posted on January 19, 2001 09:35:57 AM new
Getting ashcroft confirmed and accepted is similar to having someone who HATES mexican food be chef/menu planner of a mexican restaurant. He says he will follow the law, no matter what his personal beliefs are. How??
posted on January 19, 2001 10:24:22 AM new
I have hesitated to ever post to this thread again - but.
There seem to be this assumption that no matter what the law is, a person's personal idology will always prevail over the rule of law.
Folks seem to think that enforcing the laws come down to how an individual "feels" about it. The enforcement of laws themselves regardless of personal beliefs is absolutely necessary for the preservation of a civilized society.
Nobody seemed to notice that Janet Reno does not support the death penalty - but her office avails themselves of it as a matter of course. I would then ask you to examine how we are now expected to beleive that one liberal group has the moral superiority to rise above their own beliefs -
And the conservatives? - No, they are frequently portrayed as just Hate Mongers led by the "Skinhead Sparticus". And no matter - the portrayal of uneducated southern whites as racist is still on this thread - not paraphrased - not attributed to anybody else - it just sits there. It is a hateful, hurtful, and incorrect portrayal no mater how it is "explained"
For the record - Ashcroft would not have been my choice - Neither would have been Reno - Meese - Et al But, with our system of checks and balances - Terribly extreme views cannot take hold very well, or for very long. thank god
Nutspec
As an aside to Cariad - No - I have not read anything by Stephen Hunter. I will hope that This Bob Swagger is a good character and not a player in "The Turner Diaries" But I will pick one up as soon as I can.
[ edited by nutspec on Jan 19, 2001 10:29 AM ]
posted on January 19, 2001 10:57:24 AM new
Nonsense. There's a practice which could be called subversion of the law, a practice played out every day.
And if you watch the senate confirmation hearing on the confirmation of John Ashcroft you should be able to see it in seed. Unless, that is, you have such a naive or perhaps starry-eyed view of the system in place.
Here Ashcroft is asked "but what would you do if asked to make recommendation to the president on the constitutionality of a proposed law?". And blithely John answers: "Well, I would uphold the constitution of course, but I think it would be very important if any advise that I were to give the president were done privately so that in case he signs the law (presumably in spite of John's advise, but possibly because of it) I would then be able to defend it".
With that I think that he has revealed his intention to do as he pleases, as much as, in full reliance upon the president's willingness to allow him a full measure of discretion in the supposed performance of his duties.
And what duties are those? Well, where does his record show that his loyalties lie?
"Skinhead Spartacus" may be offensive to you, but I think that aside it's catchy character, it's not far off the mark.
posted on January 19, 2001 11:36:23 AM new
"opponents of his nomination have sharply questioned the Missouri Republican's racial attitudes because of his opposition to a Federal judgeship for African-American jurist Ronnie White and his endorsement of the Southern Partisan, a racist, pro-Confederate magazine which has praised the assassination of Abraham Lincoln".
"Now Ashcroft has been asked to explain why he met last fall with Thomas Bugel, the president of the [b]militantly racist Council
of Conservative Citizens[/b] and a veteran leader of segregationist groups in the St. Louis area".
posted on January 19, 2001 11:56:11 AM new
I don't know very much about American history but RebelGuns made the following comment today in the Yahoo forum:
Abe Lincoln was as big a racist as anyone in the Klan ever was (not only did he insist that Blacks would always be inferior, but in 1862 (and not the first time) he stated he wanted ALL Blacks out of the country, and Congress gave him $600,000 to begin his proposed deportation program, not even getting into the genocidal war he waged against the Native Americans.
posted on January 19, 2001 12:03:16 PM new
No. It is true that by the standards of today Lincoln would likely be called a racist (if he held some of his beliefs were he alive today), but there is no question that he was not "as big a racist as anyone in the Klan" ever was. That's a load of crap. He was an abolitionist (contrary to the claims of those who still yearn for the glory days of the early 19th century, he was an abolitionist by philosophy, not just to punish the South). I'm not aware that the Klan (then or now) supported abolition. This type of claim is revisionist and isn't to be found in anything Lincoln ever did or said.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jan 19, 2001 12:05 PM ]
There are several collections of Lincoln's letters written prior to his election and following it. I've read quite a bit of many of them, and have never seen any reference to an attitude on his part that blacks, or any other grouping, were inferior. I've not heard of this allocation of funds either.
Instead, I've seen that he was, as James just said, an abolutionist, and he was that for both moral and constitutional reasons. He firmly believed that no country could claim to be free so long as any citizen within it was not.
I would characterize the quote you gave, and the source of it, as illustrative of exactly what I've previously mentioned in this thread.
posted on January 19, 2001 12:22:31 PM new
nutspec - Very well said. Your views mirror my own.
gravid - You said, "My family always had a concept of personal honor. You kept a deal even if there was no written contract. You treated everyone with a formal courtesy without regard to their station in life or wealth." That has been our experience here in north-central AR., since retiring to this area. Someone giving their word or a hand shake means something here. Arkansans are a proud people, proud of their history, proud of their state, and more conservative (in most cases) than CA. was. The family bonds we have observed here never cease to amaze us.
posted on January 19, 2001 12:23:22 PM new
Ken, from other comments RebelGuns has made, I think he is a native American. (He also once mentioned he involved in civil war re-enactments.)
posted on January 19, 2001 12:26:54 PM new
It's ridiculous to cite the statements that...
1) Ashcroft will support the Constitution.
2) Ashcroft will advise the President in private.
3) Ashcroft will defend a signed law.
...to support a position that Ashcroft intends to subvert the law.
I don't care for him either, but that doesn't extend to a belief that he would not enforce the laws of the land, merely because he disagrees with some of them.
posted on January 19, 2001 12:35:05 PM new
Lincoln was a man of time & reflects the beliefs of his day--one of the main beliefs of the period was the superiority of whites over all others. BUT: in conjunction with that was his belief that slavery was wrong & should be abolished.
Lincoln on race:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I...am in favour of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. president. Speech, 21 Aug. 1858, Ottawa, Ill., during his debates with Stephen A. Douglas for election to the Senate.
Lincoln on slavery:
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. president. Autograph fragment, c. 1 Aug. 1858 (published in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 2, ed. by Roy P. Basler, 1953).
In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. president. Annual Message to Congress, 1 Dec. 1862.
Slavery is founded on the selfishness of man's nature--opposition to it on his love of justice. These principles are in eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. president. Comment, 16 Oct. 1854, Peoria, Ill., during a debate with Stephen Douglas.
posted on January 19, 2001 03:18:56 PM new
I can't see where anyone expects this new government to follow the constitution when the government has been side stepping the constitution in so many ways for years.
Congress has been passing retroactive laws,
the printing of unbacked money, forfeiture without due process, orders to shot unarmed people by Federal agents, the seizing of rights held to the states or people by decree. What is new? Why should it change?
posted on January 19, 2001 09:14:59 PM new
OK - I'll be durned. Don't know Neal - didn't know he spoke for me. I guess I'll have to look him up since you say he speaks for the whole "Gun Lobby" (scary music in the background)
What basis do you have for extrapolating this Neal Knox's beliefs and putting it on all gun owners? Or Firearms makers? Or my own gun range members?
Now we are up to:
All Poorly educated southern whites are racist trash.
Liberals Have the moral superiority to rise above their own personal views and uphold the laws of the Land - but conservatives cannot.
(Guess they are just too busy oppressing folks)
Neal Knox and his pitiful babbling "Alert" speak for all gun owners.
Not
nutspec
[ edited by nutspec on Jan 19, 2001 09:17 PM ]
Gee, just read the full, err, post, so point out as well for me, if you would, where it is that I used the word "all" about anything.
Don't know Neil? Maybe you should.
"Neal Knox, a SHOTGUN NEWS columnist since 1983, is a legend in the struggle for firearm rights. One of the leaders of the Federation for NRA, he helped to engineer the historic reforms of that group in Cincinnati in 1977. From 1978 through 1982, Knox served as executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. Since then, he has led the Firearms Coalition and become one of the nation's premier public speakers and prolific writers in support of Second Amendment rights."
Ever think about joining the NRA? NUTspec? Or does it cost too much for you?
[ edited by krs on Jan 19, 2001 09:57 PM ]
posted on January 19, 2001 11:33:15 PM new
In the spirit of addressing the post and not the poster - Especially because this is a divisive issue - I'll not worry too much that we have reached the level of personal insults directed at me.
In the interests of being clear about my own perspective -
"Ever think about joining the NRA? NUTspec? Or, does it cost too much for you?"
Answers-
I'm not a member of the NRA. I quit them many years ago.
Yes I can afford to be a member.
It is not required to use the actual word "all" to portray a group as a unit - I would hope that a high school debating team could tell people that - Several Laywers that I know seem to have the words "always" "all" and "never" surgically removed.
I'll leave people to read the posts and decide for themselves - it's an important issue and I hope everybody can come to an informed opinion - even if we disagree with each other.
Note that it's not necessary to utilise the Caps Lock while typing the name nutspec. Play nicely or you can go stand in the corner for a timeout..... IOW "address the issue, not the individual"
Michelle
P.S. Did I mention that I really hate it when you edit your posts to add more stuff? I *know* that comment wasn't there last time I looked!
posted on January 20, 2001 12:18:48 AM new
Ah, Michelle, I KNOW that that mispelling was there the last time I looked.
nutspec,
I really don't understand your characterizations of my posts for most of them do nothing but bring the outlook or opinions of others to the forum. Yet you attack me, rather vehemently, for those other people's ideas, all the while making your wishes for reasonable disagreement pleadingly known for all.
You say that I say that ALL southern whites.blah, and ALL republicans..blah, now ALL gunowners...blah, when I don't believe that I've said those things at all. I DO believe that you have failed to read those posts before reacting to them with such strength, and I'll tell you right now that for so long as you continue to do that I will continue to object, for I consider it to be an expression of undue bias on your part.
Specifically to your prior post which contains:
Now we are up to,
All Poorly educated southern whites are racist trash.
Liberals Have the moral superiority to rise above their own personal views and uphold the laws of the Land - but conservatives cannot.
(Guess they are just too busy oppressing folks)
Neal Knox and his pitiful babbling "Alert" speak for all gun owners.
I'll ask you again to point out where it is that I've said these things which you attribute directly to me, and when you don't I'll have to assume that those statements are your own only....products of your own interpretations. I will not be responsible for your interpretations.
posted on January 20, 2001 05:24:02 AM new"I really don't understand your characterizations of my posts for most of them do nothing but bring the outlook or opinions of others to the forum
How nice that you can bring biased, bigoted and hateful rhetoric here, i.e. the outlook and opinions of others, add not one word of your own, and then disavow all implications of such. If you have points to make, why don't you use your own words, give your own opinions and outlook....
[b]Nutspec, start with "Point of Impact" .....Bob Lee is one of my favorite literary characters; but don't take my word for it, read the Amazon reader reviews.
cariad
posted on January 20, 2001 07:28:49 AM new
HWJ - Helen - Hello.
May I ask you why you were disappointed with White's testimony?
What exactly did he say that disappointed you? Where you disappointed that he stated (to the effect) that he didn't feel Ashcroft voted against him because of his race? Are you saying you feel White didn't say what he'd like to have, because he may have a fear of the Klan?
You applaud Kennedy's speech? I thought he made a fool out of himself with his tirade. Just another persons opinion.
I, personally, feel more open to listening to disagreement from a person who presents themself like Diane Feinstein did. She has big concerns, but respectly expressed those views with out the disrespect Kennedy showed.
Every American needs to know the biased, bigoted and hateful agenda of Ashcroft and his supporters.
While I do have some concerns about this nomination, I believe there are many Americans who don't see him as you described above.
posted on January 20, 2001 08:23:27 AM new
And apparently, the use of the caps lock, inadvertent or otherwise, is now a moderatable offense. jeeze, this is really getting out of hand.
posted on January 20, 2001 09:00:17 AM newKrs,
I only ask for your sources when you present controversial statements as fact. I don't believe I have ever asked for a source when you, or anyone else, are giving an opinion.
But I will pick one up as soon as I can.
