John Ashcroft = Bigger S.O.B. than you could possibly imagine

[Tominator]

<< So you are for forcing others to go by your moral standards, even if that means inprisoning them >>



It is really easy to say that, but near impossible to back up.

We 'force' others to obey the law through elections....That my friend is how our system of Government works.

I won't even respond to 'Pokus' personal attack as it is quite evident his reasoning is completely flawed and besides, I've been called worse by better.

 

[SagaLore]

<< SagaLore, quit singling me out and go thump 'your' bible along with Aschroft. It's Christians like you that *almost* make me ashamed to admit than I am one too. God chose not to force His will on people for a reason, or do you and Ashcroft think that was mistake? Good thing we have folks like you to make up for God's mistakes. >>



Where have I singled you out... I only replied to you once...

Go thump my bible? So you're a Christian, but, the bible doesn't matter? FYI I'm not pestering you or anyone else because I am a Christian or not a Christian. I'm playing Devil's Advocate because, it's fun.



Thump my bible? :Q

Do you succumb to any particular denomination?

 

[burnedout]

My my Phokus. Why did you so conveniently forget to include these statements which should have been with your list of sexual acts that big bad old AG Ashcroft is after:

On Jan. 18, 2001, Adult Video News reported on the so-called "Cambria List." Paul Cambria, a longtime attorney for the porn industry, was involved in the list's preparation. The list is controversial within the industry and interpretations differ on how it was meant to be applied. Some in the industry say it represents guidelines for the box-covers of adult videos, not for the sex acts they depict. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that the Cambria List shows how the adult industry is seeking to be more careful, fearing a potential crackdown on pornography by the Bush administration.

The Cambria List:

Box-Cover Guidelines/Movie Production Guidelines

Before selecting a chrome please check facial expression. Do not use any shots that depict any unhappiness or pain.

Now I know why Texmaster busts you out all the time. You take so much out of context and turn it into a whining and sniveling propaganda campaign against an administration you so despise.

First you leave out material relevant to the foundation of your argument. Thereafter, you quote an 8 month old article from "wired". Then you add an opinion from the St. Petersburg Times. Furthermore, adding insult to injury, your screwball link to the damn opinion is all hosed up!

When all of your revelations regarding violations of our freedom of speech advance beyond the typical paranoid, liberal-zealot, speculation stage; please pay us a visit. Until then, I'm confident the United States Supreme Court will do it's lawful duty.

 

[Jimbo]

<< Ok so you're basically saying that most americans are against the 1st amendment, are against helping aids and cancer patients with getting their appetites back so they can get back to a healthier weight, and against helping cancer patients dying with dignity instead of living through immense suffering. OK I'LL BUY THAT! >>



Phokus, you really should get hooked on phonics. Don't try to confuse the rest of us with your self-serving statements taken to an illogical and extreme conclusion. The distribution of pornography is just barely covered by the first amendment and has been ruled up by the Supreme Court well before you were born.
As for the cancer and aids patients you lament for, there are already antinausea drugs available that do the same thing. If medical marijuana is that superior to existing treatments then it will eventually be used. Finally, I am not exactly comfortable with any assisted suicide laws that I have seen. Those that do not have terminal illness could abuse them, and I am sure that is contrary to the intent of the law. Besides, the few terminal cancer patients that I have seen are so ripped on morphine they did not seem to be suffering unnecessarily toward the end.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< Furthermore, if, while taxes are cut, the economy does not emerge from the recession, tax revenue will not increase. >>


OTOH, if taxes are raised, the economy will not emerge from the recession at all. Tax revenue is secondary to the health of Americans' finances. When American families are flush with cash, then the government can "enjoy" increased revenues. But when American families encounter grim times, then the government must focus on efficiency and prioritization to balance budgets, not greater taxation. It cannot place its needs above all. The government just shuffles money around, sending a few wads here and there into oblivion. Money earned by American workers actually feeds their kids and builds their dreams.

Last summer's tax cut was necessary to retard the growth of future federal spending. Will it cause deficits this year and next? Perhaps. But at least that money is in the hands of American workers, not whomever is on the governement's payoff list.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< just think he didn't want a giant dick behind his head in every photo and video of him speaking there. >>

So that means you won't be photographed with him in the near future.

 

[BDawg]

<< OTOH, if taxes are raised, the economy will not emerge from the recession at all. >>



I don't think anyone's trying to get a tax raise. The Republicans are saying the Democrats are trying to increase taxes because the Dems are against the tax cut the Repubs want to give. It's a misnomer of terms the Republicans are using.

 

[Arschloch]

<<

<< Furthermore, if, while taxes are cut, the economy does not emerge from the recession, tax revenue will not increase. >>


OTOH, if taxes are raised, the economy will not emerge from the recession at all. Tax revenue is secondary to the health of Americans' finances. When American families are flush with cash, then the government can "enjoy" increased revenues. But when American families encounter grim times, then the government must focus on efficiency and prioritization to balance budgets, not greater taxation. It cannot place its needs above all. The government just shuffles money around, sending a few wads here and there into oblivion. Money earned by American workers actually feeds their kids and builds their dreams.

Last summer's tax cut was necessary to retard the growth of future federal spending. Will it cause deficits this year and next? Perhaps. But at least that money is in the hands of American workers, not whomever is on the governement's payoff list. >>


Hey, you're preaching to the converted here.

As a staunch libertarian, of course I think the best way to get out of the recession is to cut taxes. All I was saying is that if the government cut taxes but the recession gets WORSE, then the government will be bringing in less money than before because there is no "bigger pie" of individuals' income.

 

[AaronP]

ba dum bum ding! nice one Red

 

[Maetryx]

Phokus doesn't know how to debate an issue without immediately descending into name-calling. He's frustrating, in that I find it very difficult to *not* indict his character when responding to his venom. Presumably this would bring me down to his level, where he could say clever things like, "And you're not doing the same thing?" or whatever.

Jimbo, I'm totally with you. I know Phokus. His main concern is for individual rights devoid of responsibility. There are reasons that "victimless" crimes like prostitution are illegal. It degrades the group as a whole. We, as a soceity, are not better off participating in every carnal perversion, even if there are no individual victims.

 

[Phokus]

<<
Jimbo, I'm totally with you. I know Phokus. His main concern is for individual rights devoid of responsibility. There are reasons that "victimless" crimes like prostitution are illegal. It degrades the group as a whole. We, as a soceity, are not better off participating in every carnal perversion, even if there are no individual victims. >>



Actually, i'm for individual rights with personal responsibility. If you want to do crack and mess your life up, it's your right but then you have to take responsibility and not whine about it. As for prostitution, its a CHOICE. Let me get this straight, you'd want to have people who engage in a consensual action to be in jail rather than catching REAL crooks who commit REAL crimes against humanity? Give me a break, moron (oops, there's that name calling again!)

 

[danzig]

Ashcroft is pretty radical , but no more of a S.O.B. than Janet Reno was , or would she be a D.O.B.

 

[Jimbo]

<< Actually, i'm for individual rights with personal responsibility. If you want to do crack and mess your life up, it's your right but then you have to take responsibility and not whine about it. As for prostitution, its a CHOICE. >>



That would be true if there was no spill over into OTHER PEOPLE'S lives. If someone is a full-blown junkie (crack, heroin, or whatever), how easy is it for him or her to support their addictions without resorting to stealing your VCR because they cannot hold a job but yet they need the money for more drugs? As far as prostitution goes, unless you are one of Heidi Fliess? girls, I think there are very few women who do that because they are really horney and just love their job and make tons of money. Most of them are hooked on drugs and are prostitutes to support their habit. Where is the compassion in allowing these people to sink into the abyss?
Oh and by the way Phokus, your name calling of others only cheapens your posts and draws focus to your flame bait and not the issue you are trying to raise.


and thanks for the support Maetryx!

 

[Phokus]

<< Ashcroft is pretty radical , but no more of a S.O.B. than Janet Reno was , or would she be a D.O.B. >>



I dunno, aside from the Waco debacle, i thought she was pretty much 'hands off'.

 

[Phokus]

<< That would be true if there was no spill over into OTHER PEOPLE'S lives. If someone is a full-blown junkie (crack, heroin, or whatever), how easy is it for him or her to support their addictions without resorting to stealing your VCR because they cannot hold a job but yet they need the money for more drugs? >>



Well gosh bimbo jimbo, if drugs were LEGALIZED, they wouldn't have such an astronomical cost that poor people would have to STEAL to use them, right? Logic -> use it.



<< As far as prostitution goes, unless you are one of Heidi Fliess? girls, I think there are very few women who do that because they are really horney and just love their job and make tons of money. Most of them are hooked on drugs and are prostitutes to support their habit. Where is the compassion in allowing these people to sink into the abyss? >>



Again, personal responsibility. In fact, if prostitution was legalized, we'd have a lot less pimps trying to get prostistutes on drugs in order to 'own' them.



<< Oh and by the way Phokus, your name calling of others only cheapens your posts and draws focus to your flame bait and not the issue you are trying to raise. >>



Like i care

 

[Jimbo]

Phokus: You just get more and more worthless with every post.

 

[Nefrodite]

You're wrong on this one, buddy. And so are they. If they censure anyting worse than bestiality and rape and incest, I will be very, VERY surprised.

oh my, then be surprised, they already smacking down some guy for having fisting.. come on, lesbians sometimes do that, is he anti gay? oh wait, he is. and he's apparently racist too.


elect a republican and you get puritanical fundamentalists as part of your bargain.

 

[Phokus]

<< Phokus: You just get more and more worthless with every post. >>



*YAWN*, apparently, you can't defy the logic in my post. LOGIC WINS AGAIN!

Now go run away scared, little boy.

 

[Tominator]

<< *YAWN*, apparently, you can't defy the logic in my post. LOGIC WINS AGAIN! >>



Life is not logical....that is why the Libertarian stance is so easy to defeat....without calling people names that you have no idea the meaning just because they disagree with you.

 

[BoberFett]

The libertarian stance is easy to beat? Uh, looks who's fcking up the country. Not libertarians.

 

[Jimbo]

OK, I'm back and your logic still sucks, phokus.
Now follow this Einstein: Unless the Govt. GIVES drugs away for FREE how will the junkies pay for them? They steal because they cannot hold a job or they are on some form of disability at the government?s expense.
Next?
Do you think that there are caravans of pimps cruising the schools, selecting girls like a first round draft pick, then forcing drugs on them until they are junkies?
Do you think that just maybe the drug dependency may come first?
Humm...

You Lose!

 

[Vic]

<< It's quite simple really.

Republicans suck.

Democrats suck.

Start electing 3rd parties. If you vote for the same old thing time and time again, expect the same old behavior. >>

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

As a Republican it pains me to see the party returning to it's 'moral superiority' ways.
Ashcroft is a Nazi and the social policies of the administration disturb and scare me.

Keep your f*cking morals to yourselves...

 

[Tominator]

<< The libertarian stance is easy to beat? Uh, looks who's fcking up the country. Not libertarians >>



If you live in the same country I do, the US, we set the pace for nearly every advancement in humanity. Not bad for 'fcking up the country.'

It's like the big game you see. Either you take part by taking sides or you just don't count!

 

[Phokus]

<< OK, I'm back and your logic still sucks, phokus.
Now follow this Einstein: Unless the Govt. GIVES drugs away for FREE how will the junkies pay for them? They steal because they cannot hold a job or they are on some form of disability at the government?s expense.
Next?
Do you think that there are caravans of pimps cruising the schools, selecting girls like a first round draft pick, then forcing drugs on them until they are junkies?
Do you think that just maybe the drug dependency may come first?
Humm...

You Lose! >>



You are kidding me, if you could buy cocaine for a few bucks instead of several hundred, a homeless guy could probably pay for his cocaine addiction by panhandling. Who loses?