Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Astounding Remark
Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | Sheldon Richman

Posted on 02/06/2002 5:05:45 AM PST by francisandbeans

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-394 last
To: The Mayor
I think you missed the point of the Big Brother allusion. Big Brother isn't this or that particular President and "they" isn't this or that particular group of supporters of either. Big Brother is the giant corporatized government. It matters not whether the titular head of the said Big Brother is Bush or Clinton. "They" support him avidly. And "they" include the great unwashed who have neither the brains nor the inclination to think for themselves (and in this I am not speaking of the avid followers but rather the "man or woman on the street who opines on this or that issue of the day in agreement with whichever group of sycophants hold the titular head at the time the question is asked). The chorus of the great unwashed plus the sycophantic followers of this or that titular head make up the "they". Do you get it now?

As for putting your faith in the lord, you are free to do so. I prefer to remember that "God helps them that helps themselves."

381 posted on 02/08/2002 7:02:34 AM PST by Loopy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Loopy
No, I don't get it. Maybe I would if I didn't know (or think) that you specifically referred to Howlin and people who think like him -- the great unwashed who don't have the capacity to think for themselves.

As to God helping those who help themselves, I just can't seem to find that in my bible...which version do you have? The pc version, or the liberal "Truth is Relative" version?

~the Mayor's wife

382 posted on 02/08/2002 9:46:45 AM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: piasa
The points you are making in post #316 are well taken and although I would have to side with francisandbeans about Ashcroft's remarks I'm going to take issue with you on something entirely different. You said:

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.

That is absolutely incorrect. The PLA threats were not offhand remarks by some careless general. Those threats to nuke an American city, as well as a clearly stated strategy of war against the U.S., were made in a regularly published journal distributed to all PLA commanders and publicly disseminated. I read one such journal, an exact unedited translation into English. It was circulated by various news scources. In the last three years of the Clinton admistration the PRC published the threat to nuke an American city, unless we backed off of Taiwan, through their communiques to PLA commanders no less than six times. In them they clearly stated that war with the U.S. is inevitable and sooner would be preferable to later.

Ashcroft may not have meant what he said and he may be too naive to realize that his words will definitely set the tone of LEO's around the nation but the Chinese (PRC) were being clear and unequivocal in their threats by sending them to all their army commanders in a long and detailed strategy outline and simultaneously releasing it publicly. Chinese generals don't shoot from the lip. I can just imagine what happens to those who do.

You do the security of this nation an injustice when you revise history like that. (But hey! Our last Pres. sold 'em the means to nuke us so don't feel too bad.)

383 posted on 02/08/2002 11:57:07 AM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Steve, ashcroft does what he is told to do and the one doing the telling is not Bush.

For the one doing the telling try hrc.

How does she get ashcroft's ear? fbi file.

When he did not contest his defeat in an election that was so illegal that even Stevie Wonder could see through it, it was not because he is a gentleman. He was told not to.

Then he was neurted [sp?] and emasculated during the confirmation hearings.

384 posted on 02/08/2002 12:16:00 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sport
If that is the case,sport, all Bush has to do is ask him to step down. I don't think he would want an Att. Gen. of that nature, I know I don't.
385 posted on 02/08/2002 12:20:55 PM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: unsycophant
Do you think Janet Reno would have done a better job with this stuff than Ashcroft is doing?

Is that the new standard now? All a President has to be is better than Clintoon? All an Atty. Gen. has to be is better than Reno? The bar is so low now that no one can possibly get under it. By your reasoning we would have no reason to complain if Skippy the Chimp were Atty. Gen.. He'd be more competent than Reno, who could complain about that?

386 posted on 02/08/2002 12:33:28 PM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
The reference to Reno v. Ashcroft was really a red herring reference, because as you pointed out, Reno had nothing to do with this thread.

In response to your remarks, the bar was at its lowest with people like Clinton and Reno. Anyone who is above that bar is better, in my opinion.

As I pointed out, if you consider Ashcroft's past record, he has supported conservative causes often, because he believes that the American people ARE intelligent (despite the Clinton administration's best efforts at dumbing us all down).

387 posted on 02/08/2002 4:50:38 PM PST by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: unsycophant
In response to your remarks, the bar was at its lowest with people like Clinton and Reno. Anyone who is above that bar is better, in my opinion.

So in essence you are confirming what I said. Which was a tongue-in-cheek insult designed to knock you off your pedestal of ignorance but you choose to take it as a validation of your intelligence. Alrighty then!

ROTFLMAO

388 posted on 02/08/2002 7:02:58 PM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Oh. You weren't serious, but if you had been, I'd be devastated by your brilliance. Okay.
389 posted on 02/09/2002 5:49:16 AM PST by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: unsycophant
Context is a terrible thing to waste!
390 posted on 02/09/2002 5:57:33 AM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
So is sarcasm. I HATE when that happens.

ps: Smarter brainiacs than you have tried to knock me from my pedestal. It's venus envy.

391 posted on 02/09/2002 6:20:04 AM PST by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: francisandbeans
This is how Hitler's crew operated. You have no reason to fear if you are not a criminal or terrorist, but oh yes you do when that definition can be broadened to anyone with an objection to government. Will it be broadened? I don't think that should be left in the hands of government to determine.

I don't know if anyone saw an interview with one of the heads of the BATF when he said we won't come after someone's gun unless it is illegal, meaning that if bb guns suddenly become illegal they will come after them with no consideration given to it being a moral action or Constitutional action, just wheather or not there is a new law on the books.

392 posted on 02/09/2002 6:40:29 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Using the phrase "phantoms of lost liberty" Ascroft is clearly refering to imagined threats to our liberty that have no real substance.

Nothing about this statement denies the right to free and open debate over what does or doesn't constitute a genuine threat to our liberties.....he is simply stating his opinion that those he was addressing were illusions....and as such were tying the hands of the Gov't to fight terrorism. Big deal.

It's not like he said substancial threats to liberty should be dismissed in our war on terrorism.

If find the claim that Ascroft's statement constitutes an attempt to "intimidate into silence those who dare to question him" to be irrational, paranoid and silly.

I couldn't have said it better. Thanks. Your words are worth repeating.

393 posted on 02/09/2002 6:51:33 AM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
"We need to take a look at what's being said... and what's being done..."

Absolutely! I fear the enemies of freedom from within our government more than I fear foreign terrorists. The feds relentlessly seek to deprive the American people of their freedoms and rights and to destroy our Constitution. Why? Wish I knew.

394 posted on 02/09/2002 7:14:10 AM PST by Dixielander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-394 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson