lived in deathly fear of a first strike from the US, that would have scared the crap out of you. If you understood American humor or the context, or saw his face, you would just laugh. Some Chinese general said roughly the same thing about bombing LA and we in the US went nuts over it, because we took him seriously.
Take the second ammendment. Some libs read it just as it appears and assume that the militia is the only group entitled to guns, and assume the militia is some sort of special military force different from regular citizens. So they think guns are for the military, not the people. We cannot take things out of context of the whole, nor out of the time in which they were written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.