Speakeasy forum

General discussion

You dont need to sit on the left to be concerned

by gearup / April 1, 2004 3:51 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: You dont need to sit on the left to be concerned
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: You dont need to sit on the left to be concerned
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:You dont need to sit on the left to be concerned
by Mary Kay / April 1, 2004 4:58 AM PST

All I can say is keep your eyes open. And I am in no way comparing the two but just a thought; Adolph hitler was elected also

Collapse -
Re:Re:You dont need to sit on the left to be concerned

Hi, Mary Kay.

Taking the analogy one step further -- AH's powers in matters of "national security for the fatherland" were "temporarily" expanded for the duration of a "national emergency." Needless to say, they were never rescincded...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Questionable analogy, Dave...
by J. Vega / April 1, 2004 8:30 AM PST

Dave, Hindenburg enacted those measures in February 1933 after the Reichstag fire.
After Hindenburg's death in early August 1934, Hitler combined the offices of the President and the Chancellor. Hitler assured the army that he regarded it as Germany's military force, and the soldiers swore an oath of personal allegiance to Hitler, pledging unconditional obedience. Heinrich Himmler's Guard Detachment (Schutz-Staffel--SS) replaced the SA as Hitler's private army.
Sorry, I have trouble seeing your analogy when you try to apply it to the current times U.S. for political reasons.

Collapse -
Re:Questionable analogy, Dave...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / April 1, 2004 11:11 AM PST

Hi, J.

The Patriod Act is our equivalent of the "temporary" security powers granted the Chancellor after the Reichstag fire. There is a difference -- our threat is real, but the powers are excessiv and being used not just against terrorists, but to stifle dissent. For example, protesters are removed to "free speech zones" well out of the President's and the press' hearing. To paraphrase an ancient Zen question, is "freee speech" speech (or free) when there's no one there to hear it?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
True sign of panic...
by J. Vega / April 2, 2004 8:31 AM PST

It's a true sign of political panic when a political party's campaigners try to imply that their opponent is like Hitler.

Collapse -
Re: True sign of panic...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / April 2, 2004 12:21 PM PST
In reply to: True sign of panic...

Hi, J.

I'd agree it's a sign of distress, because I thought we'd dodged the bullet of a police state when the McCarthy era ended, but I now fear I may have been wrong. (BTW, this is quasi-second hand -- I only vaguely recall the McCarthy era; I do recall my late lamented father having a matchbook proudly proclaiming "I like Joe McCarthy and his methods," even though Dad didn't smoke).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
That matchbook again...
by J. Vega / April 2, 2004 4:12 PM PST

You've mentioned that matchbook before, Dave. Isn't it unusual that you keep bring up that long ago memory when you are in your anti Republican mode?
I don't seem to remember such passion when the subject of Patricia Mendoza was on the table. Remember? Mrs. Mendoza and her husband were attending a festival in Chicago on July 2, 1996, when President Clinton, making an impromptu campaign stop, approached her to shake hands with her. Mrs. Mendoza reportedly told Clinton, "You suck, and those boys died"--a reference to the deaths of 19 servicemen in a bombing in Saudi Arabia the previous month. After Clinton's departure, two Secret Service agents questioned her, and the Chicago police arrested her and her husband, alleging disorderly conduct. Then she was questioned for hours at the police station (The Secret Service were there).
Then we have James Carville calling Paula Jones "trailer park trash", which was all over the media and the IRS audit of Paula Jones.
Of course in a recent vein, we had the mob at Karl Rove's house story link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31890-2004Mar28.html
I find it curious that that got such minimal play. It reminded me of something. I can't help but wonder what you would have said about such a thing happening to somebody in the Clinton administration. Dave, I don't give a "flip" about Rove, I just noticed the lack of action when it happened. Note: I assume that those school buses used to transport those people were rented from the School districts.
Bottom line, Dave, I don't see your attempts to link Republicans with "police state" in your political campaigning.

Collapse -
Re:That matchbook again...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / April 3, 2004 1:42 AM PST

Hi, J,

It's not just liberals who are concerned about the Patriot Act (similar concerns managed to scotch the Patriot Act II, thank God -- but many of its provisions, and the "know your custome" banking policies, were later implemented by executive fiat). Libertarians are also very concerned. Furthermore, when Bush touted the Act as a highlight of his war on terror at the State of the Union address, the applause from both sides of the aisle was noticeably tepid.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
For those who might consider this an April Fool's Joke...
Collapse -
and isn't it interesting, the religious right link masters
by IanC_OZ / April 1, 2004 9:09 AM PST

haven't bothered to reply.

They hate facts they haven't selected themselves.

Ian

Collapse -
I am not so sure religion can be levelled
by SteveGargini / April 2, 2004 4:29 AM PST

solely at the Republicans.
I don't have the statistics unfortunatly, but I bet there are as many Roman Catholics who vote democrat, and their own religious teachings are very strict.

Collapse -
Re: I am not so sure religion can be levelled
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / April 2, 2004 5:05 AM PST

Hi, Steve.

You have to differentiate the Catholic laity from the hierarchy -- polls show that a wide majority of American Catholics approve of artificial birth control, a wide majority want married priests, a narrow majority want women priests, and a narrow majority are pro-choice, though a wide majority are anti-abortion except in a very few circumstances. None of these positions is reflected in the official trachings of the Church hierarchy, which is why the current Pope is so opposed to the Vatican II doctrine of Collegiality, which says that the teaching authority of the Church resides in the Church as a whole, not just in the Pope and hierarchy. Most of the Bush Administration agenda on sexual and reproductive freedom (or lack thereof), otoh, could have been written by the Pope himself (the one exception is that they know they don't have the votes for a Constitutional Amendement to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is why they hope to do it in the SCOTUS).

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Please excuse my ignorance - I'm in U.K - what is SCOTUS NT
by SteveGargini / April 2, 2004 7:24 AM PST

NT

Collapse -
( NT) Supreme Court of the United States
by J. Vega / April 2, 2004 8:18 AM PST

.

Collapse -
Thanks J. - It's nice to know - understand why they abbreviated :) NT
by SteveGargini / April 2, 2004 9:18 PM PST

NT

Collapse -
Re:I am not so sure religion can be levelled
by Dan McC / April 5, 2004 5:47 AM PDT

American Catholics are best known for their strict teachings and poor compliance when it comes to the edicts from Rome.

Dan

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
icon
Laptops 20,411 discussions
icon
Security 30,882 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
icon
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
icon
Phones 16,494 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions

REVIEW

Meet the drop-resistant Moto Z2 Force

The Moto Z2 Force is really thin, with a fast processor and great battery life. It can survive drops without shattering.