John Ashcroft and B00bies!

[MichaelD]

<< feeding a child has nothing to do with sex, if you can't help to think about sex when seeing a baby being fed, don't look. >>



Argh. You're not getting my point...it's not about the baby, it's about exposed genitalia. That's all. I just don't feel that it's appropriate, that's all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[Aelus]

what's the problem with public nudity then?

Aelus

 

[Aelus]

i guess, even the taliban does.

Aelus

 

[Fausto]

<< "Other laws he's enacted": He cannot enact legislation--he's part of the executive branch. What he has done is go to Congress and request extremely broad police powers, encompassing search and seizure, more wire-tapping, non-judicial wire-tapping, as well as detainment of non-citizens. Mind you, Congress gave him pretty much everything he asked for >>



There are, however, plenty of examples of questionable law-making or -proposing back when he was Senator Ashcroft. He cosponsored an amendment in '99 that would have cut all funding to the NEA. Was he representing the collective will of the people of Missouri as an elected official, or was he using that office to further his personal agenda?

Fausto

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Leading a "war" on terrorism that hasn't routed the real terrorists, but instead targets a sovreign nation's government that we just happened to also dislike. Say what you want about "harboring", but there were many many more dipolmatic ways to handle this. >>


What were they. I'm very curious. Diplomacy failed. They had every chance to turn them over.


<< Refusing a U.S. citizen access to his lawyer. >>


Who? Walker? He signed a waiver, which every legal expert says will stand up in court.


<< Making John Walker a scapegoat because they haven't caught Osama bin Laden. >>


Yeah, OK. Walker didn't do anything wrong , is that your argument. i haven't heard anyone say " Who cares about bin laden, we got Walker" Very stupid statement.


<< Refusing to follow Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war. >>


Try reading the convention. These people are illegal combatants not POW's.


<< Many domestic erosions of basic civil liberties with the anti-terrorism bill he basically forced Congress to pass. >>


Name the erosions. And explain how he forced Congress to pass the Patriots Act.

 

[hoihtah]

haha... when i heard this on the radio... i didn't think much of it... but in picture... it's hilarious.

 

[MichaelD]

What's the problem with public nudity? Well, first off, it's illegal. Secondly, we have clothes for a reason. Please don't misunderstand me; nudity is great...when it's done in the appropriate situation.

The "naked" statues (remember the main point of this thread? ) are ART! They are art, people. However, a real-live human being, man OR woman walking/sitting/prone/on their head with breasts/rumps/genitalia hanging out in public is morally wrong in my eyes. No, I don't believe that women should be covered from head to toe in that Aba thing or whatever it's called.

I just feel that a woman exposing her breasts in a public place is wrong.

 

[Aelus]

why is it illegal, and why should people be forced to carry clothes?

Aelus

 

[Lucky]

<< << Refusing to follow Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war. >>


Try reading the convention. These people are illegal combatants not POW's. >>




Even powell is pressuring bush to at least hold hearings on this. As I've said before, its very likely there were regular "soldiers" not directly involved in terrorism who should indeed be classified as POW's.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< He cosponsored an amendment in '99 that would have cut all funding to the NEA. Was he representing the collective will of the people of Missouri as an elected official, or was he using that office to further his personal agenda? >>


Good. I personally think the NEA is a monumental waste of money. He could of been representing the interests of his state, maybe the majority there feel as I do. The only way to tell would be to take a poll.

 

[MichaelD]

<< why is it illegal, and why should people be forced to carry clothes?

Aelus >>



OK, one more post and I'm done debating, OK?

Most city ordinances prohibit public nudity. Wait a minute..are you even in the USA? *checks your profile* Oh, your not in the USA; your over in Belgium. That's over w/the Neatherlands/Amsterdam, right? Nudity is encouraged over there. OK, well, maybe you don't understand then.

Here in the USA, most city ordinances prohibit nudity. Therefore, it's expected that you wear clothing. OK?

 

[Shantanu]

The ancient Greeks thought nude statues were great... They also thought man-boy love was great. This is the 21st century now people. Nude statues are OK for private exhibits, but for government buildings (funded by all taxpayers) they have got to go.

 

[Fausto]

Well art of any sort is technically a waste of money as it really does nothing practical like stimulate the economy or protect us from terrorism, but that doesn't mean it's not important. Would you really prefer a world where all those damn artists finally got real jobs and quit being such a drain on society with their worthless pretty pictures?

Fausto

 

[Lucky]

<< Good. I personally think the NEA is a monumental waste of money. He could of been representing the interests of his state, maybe the majority there feel as I do. The only way to tell would be to take a poll.
>>



Or a vote, and considering he got beat by a dead guy, I'd say he didnt represent the majority of the state.

 

[Aelus]

<<

<< why is it illegal, and why should people be forced to carry clothes?

Aelus >>



OK, one more post and I'm done debating, OK?

Most city ordinances prohibit public nudity. Wait a minute..are you even in the USA? *checks your profile* Oh, your not in the USA; your over in Belgium. That's over w/the Neatherlands/Amsterdam, right? Nudity is encouraged over there. OK, well, maybe you don't understand then.

Here in the USA, most city ordinances prohibit nudity. Therefore, it's expected that you wear clothing. OK? >>



There must be a reason to prohibit something, right? You're using circular logic if the reason it's bad is because it's illegal. Most laws have their reasons.

Try to think about it with an open mind sometime.

Oh, and please don't generalize belgians with dutch people, it made me very unhappy.

Aelus

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Well art of any sort is technically a waste of money as it really does nothing practical like stimulate the economy or protect us from terrorism, but that doesn't mean it's not important. Would you really prefer a world where all those damn artists finally got real jobs and quit being such a drain on society with their worthless pretty pictures? >>


If the choice is to fund that or say education, social security or national defense, then I say yes they can get jobs or get private funding.

 

[BDawg]

No, I read and understood everything you said.



<< I do not want to be sitting in Mcdonalds eating a Big Mac and have some Lactating Lucy plop her fat ass next to me, whip out a booby and stick it in Junior's mouth. THAT OFFENDS ME. I don't care if she's got a gorgeous rack or not..."now" is not the time for me to be looking at it. >>



It's not just that it's nudity (which it isn't), but that it offends you. It bothers you while you're trying to eat your Big Mac, a.k.a. grosses you out.

Forutnately, some of the people who make laws are a lot more rational and sensible than you. Most states have laws like here in North Carolina which state,

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a woman may breast feed in any public or private location where she is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breast feeding. "

 

[Queasy]

Off the top of my head list:
"Leading a "war" on terrorism that hasn't routed the real terrorists, but instead targets a sovreign nation's government that we just happened to also dislike. Say what you want about "harboring", but there were many many more dipolmatic ways to handle this."
If you remember correctly, the U.S. spent alot of diplomatic resources trying to solve this problem before attacking. Also, at the time, Afghanistan did not have an internationally recognized government. Only Pakistan recognized them. The Taliban was the regime that came into control through force and intimidation.

"Making excuses for bombing homes and Red Cross camps."
Well, that's what happens when the enemies hide in those locations. Also, war is messy...if you think otherwise, go read some history. The U.S. went out of its way to avoid civilian casualties...that is more than a lot of governments have done in the past.

"Refusing a U.S. citizen access to his lawyer."
The traitorous citizen you are referring to initially refused his right to a lawyer. It was his parents that started pushing the lawyer bit.

"Making John Walker a scapegoat because they haven't caught Osama bin Laden."
John Walker is not being made a scapegoat by the government. You just hear more about him and Enron from the press right now because the only thing that can be reported on Osama right now is "Still looking for him."

"Refusing to follow Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war."
The government is following the Geneva Conventions. According to the conventions, the guys that were captured are classifed as "illegal combatants". They do not belong to a recognized army, they do not have a rank or serial number, and they intentionally targeted civilians.

"Many domestic erosions of basic civil liberties with the anti-terrorism bill he basically forced Congress to pass."
First, the AG can't force congress to do anything. Second, the anti-terrorism bill only applies to suspected terrorists.

 

[Queasy]

"Or a vote, and considering he got beat by a dead guy, I'd say he didnt represent the majority of the state."

And Ashcroft was a class guy for stepping aside despite numerous voting irregulaties in the state of Missouri. Not the least of which was that in order to be elected, you have to be a living resident of the state...which his opponent wasn't. He could have raised hell over that but didn't since he knew his opponent's wife was running in his place. Voting centers were also illegally left open hours after they were supposed to be closed. Again, he didn't raise a stink over it.

Oh, and about the NEA. The U.S. government has poured tax payer dollar after tax payer dollar into it and the education system has gotten steadily worse. The NEA doesn't have any accountability. They have constantly failed audit after audit. The major problem I have with the Bush administration is putting more dollars into something that isn't working.

 

[Fausto]

<< If the choice is to fund that or say education, social security or national defense, then I say yes they can get jobs or get private funding. >>



The majority of them are privately funded (read: living in poverty because they believe in what they are doing....ever been in a band?) The amount of money allocated to the NEA in a given year is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount that is going to be spent to fund an ineffective missile defense system (estimated cost in the tens of billions), much less the amazing overspending inherent in any military contract. I mean 100 million per year for the entire NEA vs. $150 million for a single F-22 Raptor? Hell, look at where I work (CDC): millions spent in the few years leading up to 9/11 on office space for our executives while the laboratories decay to the point that there is a significant interruption in work on the anthrax cases. Point being, it's not really about whether the NEA is a wasteful, bloated institution or not...it's why Ashcroft went after them when no one else would. He was attempting to indirectly enforce morals by cutting funding to the artists....censorship.

Fausto

 

[Woodie]

Luckster -- excellent! Beat by a dead guy. I had forgotten that.

The status of the prisoners in Cuba is still up in the air. A number of other countries are pressuring the US (Bush) to recognize them as POWs. Bush doesn't want to, because that (a) gives the prisoners legal rights including attorneys and (b) means that the prisoners have to be sent home when hostitilies end. The first would greatly hamper the US's information gathering abilities. The second is sort of difficult, since there is no declared state of war, so no way to "end it".

The way the Patriot Act was worded, "suspected Terrorist" can be used to apply to virtually any person in the US. That's where the civil liberties got encroached on--there is no clear definition of the term. The fear is that it will be used by law enforcement in similar ways to the way the RICO statutes have been used in many non-"organized crime" situations. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, RICO (Racketeering and Corrupt Influences or something like that) was originally written to target "organized crime" aka the Mafia.

I'm not sure what role Ashcroft plays in the Afghanistan part of the "war on terror" or the "detainees". I'm much more concerned with the way he's shaping policy and laws within the US. What about the settlement with Microsoft? Was that an Ashcroft decision? What about his role in the Enron debacle? (did he have one? I didn't think so.)

--Woodie

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

what... da man no like bzoobz? :Q

Nik

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< He was attempting to indirectly enforce morals by cutting funding to the artists....censorship. >>


i would agree with you that the gov't spending is inflated. I am career military as you probably know. The Navy this past weekend had a successful missile intercept, so we'll see how ineffective that system turns out to be. Airplanes are expensive, no doubt, but you are still asking us to risk our lives in equipment that was built by the lowest bidder. I seriously doubt "millions" was spent on offices, you are probably exaggerating. If not call the waste, fraud and abuse hotline. It works, trust me. Now to the quote above.... How is not funding something censorship? Is it your argument that if I go to the goverment and tell them I want to paint or write or sculpt for a living and they should pay me and they say "no" that it is censorship. I'm sorry but that doesn't pass the common sense test.

 

[Infos]

"Argh. You're not getting my point...it's not about the baby, it's about exposed genitalia" :Q

If you're going to use more than 2 syllable words you should learn their meaning :disgust:

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< If you're going to use more than 2 syllable words you should learn their meaning >>




<< all the changes he's making to the legal system >>


And if your going to post this kind of ignorant sh!t you ought to have some facts to back it up. I'll ask again-What changes has he made to the legal system?