What color coded threat warning are we at now?

"At some point, someone, somewhere will likely or not do something either horrific or just mean to some place or event either high or low profile. We have some pictures of some muslims or at least tan or brown looking people who may or may not be involved and may or may not be here. So please be afraid of anyone resembling them or who looks remotely like them or has a name with more vowels than consonants and immediatly call your local officials. But don't worry We are here for you and are currently working hard to suspend the constitution in order to protect you. Have a nice day."

If I have to hear another one of these speeches from that crooked little gecko of a man...I sware I will drill out my own eardrums with a power screwdriver with a dull drill bit and a low battery. There will always be threats. But at least flesh them out a bit before going on air. Give us something tangible not some vague fear your neighbor crap that has every idiot calling the FBI because their new neighbor (who they have never seen at the fist church of the holy facade) dyed his hair and suspiciously put the trash out 2 days early.

Now for some politcal humor:

BEST PATIENT

Five surgeons are discussing who makes the best
patients on the operating table. The first surgeon
says, "I like to see accountants on my operating
table, because when you open them up, everything
inside is numbered."


The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try
electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."

The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians
are the best. Everything inside them is in
alphabetical order."

The fourth surgeon chimes in, "You know, I like
construction workers. Those guys always understand
when you have a few parts left over at the end and
when the job takes longer than you said it would."

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he
observed, "You're all wrong. Politicians are the
easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, and
no spine, and the head and ass are interchangeable."

Sorry for the interruption

The terrorist threat warnings are a political tool... nothing more. They're designed to keep people afraid and looking to the government to protect them. Expect more of them as we approach November... when hopefully Bush, Ashcroft, and the rest of those idiots get thrown out on their worthless corrupt incompetant asses.

AMEN, Chip!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -THomas Paine

So we are better off going back to policies of appeasement? We saw where that got us with Carter and the Shah of Iran, we destroyed a valuable political ally in the mid east back then.

Or is the policy of throwing money at the problem, as Clinton did with North Korea acceptable as well?

Remember, you can throw meat at an angry dog to keep it from biting, but once the meat runs out, he will surely still bite.

I guess having a strong moral compass is a bad thing these days. Courage of conviction and a sense of duty are being replaced with fluffy bunny "feel good" acts of appeasement, when appeasement only satisfies the injured party, leaving the dog free to bite another time.

If you were cleaning out a pile of brush in your backyard, with your young children or nieces or nephews nearby, and uncovered a nest of rattlesnakes that were now upset, would you not take a hoe and cut their heads off? Or would you wait and put your family at risk?

Give me my compass, and my convictions, you want to be a meatshield? Join the Sean Penn or Jane Fonda fan clubs. Just allow me my freedom, and the right to fight to keep that freedom.

Far be it from me to take away your "right" to kill thousands of innocent civilians due to "faulty intelligene" and outright lies. I think you need to get your moral compass checked.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Ben Franklin

All I can say is "I Pledge Allegiance, to the flag, to the United States of america, one nation, under GOD, to the republic, for which it stands, indivisible, for libery, and justice, for all."

It's interesting that all you anti theists, who HAVE the liberty to speak out against religion, moral conviction, and a general sense of righteousness, use the very words, and articles of the Constitution as your weapons while you continually attempt to defy it. E Pluribus Unim, we see is every day, yet the anti theists do all you can do, to deny any theist the right for free and unrestricted practice. I guess that your lack of belief, which the constitution protects, is stronger than others conviction of belief, that is also protected. Gee, what another great example of appeasement, destined to go down in history along with Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jewish Faith, Carters Shunning of Iran, Clintons refusal to arrest Osama Bin Ladin(when given the chance) And the Catholic Faiths new found tolerance for child molesters. You're right, you win, I guess that lack of conviction, at the expense of the rest of our freedoms is acceptable, since after all, your lack of oppression is more important, and more oppressive than the restrictions you all have placed on free speech and the right for international freedom from tyranny.

I can hardly await any and all responses denying my right for freedom of speech and religion, please, call in the 9th district court, their opinions are some that I value slightly less than incontinence...

"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."
-Benjamin Franklin (first of one, of a great line of appeasers)

Chip, it was good to see you actually speak a good word about the war, in your Frankiln quote, is shows, that at last, you are finding a magnetic north....




"opinions are like assholes, everyone has one"
-unknown

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

And as such, I do respect your opinions, to hope for you to respect mine, remains folly, would be asking the sheep to respect the distance a wolf needs to keep from attacking, throw it meat, let it attack another day. I hope your larders are full...

Shows how much YOU know. There is nothing NEW about the catholic church's tolerance for child molesters.

LOL Cash, sometimes I swear you come from another planet where everything is backwards and upside down. You seriously need to stop listening to right wing talk radio. I'm not really sure how you went from comments about Bush and the Iraq war to religious persecution, but I find it interesting, not to mention ironic considering you're advocating an unjustified war that is at least partly motivated by Christian distaste for Islam. I'm curious how my thinking Bush is an incomeptant, dangerous, unintelligent and misguided idealogue equates to your freedoms as a Christian somehow being infringed. Those nasty atheists don't want us to kill Islamic people. Damn them and their frightening rational ways! They must be in league with the Commies!

You need me to frame this in a simplistic moral question? Fine. Let's say our country was ruled by someone that the rest of the world hated who was repressive, corrupt, theocratic, and imperialistic (rather like our Mr. Bush). Now let's say someone wanted to "free" us so that we could live in a free society where we'd all be better off, but the catch is that around 10,000 innocent men, women, and children had to be killed in exchange. Would you consider that moral? Would it be a good deal? Would you rather they butted out and let your country solve its own problems? If not, maybe Rush Limbaugh can talk 10,000 of his listeners into taking one for the team. 10,000 less votes might just be enough to free us.

Incidentally, E Pluribus Unum and "under God" are mutually exclusive.

Wasn't E Pluribus Unum a reference to the 13 colonies uniting as one nation?

I don't see what it has to do with Pledge of Allegiance?

Cashmere, you're 'god' does not represent ALL Americans. Thus, there should be no reference to your god in government. Besides, doesn't the First Ammendment ban state establishment of religion? And if singling out one god, above others, isn't promotion.. well, what is?

I have it figured out.. we'll switch out gods depending on the day of the week and have one day 'off' for non-religious folk!

hit the wrong button, but, you notice.. rational people reply with logic, irrational people reply with invective? Once again, Voltaire is my ally....
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

While I defend your rights, I get set upon the Iron Maiden. Please continue........

Invective? Puh-leeze. Chip was merely pointing out your backward thinking. There was nothing harsh about what he said.

Chip *is* replying with logic. You are bouncing all over the place.

You're correct Juro. E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) was originally a reference to the joining of the thirteen colonies but since has taken on a more metaphoric meaning about the pluralistic nature of American society. Conceptually it is incompatible with "one nation, under God" unless you change it to "E Pluribus Unum (except atheists)."

Why? It would seem, especially since you Chip, have told me, that you personally lost friends in the 11th of Sept attacks (notice my desire to use the political and Libertarian media hype terms) That personal loss is not as imprtant as international appeasement. I for one cannot afford to feed the Black Dog. I'm glad that some of you have the courage of conviction, and the depth of pocketbook to pay off terror, rather than fight it. Myself? Fuck it, my family, your family, and anyones family who stands behind the courage of their convictions, is worth the effort. Have you noticed... that of the several hundred of our brave, courageous defenders of our freedoms that have fallen victim in this current battle, that there have been less than a dozen "20/20" style interviews? Reason? A damned good one, people want to hear the truth about the herosim of those willing to die so the rest of you have the right to express your dissent, yet, to give credence to their deaths, is to give credence to your cowardice. I know my friends are not cowards, and we all want to believe that NO ONE we know is a coward. Next time you shave, take a long look in the mirror, and ask yourself........."Would I be willing to die for the chance to do this tommorow? Would I be wiling to die for the chance to have this trivial debate with myself, if I had to in a week?" Christ, Makes me glad that we have a President that knows, appreciates, and understands foriegn policy. By the way, for you liberal minded folks, foreign policy is NOT life insurance on your passport. There is a sale on ostrich holes, I for one do not want one, but I shall buy a gross of them, to prevent the unelightened from getting whiplash once they feel the movement of the world towards truth.

I've been bombarded with assaults that this is about oil (snigger, snort, chortle, guffaw) given the gas prices today, I'm from Missouri, SHOW ME!

other than that STFU, and hope the glass on your onion didn't permanantly give you a myopic view.

Where was the part where you were defending my rights? I thought you were complaining about yours somehow being hampered. When you get to the rational bit, let me know

You said "It's interesting that all you anti theists, who HAVE the liberty to speak out against religion, moral conviction, and a general sense of righteousness, use the very words, and articles of the Constitution as your weapons while you continually attempt to defy it. E Pluribus Unim, we see is every day, yet the anti theists do all you can do, to deny any theist the right for free and unrestricted practice. "

Please explain to me how invading other countries is necessary for the "free and unrestricted practice" of your religion. I'm still confused how we ended up talking about how we atheists are messing it all up for you. What does that have to do with terrorist warnings? I understand the Bush connection since he thinks God wants him to be president and he's done more to erode the establishment clause than any president in US history, but my hatred of him is not limited to his theocratic ways. That's just one tiny bit.

The "War on Terrorism" is an idealogical war that has as much to do with rationalizing defense spending as it does with anyone's safety as evidenced by the fact that WE have killed far more innocent people in the past two years than the terrorists have, by an extremely wide margin while at the same time ignoring the Geneva Convention. Was the Geneva Convention a fluffy bunny feel good act of appeasement? We're also encouraging our citizens to spy on each other and locking US citizens up indefinitely, without formal charges or access to legal representation. Yet somehow through it all we're supposed to be this beacon of morality, fairness, and freedom. The hypocricy is mind boggling.

While I was forming my last message, a few of you replied. I shall bow to your replies, and not post again (Keeping the dog from biting, for now). Shall my Obeisance prevent further rabid attacks? No. Did the United States Obeisance to terror prevent Sept 11? No. But I bow to the higher wisdom and fluffy bunny politic, just don't count on my salary to continue to feed the dog... Obviously you all know that is was having GWB in office that caused that unfortunate day, after all, you've blamed him for it ever since. Bad George! Bad! How Dare you have a moral compass, how Dare you show courage, get the fuck out, grab a cigar and an intern, the world will love you then...got a match?

Hm.

Perhaps we can return to the subject of this thread? In other words, Ashcroft's shameless publicity stunt?

Are you putting this together, Cash? Tom Ridge comes out and says that the "chatter" is nothing new, nothing worth pumping up the color index a level. Ashcroft comes out later with some militaristic-looking dude and says there are "credible" threats that are non-specific. The terrorists are coming, and they want to do something BAD! Oh my! Tell us something we didn't know! Later, counterterrorism officials claim that nothing new has specifically prompted this display.

I mean... come on. Where are they going to attack, Mr. Ashcroft? Well, they might attack at the G8 convention, or maybe at the Republican or Democratic party conventions, or somewhere around Independence day, or when we open the WWII memorial, or maybe they'll attack the Olympics. What will they do, Mr. Ashcroft? Well, they'll probably attack with some sort of biological or chemical weapon or they'll use a dirty bomb. Maybe they've got some yellow cake from Nigeria (and this is why we ought to expand the Patriot Act. I just don't have my fingers in enough pies. I want to throw more people into our 2.1 million prison population in this country, because I'm TOUGH ON CRIME and we've got to get those hard-core criminals who were caught with enough dope to get stuck with a distribution charge OFF THE STREETS so that all of us LAW-ABIDING drug users like your president can get on with their nelly-do bit) Who will attack us, Mr. Ashcroft? Al-Qaeda. Definitely al-Qaeda. But they're recruiting people who don't necessarily fit the profile and they're traveling with families. Here's some pictures. These people are completely unrelated to the nonspecific terrorist threat I'm trying to convince you is imminent (although I won't be caught using that word so that when I'm accused of lying three months hence I can pull a Clinton and say, "I did not lie to that press corps." THESE PEOPLE ARE VERY DANGEROUS. BOO! Um, yeah, they're mostly minorities, but that white-looking guy has long hair, just like those hippies. I'm just showing them to give you something material to grab onto. I'm not even very specific about who these people are or what we think they're up to. We believe one of them is an al-Qaeda point man for East Africa, but you know our administration, we mostly pull this stuff out of the air, he probably just made a few important-sounding phone calls.

And then, in a few days, all the news stories EVERYWHERE are making hay with this meeting. No one seems to remember that Tom Ridge specifically chose not to raise the terror alert level. I trust that's why they had him go before Ashcroft. It's not a turf war, not at all, just a nicely-choreographed way to return the nation's attention to a largely imagined looming menace which just so happens to be the only subject in which our president isn't obviously corrupt (only subversively so), and thus, it is his strongest point in the minds of millions of foolish wankers, one of whom is named Cashmere, and will give him something to hash about in the ad war against Kerry, who himself is a bit of a foolish wanker, just not as much as Cashy-baby.

I weep for our democracy!

Uh, Cash? In case you haven't noticed, Clinton's been out of office for four years. I think it's high time you right wingers stop blaming him for all the evils in the universe and own up to the fact that your guy's responsible for the mess we're in today. It's all his.

Since you brought up Sept 11th I feel it necessary to point out a few things... Since starting this war on terrorISM (Bush is so stupid he doesn't know that you can't declare war on an emotional response, you need an actual tangible enemy) we've toppled two governments who had nothing to do with it while we managed not to capture a single high level Al Queda leader. We didn't prevent the train bombings in Madrid, or prevent the beheading of Nick Berg, and we won't have prevented the next one when it happens, and it WILL happen, no matter how much of a police state we turn this country into.

If you want to prevent terrorism, address the root causes... the poverty, hopelessness, religious fundamentalism of the third world and the hatred for America caused by the number of times we've completely fucked over the middle east. We helped Iran overthrow their democratically elected government and installed the Shah. We poured millions into the Taliban to help them fight the Russians and stay in power. We encouraged Hussein to assassinate the former ruler of Iraq and provided him with the chemical agents he used against Iran and the Kurds. We encouraged the Kurds to attempt an overthrow of Hussein and promised them our support and then we left them hanging out to dry to be slaughtered by the tens of thousands. We continue to support Israel's repression and occupation of Palestine. Want to stop terrorism? Stop giving them such good reasons to hate us.... or, as you so eloquently put it, STFU.

This is almost laughable. No, actually, it is laughable.

No one's trying to take your precious little moral compass, Cashy. It's just some of us don't believe your moral compass is properly aligned. There's quite a big space between a foreign policy of appeasement and what our administration has done and would continue doing if only he had the resources (money and men, both of which should come shortly after any successful re-election).

There is, for example, space for multi-lateralism, for addressing terrorism rationally as a crime and al-Qaeda as an international crime ring as opposed to strange, corporeal Evil, for domestic policy in a purported climate of terror that doesn't require the auctioning off of civil rights or protections (I might point out that the Bill of Rights is increasingly interpreted as "prescriptive," as though it entails the only rights we truly have as opposed to their original intent as the most fundamental rights necessary for liberal democracy, from which all other rights flow. Those who claim that there is no such thing as a right to privacy or marriage (which is part of the larger right to draw up contracts between consenting adults) have glossed over the Ninth Amendment, to our society's detriment, but I digress). There is a lot of space between what Bush is doing and whatever it is you think all of us who disagree with Bush would rather do, and in that space, there is plenty of room for moral conviction, clarity, and compass.

It's one of the grandest hoaxes of our day that the Republican party has convinced the lot of you twits that "moral conviction" means stubbornness and brashness in thought. Skepticism is not a sign of moral weakness or equivocation, but rather, of thoughtfulness, a characteristic our President and a good many he's surrounded himself with seem to lack. And while our answers to what must be done in response to 9/11 may to you seem complicated and evasive, they are, in truth, THOUGHT OUT, which is more than can be said for anything you've posted here.

And might I add that "libertarian" has a very specific meaning and seems to be something quite apart from what you seem to think it means. It does not mean "liberal!"

Phineas, while you weep for me, I weep for your children, mine at least, will be prepared, your naivete is only surpassed by your lack of knowledge, a highly respected member of SL (who shall remain nameless unless he identifes this quote) once told me in December of 2001, 3 months after the liberally celebrated, and much martyrd "9-11" Making the whole thing Gee-dubs fault. That this whole thing was about oil, and once we hit Afghanistan, there would be a HUGE -to use his words- HUGE oil conduit to the US. Affording us lower gas prices since the '76 embargo.... Well guess what? John Galt did NOT build the best light bulb. Look at foriegn policy going back to 1976, Even further back. "Jack" Our nations son actually backed out so freaking far as to appoint the Attorney General (brother Bobby) as the head of foreign policy, because he did not have the moral compass to appoint a strong leader for the role. "Jack" was also so weak as to actually scede his chief of staffs position to the Attorney General, JFK couldn't chose underwear without a Senate quorum, and that is a Democrat I RESPECT! When he was, regretfully determined to be a liability, no one complained, instead, we paid for a $5600/word report from Justice Warren (incidentally, the only still seated Justice from Brown Vs The United States) Hmmm. Yet We are the Bastards for our courage, yet our courage never usurped a lawfully (by 637 votes, determined 17days after the 4-5 ruling for George W Bush) Elected President.

Ironically, YOU chose to use this election as a political abbatoir against the republican party.... Clinton had 14 states that he won by less than 100,000 votes, yet the nation held fast, and stood by th courage of it's convictions, the only pregnant thing in that race, was perhaps, certain DNA tests, yet Paula stil prevailed. Funny. WIlly was investigated for lack of moral vompass, and the same political ANALysts wanted to destroy GWB for his strenghts in the same arena....Discouraging info? yes, either way, does it motivate anyone to vote? Perhaps...... I guesss that given Chips last response, his vote may actually be more than Mayo vs Mustard this year...

Hmm, I suspect somewhere in the middle of the 2 points of view you guys are arguing is the truth.

Uh, no. What you're referring to is the proposed Unacol pipeline that the Bush administration was lobbying the Taliban to allow the construction of. Enron had built a power plant in Dabhol, India with the bright idea of selling them cheap energy, except they couldn't get cheap fuel to power the plant so it sat unused... a massive waste of investor money (to the tune of 3 billion dollars). Power from the plant was 700% more expensive than power from other sources. Oops! I suggest you read this . If you're going to "quote" me, it would help if you had a clue what I was talking about. Actually, just don't ever quote me again. You obviously can't be bothered to listen in the first place.

Bringing up JFK and the past horrors of democrats and liberals does nothing for your argument. It just makes you look desperate to avoid the real issues and pass the blame. It also shows me that you're someone who just tows the party line. Blaming current events on JFK is pretty desperate, and laughable.

As for my vote this year, I'd vote for ANYONE over Bush. So not quite mayo vs mustard. More like anything at all vs fecal matter.

note: I've known Cash for about 20 years and we've been hurling invectives at each other for at least half that time. Even the clinically insane and hopelessly indoctrinated can be good people... most of the time.

Bravo Phineas. Very well said.

This is positively SURREAL.

Cashy's posts are like these strings of ornamental lights, these vague accusations and unfounded insinuations strung together by poor grammar and spelling to form a kind of post-modern, expressionist Gestalt of the typically Republican variety.

I mean, if all conservatives think this way... I guess it's perfectly understandable that they would take the shabby "evidence" we had and decided that invading Iraq without Security Council support was a good idea. Crap, if they all think like this, we should count our lucky stars they didn't launch ICBM's at France.

I'm increasingly tempted to believe Cashy's just a troll. Perhaps those of us who are taking Cashy seriously (including myself) should reflect upon our tendency to believe that those who disagree with us on these issues actually think in a way that in any way is reflected by Cashy's posts. Perhaps that's the core intent of Cashy's posts: to expose the arrogance and presumptuousness of those of us so quick to respond.