frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
I have been listening/reading news since I can remember and it comes from all sorts of sources BBC, The Independent, CNN, Fox, Washington Times and Post, NY Post and Times, Time and Newsweek, plus a host of other sources. Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass were sacked for their fabrications. Just because a journalist in one newspaper does wrong, doesnt mean you can paint the whole organisation with the same brush. I dont think all Yanks are mass murderers because of Ed Kempler, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy or Gary Ridgeway. Since I can remember three or four items of news on our national news has been from the US. Hell, I remember as a bright-eyed bushy tailed seven year old listening to Nixons resignation being piped live through our school speaker system. Dont let my nationality give you the excuse to think I am misinformed or adds any weight to your argument.
You took me task for misusing a word and you are doing the same. A liberal is not a communist. A communist is a communist. There is a difference, just like there is a difference between a fascist and a conservative. The ideologies are linked, but they are not the same. As stated on two previous occasions, you Yanks need to get out more and realise there are more than two ideologies going around.
Same with our system of govt. It is very hard for one party to take control, and in fact, since MMP was introduced 12 years ago, there has never been a majority govt. The problem with your system is there are only two ideologies, and even in my life time, they seem to be getting extreme with each passing election.
What makes you think any of us TRUST our govts? Hint: We dont. You completely missed my point about whining; we do it too, but on a much lower scale because we realise there has to be compromise for a govt to work properly and efficiently. In the seven years Ive been on messageboards I am seeing that there is a severe lack of wanting said compromise in the US. As I said, time to grow up and stop arguing for arguings sake.
Freedom of assembly and speech? Really? Wear a I hate Bush shirt to one of his speeches? Ditto a similar Obama shirt to one of his rallies. Take your memory back to going through US customs pre 9-11 and now. I dont live in the UK, but that aside, the thing I love most about the 5th is that as soon as somebody takes it, it makes them guilty IMO. You dont think juries take that into consideration when deliberating?? LOL
Ah, the old Dressing-up-taking-liberties-away-for-you-own-good scenario. What was that about liberals and communists again? I have no problem with them intercepting phone calls from terrorists, but I do remember straight after the patriot act was passed, federal law enforcement did try and arrest somebody unrelated to terror using those powers. Cant remember the exact case, but I remember some true-blue right-wingers on the messageboard I was posting on were doing the old I told you so to the rest of us.
The Red Cross does not have full access to the detainees. It is limited. And are they the most dangerous people? How come some have been released? How come there is no transparency? Ill tell you why, because the US military dont know themselves. You do know there are instances when Abdul has told the US forces that his neighbour Mohammed is a terrorist and theyve just bowled in, taken him away and stuck him in Gitmo for a couple of years without trial, right? Again, its not lost on me that you anti-abortion types who hold all human life sacrosanct, are more than happy to throw your fellow human beings to the dogs with little or no evidence, just a perceived threat. How benevolent of you. But theyre only ragheads, right. Muslims to boot and Ive already seen your right-wing Christian whackjob opinions on Muslims. Dont bitch to me about human life, when obviously even you dont believe what you are spouting in that regard. My God, how nice of the US to feed them and give them dental care. They must really be glad they stay inside 23 hours a day and get to read books and are away from their families. My problem with Gitmo isnt the guilty ones, its the innocent ones and the lack of transparency.
As I said, I have no problems with you keeping real terrorists. I couldnt give a shit about enemy combatants and their status. The very reason they were given that status was so the US could side-step natural justice and do what they want.
And I know some have gone back to the fight, but what you dont say is why. You dont think Abdul the goat herder who spent five years in Gitmo for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not going to want a little payback when released? My country does not benefit one iota from you keeping them. There has only ever been one act of terrorism carried out on NZ soil and that was by the French secret service back in 1985 who blew up the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. The ship was about to embark on protest action at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia where the Frogs carried out nuclear testing.
These get lengthy with the inclusion of so many different topics. Whatever you were bitching about with the Patriot Act, perhaps you are unaware that nearly every single measure in that Act was already in existence as law -measures passed years ago that could only be used to fight organized crime and no other kind of crime. Some of those measures used only against organized crime were simply bundled together and called "Patriot Act" in order to expand their use to fight terrorism -which is also a form of organized crime. The only entirely NEW measure in the Patriot Act was making warrants for phone taps apply to the individual regardless of what phone he uses -instead of having to get a new warrant each time he changed phones like they used to have to do. So it was a lot of phony hoopla that this was something unheard of involving all sorts of loss of rights. Total BS because all those measures are decades old and simply expanded to recognize the fact that terrorism is also a form of organized crime. The RICO Act has also been misapplied in the past -an act intended to fight organized crime and misapplied. The courts hold prosecutions to the letter of the law with these kinds of acts and if they find it doesn't apply, they throw out the charges. The beauty of a system of checks-and-balance -but it is after such measures are first passed that misapplications of the law are most likely to happen. The fact that this one too was once misapplied isn't nearly as important as the fact our court system recognized it was. I'm pretty sure misapplications of the law are not unique to just THIS country and never happens in your own. LOL
You don't understand the right to assembly. It means a right for YOU to create an assembly of like-minded people for a specific purpose and hold that assembly without disruption or arrest by government. It doesn't mean a right to disrupt or exploit for your own purposes someone else's assembly.
If a politician holds a rally or event for a speech, then it is HIS assembly -not yours. He doesn't lose his right of assembly just because he's running for office. So people who attend such functions and make it clear their reason for being there is to disrupt it in some way -can be denied entrance or removed. And intent to disrupt can legally be determined by clothing you choose to wear that make your intentions known. All politicians do this and all of them have done it. And they will all continue to do it. If they are creating the assembly, they get to make the rules about who can attend it. Someone who made it clear they supported Obama was ejected from Bill Clinton's audience just a couple of days ago while he was campaigning for Hillary. That assembly was created for supporters of Hillary -not Obama.
Now if you want to create your OWN assembly and gather a group of people together in order to display your anti-Bush Tshirts and chant your anti-Bush slogans -you have that right. And Bush has no right to come in and try to exploit that assembly for his own purposes.
And you are wrong about the Red Cross and access to all detainees -it does. The Red Cross does not claim it is being prevented from seeing any detainee -they know exactly how many are there, their names and physical and mental condition. But I did see that CNN news report where a reporter who went to Gitmo was allowed to interview detainees. One detainee claimed the US military refused to allow him to see the Red Cross. What a hoot -they won't let the Red Cross see the guy but will let a reporter interview him so he can make that claim to the whole world? Yeah, real believable. About as believable as the ones who are released, were seen all the time by the Red Cross while being held -and then claimed they were TORTURED. Oh and by the way -CNN reported this story as if it were true. Fox first went to the Red Cross to find out if it were true they had not been able to see that particular detainee -and reported the fact that the detainee lied about it. As far as I know, CNN never corrected their report.
Detainees held at Gitmo were caught in battle -and those who were released, were those believed least likely to return to battle after interviews, background checks and checking their stories about how they came to be captured in war. All were captured in Afghanistan which was not a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions. Which is why it doesn't apply to them -whether an Afghan national or a foreign fighter who entered, if you fight on the side that did not sign the Geneva Conventions, they cannot claim the protection of the Geneva Conventions. And that isn't even touching on what the Conventions say about fighters who attack civilians and hide among them. They have no right to access our civilian justice system -but bringing them inside our country would do just that. And in spite of trying to be sure before releasing detainees, they got it wrong about 200 times -which gives you an idea what convincing liars they can be. And how much benefit of the doubt our military gave them.
As for the news media -in this country, publications like the NY Times, LA Times, CBS and other "news" fabricating outlets trying to foist their political agenda off as "news" are well known and their circulation and audience numbers have sharply dropped off. Most people I know wouldn't use the NY Times to wrap their garbage in much less read it.
And as for liberals and communists -sorry, but in this country US liberals tend to openly admire socialism and communism, openly admire people like Castro and Chavez and make no bones about the direction they wish this country would take. Policy statements of leftwing organizations are quite revealing.
Do not confuse political parties with people being liberal or conservative. It doesn't work that way here. There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans -but liberals are a minority in this country. The majority of Democrats are not liberals although there is a very vocal leftwing fringe in the Democrat Party. But candidates who openly campaign as a liberal are not electable in this country because the general population is much more conservative than it is in the UK or Europe. Liberals are a minority here -but they are extremely vocal which should not be confused with somehow having greater numbers than they really do.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/03/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/
"So 41% of the country self-identifies as conservative, 34% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. Further, 14% consider themselves strong conservatives vs. only 6% strong liberals. So, not only are there twice as many who consider themselves conservatives as liberals, but two thirds as many strong conservatives as liberals, period.