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

To: Hacksaw
Even the required Taliban comment

Forgive me for voicing a juxtaposition that is topical. I was not aware this was on the forbidden speech list.

If any future government authority asks the statues be covered or simular, can I expect to be attacked if I state my thoughts when they involve the Taliban?

The original story was shaky, and I made comments given it were true -- the real question is, who is responsible ultimately for an image problem that makes it relatively easy for many to believe Ashcroft capable of such a thing.

Plenty of blame goes to the press and the left of course, but when Ashcroft takes the podium, I see what I see.

Perhaps demeanor is non-substantive, perhaps my instinct lie to me, but the unease I feel with Ashcroft is astounding considering he hasn't done anything on the scale Reno did.

Well, excepting the US PATRIOT act.

When members of 'the party' claim the apologist strategy is a moral means that are justified by the end -- that of party unity -- they are condoning the most dangerous political correctness there is.

I'll stick to the old fashioned standard where lies are lies, betrayal, betrayal, and treason is treason, despite party affiliation.

It is the only way I know of to retain my personal integrity and my political sanity.

33 posted on 02/15/2002 2:56:20 PM PST by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: mindprism.com
So, then I assume you're comfortable with your "Ashcroft = Taliban" comment?
35 posted on 02/15/2002 3:01:14 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: mindprism.com
Forgive me for voicing a juxtaposition that is topical. I was not aware this was on the forbidden speech list.

Um, hyperbolize much? Your speech is not forbidden. Your comments were not deleted.

If any future government authority asks the statues be covered or simular, can I expect to be attacked if I state my thoughts when they involve the Taliban?

If it's a specious comparison, probably. Maybe even if it's not specious. Come on, you know that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. That's the sort of argument the ultraleftists make when they get attacked for their hate speech.

36 posted on 02/15/2002 3:01:28 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: mindprism.com
If any future government authority asks the statues be covered or simular, can I expect to be attacked if I state my thoughts when they involve the Taliban?

No, Taliban is not forbidden. But there has been a nasty tendency of the libertarians (not all) to use that when referring to devout Christians. That is what I was referring to. I am hardly a devout Christian - I am a Roman Catholic who needs to get more devoted to my religion. But whenever I see someone comparing a fundamentalist to the Taliban, I know that it will eventually burn back to me. I do not mean any personal offense.

40 posted on 02/15/2002 3:08:00 PM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: mindprism.com
but the unease I feel with Ashcroft is astounding considering he hasn't done anything on the scale Reno did.
Well, excepting the US PATRIOT act.

Would you mind pointing out where the U.S. Attorney General was empowered to enact legislation? Last I checked the Constitution, responsibility for the US PATRIOT act would lie with the Congress, since Congress alone can pass legislation.

71 posted on 02/26/2002 6:44:47 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

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