ashcroft touting so-called 'Victory Act'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #1
    it's basically Patriot Act II and broadens powers for the gov't to go after drug offenders, especially those "connected with terrorism"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22770-2003Aug20?language=printer

     
  2. macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #2
    -zimv20

    I'm not worried about this - it'll fly as well as a streamlined brick.

    Keep diggin Ashcroft. Our system was fine before - BE A CONSERVATIVE! Don't change the system anymore. Sheesh.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Ashcroft seems like he has quite a few more changes he'd like to make. So far I haven't liked many of them.

    BTW, Happy Bday patrickObrien. Just noticed that on the main forum page. :p
     
  4. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    I'm still not convinced that the various investigative agencies did not have adequate powers prior to all these new anti-terrorism laws.

    Be that as it may, I'd be a lot more reassured were there some sunset provisions in these new laws, and some inclusions about accountability and misuse.

    There has been entirely too much misuse of the laws of the "War on Drugs" and "RICO" for me to be anywhere near comfortable with all these added police powers.

    'Rat
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #5
    -mactastic

    Rrr? Main forum page? There's a mention?

    I must've been in a meeting or something :D

    Thanks mactastic!
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Nothing major, just the list of people birthdays. I happened to see yours on it. :p
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    Obviously, from a partisan point of view, I don't like Ashcroft.

    But, from the point of view of an attorney, I really don't like the new law and some of the other stuff he's been doing (especially the conduct described in the blacklisting of judges thread).

    Rather than get into details, I'll just summarize by saying that there are years and years and years worth of court decisions defining and limiting the government's powers and defining citizen's rights. This new law, and the original Patriot Act, destroy much of what was done in teh past.
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8
    Well, in a world of anti-male overtones, I think it is nice to have a Defense secretary, and Attorney General that don't take crap off of anyone. In the words of Bill Mahr, isn't good to let those two people be manly, roughnecks.
    :D
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Anti-male? Where do you see anti-male overtones?

    No I don't want a wussy running my defense or justice departments. But I would like a Defense Secretary that isn't prone to making his own foreign policy, and an AG who is less interested in what the naked statues are wearing and more interested in what the hell happened at places like Enron.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    Bravo! I agree completely.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #11
    There ought to be a law...

    I am in favor of a law that states all legislation must be titled based on what it does. Patriot Act = Government gets more power, and takes away rights; Victory Act = Government gets more power, and takes away more rights 2.

    To Ashcroft:

    You obviously don't like our current government (of the people, for the people, by the people) so my suggestion to you is to go find yourself a small country inhabited by neo-nazis (like yourself) and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE USA.

    Fact: Our founding fathers didn't trust the government. They purposely wrote the constitution to limit it's power.

    Once again, take your over-zealous @$$ out of my country, and stop using my constitution as toilet paper.

    Ashcroft has done more to injure the US than any terrorist, ever. If I had my way he would stand trial for Treason. Or better yet, make him the last person to experiance the Enemy Combatant law, and just put him away indefinatly without trial. See how he likes it.

    Can you tell I hate this man, and everything he stands for:mad:
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    Re: There ought to be a law...

    Sorry, but NO. He is no more to blame than a pit bull that has been trained by its master to kill anything and everything. GWB, Sr. and Jr. are the masters, and they are to blame.
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #13
    Re: Re: There ought to be a law...

    I don't think so. I think Ashcroft is actually part of the group that is running Bush.

    The way I see it, Bush needs a few group of people to get re-elected, especially the religious right and corporate conservatives. Ashcroft is the epidemy of the first group.

    He is a born again Christian and is in bed with the religious right. A current initiative Ashcroft has started is to go after pornography. This comes at the heels of meetings with religious groups seeking to rid our society of pornography. Ashcroft's policy on drugs (esp. medicinal marijuana) is also in-line with the wishes of the religious right.

    I don't think that Bush necessarily has the same values and plans as the religious right or people like Ashcroft (remember his party days??). But I do think he needs to appease those people in order to get re-elected. Bush has, from the start of his presidency, walked a fine line between all of the different factions of conservative America. He's done a great job of it, actually.

    I see Ashcroft as a "loose-cannon" of sorts. Bush knows Ashcroft and his policies appeal to the religious right, so he lets him get away with horrible, horrible things, so that Bush won't have to be the one pushing those issues through legislation and executive orders. In many ways, Ashcroft is Bush's face to the religious right.

    And this works out great for him. The left divert their anger towards Ashcroft on these issues and Bush gets a free pass on them, in essence. Sure, Ashcroft is working with Bush's blessing, but the presence of Ashcroft between Bush and the religious right shields Bush fro a lot of criticism.

    Taft
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #14
    seems like we are loosing freedoms all the time under some guise of terrorism,drugs or any excuse the govt can make. they wont be happy untill our freedom is taken away. just remember this bush only got in with 50%, if big Al was running again i think he might win, but with the current crop of demo's that are running i would say bush will almost be a shoe in. i have never cared for ashcroft or his police state.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    simX

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #15
    Re: Re: Re: There ought to be a law...

    Lol, I was initially a bit confused at what you meant here, until I realized that you meant "epitome", not "epidemy". I couldn't resist the urge to correct you -- sorry. :p :D
     
  16. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #16
    Re: Re: Re: There ought to be a law...

    that's your assertion...

    but your supporting arguments seem to contradict it. you seem to be arguing that bush uses ashcroft to push an agenda from which he can distance himself, implying that bush -- or others -- are calling those shots.

    i'd tend to agree w/ that conclusion.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    peterjhill

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #17
    Re: Re: Re: Re: There ought to be a law...

    Ashcroft is such and idiot. He is programmed to kiss the ass, I mean appeal to extreme republicans. Bush does not need to control him, only set him loose. If Asscroft can get something through congress, then Bush can feel safe signing it. If the idiot (I mean Dan), blow something, Bush can just ignore it.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #18
    Re: Re: Re: Re: There ought to be a law...

    Right, but there are two different concepts at play: who is controlling Ashcroft's actions and who is benifitting from them.

    I think Bush put Ashcroft in the position in order to appease the religious right, thereby benifiting from the action. I think Ashcroft plays by his own rules, Bush doesn't mind the extra publicity and boths sides are happy.

    Of course, you could be right that Bush is really pulling the strings. My assertation was that Bush, judging from his past actions, wouldn't be advancing the same agendas as Ashcroft is. The issues Ashcroft is pushing fall more in line with his own politics rather than Bush's. This was the basis for my hypothesis.

    Of course, one can't discount the Rove factor. He could be behind ALL of them pulling the strings. I find him the most scary of the three.

    But, at any rate, we can at least agree on how horrible Ashcroft is. :)

    Taft
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    #19
    I'm a conservative, but Jesus this guy is out of control....

    As for the person who said he hates the country - chill dude, chill. You act the zealot, he is just a reformer who many of us disagree with. He doesn't say things like this:

    That makes a zealot. And don't circumvent the profanity filter - you could earn yourself a ban.

    I want to see the activist judges gone. How about some legislation to stop their negative effect on America?
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #20
    Re: Re: Re: Re: There ought to be a law...

    Wow, that was an aggregous spelling error. Not even close...

    :D

    Taft
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #21
    You are absolutly right. I did go a little over the top there didn't I:rolleyes:

    I find it very irritating when the government wants to play the part of "Daddy knows best, so don't question daddy." It is something I feel very strongly about, which is why I am a libriatarian.

    How can I trust a government that keeps secrets from me? How can I vote informatively if the bozo in office doesn't tell me what he's doing? I don't need to know specifics, but I do need to know who is influencing our leader (Enron?).

    There I go again, off on a tangent:rolleyes:
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #22
    -sturm375

    Enron? What about Microsoft?!? They're on the ropes in the last admin, then suddenly not only do they get a wet noodle slap for it, but then handed contracts!

    Sorry, I smell something, and it ain't the shredded paper.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    You mean because he said "@$$"?

    Would that be anything like the word - ass - ?
     

Share This Page