LowerCaseRepublican

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/con...atriot-Act.html Cruising on Fark I saw this and on their comments board, it's pretty both Republican and Democrat saying a big "Hell Yeah" to this ruling. Here's one from there: I'm a hard core right wing Republican and I think the Patriot Act is horrific. I'm sickened that more conservatives aren't against this. A big WOOT! from me, too. Granted this is not the Supreme Court or anything but it's very interesting that this happened.

You can say they're wrong all you want but until you can prove them wrong then you're up s***'s creek without a paddle. And Ish, I think things like Sabra and Shatila might just have a little something to do with making people willing to blow themselves up. Even I4E has condemned Shatila in this thread (or the other Israel/Palestine thread, I can't remember which)

It's "family values" with the quotations because an actual look shows that it's pretty much a thinly veiled homophobic, racist stance. (PMRC hearings from the 80s to now with the marriage amendment BS in the name of "family values")

I'm more partial to Ed Jin's words: "This plan will definitely solve Israel's problems. Unless the Palestinians somehow get their hands on tunnel-digging 'pick and shovel' technology."

http://www.theonion.com/4003/wdyt.html I saw this and had to share.

The Coors family is pretty hardcore supporters of God Inc. (a.k.a. The Christian Right) and a lot of conservative "family values" type movements like that. I don't drink their beer for that reason...and most of it tastes really bad haha

SS2K4, that reminded me of a Bill Hicks routine: "You can't burn that flag! My daddy died for that flag in Korea!" "Funny, my flag was made in Korea!"

IIRC, Blue Moon is a beer made by Coors. I've never had it but I've been on the Coors brewery tour 3 times (My brother used to live near it so we'd go when we visited)

This article was on The Nation...just thought it would be a new view about the debate and it articulates my statements about the Drug Control Policy ads being on the Super Bowl: Bush Helps CBS, CBS Helps Bush by John Nichols The annual Super Bowl game draws a huge audience of television viewers – 130 million Americans are expected to view the game February 1 -- and advertisers of all types want to reach that audience. So CBS, which will air the most-watched football game of the year, has jacked up ad rates accordingly and begun selling chunks of air time to peddlers of beer, soda pop, cars, trucks and political agendas. But the network is not taking ads from all comers. Some political views have been judged unacceptable by CBS censors. While advertising industry sources say CBS will air a pair of advocacy commercials prepared to advance the agenda of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the network has refused to accept an advertisement prepared by critics of the man who currently occupies the White House. The MoveOn.org Voter Fund recently conducted a "Bush in 30 Seconds" TV ad contest, in which it promised that the winning entry would be shown during the Super Bowl broadcast. MoveOn, the innovative internet-based activist community, was willing to pay the $2 million it would cost to air the ad. And no one suggests that the ad is inaccurate or inappropriate; indeed, Fox TV commentator Bill'Reilly, no fan of MoveOn, says: "It's not offensive, (it) makes a legitimate point politically." Yet, CBS is refusing to run the MoveOn ad, claiming in the words of CBS spokesperson Dana McClintock, "We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising." The reason? CBS told MoveOn that it does not want to trouble viewers with commercials that address "controversial issues of public importance." The MoveOn commercial does indeed address an issue of public importance: the rapid growth of the federal deficit. But as advocacy ads go, this ad is not particularly controversial. The ad simply warns that the Bush Administration's reckless policy of cutting taxes for wealthy Americans while hiking spending is creating a huge federal budget deficit that will have to be paid off by future generations. That statement merely echoes concerns expressed by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Just this week, more than three dozen Republican members of the House launched a campaign to get the White House to slow the rate of deficit spending. In fairness to CBS, the MoveOn advertisement might be considered controversial by White House political czar Karl Rove and others who are offended by any criticism of the president or his policies. But if controversy is really a concern, then why would CBS consider airing advocacy commercials from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy? At a time when millions of Americans, including federal judges, mayors, governors and members of Congress are questioning the wisdom of continuing the failed war on drugs, the Office of National Drug Control Policy advocacy ads frequently inspire controversy. Indeed, past Super Bowl commercials from the agency, which equated casual drug use with support for international terrorism, have stirred significant debate – and, yes, controversy. So what's the real reason for the CBS decision to censor an advertisement – from MoveOn -- that raises legitimate questions about the president's approach to a pressing national concern? "It seems to us that CBS simply defers to those it fears or from whom it wants favors – in this case, the Bush White House," argues Eli Pariser, campaign director for MoveOn.org. "This is the same CBS that recently backed down when the Republican National Committee made a stink about its mini-series on former President Reagan and his family." Pariser notes, correctly, that Viacom -- the parent company of CBS that also owns the UPN network, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount Pictures, Blockbuster Video, over 175 radio stations and more than 35 local television stations -- has been in the forefront of lobbying for the lifting of Federal Communications Commission limits on media consolidation and conglomeration. On June 2 of last year, the FCC voted 3-2 to allow networks such as CBS to dramatically expand their control over local television markets. Even when Congress roll back the FCC rule changes, the Bush White House took the side of CBS – pressuring Republican leaders in the House and Senate to prevent votes on initiatives to retain existing ownership limits. Now, in an election year, CBS is taking the side of the Bush White House and censoring an advertisement that seeks to open a debate about the president's fiscal policies – while at the same time preparing to air a commercial that advances other policies promoted by the same president. When it comes to censoring Super Bowl commercials, CBS is way out of bounds.

IIRC, we had a SURPLUS with Clinton. Just saying is all.

The controversy comes in the false assertion of the commercial Let's take the daughter falling in the pool commercial w/ a few different voiceovers that would all make sense: "Just tell them you were drinking a soda." "Just tell them you were drinking a beer." "Just tell them you were masturbating." "Just tell them you were watching television." "Just tell them you were on the phone." There are a variety of things that could lead to that girl falling into that pool. By asserting marijuana as the cause it enforces the knee jerk reactionism against marijuana that has been prevalent since 1937 when it was banned amidst racist and baseless arguments in Congress (some of my favorites were crimes like blacks walking closer than 3 steps behind whites or "under the influence of marijuana a black man might look at a white woman twice") and the classic film Reefer Madness. Any drug dulls one senses...alcohol included. Yet we don't see the same sort of ads against alcohol. In fact we see anti-drug commercials on TV all day long followed by "This Bud's For You". Which makes no sense seeing how alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined each year. I think commercials showing the facts and not appeals to emotion and reactionism (which a lot of the pro-drug war commercials run on) of both sides showing that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol would illuminate a lot of peoples' minds on the subject. If they are going to show one side then they need to show the other. The US drug policy needs to be drastically reviewed and changed and promoting this almost draconian system of drug laws is controversial without showing the other side of this debate. If they had a commercial: "Here is a drug. Here's what it does. Here are the penalties if you're busted with it." that would be fine but the current commercials don't do that. Therein lies the problem.

Bojinka was the plot by radical Islamists—led by WTC-bomber Ramzi Yousef—to 1) blow up a dozen US passenger jets in mid-flight, 2) assassinate President Clinton and the Pope, and 3) ram hijacked passenger planes into US landmarks, including the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House, CIA Headquarters, and the Sears Tower.) The plot was discovered in 1995 when authorities in the Philippines raided Yousef's apartment. He had already bombed the WTC, so the plan for Bojinka was a very very credible threat. They had arrested the ones that were going to undertake Bojinka, but the idea that ramming passenger planes into the "Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House, CIA Headquarters and the Sears Tower" was known and I think the idea that the guy who led the plan actually bombed the WTC shows that it was a credible threat that could be undertaken. There is no innocence there...the government didn't find out about the plan until after raiding his apartment in 1995 (after WTC bombing). This plan being known about in 1995, there could have been concrete steps taken place to beef up security like they do in Israeli jets. f***, there can be a bomb that goes off in the luggage compartment in one of their planes and the plane will not go down. They don't have a door for people to get into the cockpit. Simple security measures like that could have been enacted. The lack of either administration to do anything of that sort is a failure.

Baggs, I take it you didn't hear about the domestic terrorist in Texas a few weeks ago? He had stockpiles of weapons, bombs and other such stuff. The only reason he was caught was that a package of fake UN, White House etc. IDs was misaddressed and went to the wrong house. That family opened it and he ended up getting caught. If that didn't happen, we could have seen a bloodbath. Also, Baggs...I'm interested to see your reaction to how both Clinton and Bush should have known that a 9/11 type attack was in the heads of Al Qaeda given the documentation the US found when they discovered the plans for Project Bojinka in 1995. In it, it explicitly states that planes will be used as bombs into landmarks like the Pentagon. If that's not a huge bipartisan failure then I dunno what is. If you want info on it, check The Memory Hole at www.thememoryhole.org and he has the FOIA stuff he was able to get from the US government about Bojinka.

They have a policy to not run advocacy ads that are "controversial". These pro-drug war commercials are baseless knee jerk reactionary commercials with no science backing them up, hence they are controversial. Baggs, you and I both know that those "Just tell your parents..." commercials are misleading and provide a false premise about drugs. One could insert "Just tell your parents you were drinking a soda. They'll understand." as the voiceover for the one where the kid falls in the pool. Or how about the basketball one? "Just tell your team you were drinking booze." I'm talking the simple anti-marijuana ads, not ads against harder drugs because they don't run those. They run ones against marijuana. Annual Causes of Deaths in the US Tobacco 430,700 Alcohol 110,640 Adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000 Suicide 30,575 Homicide 18,272 All licit and illicit drug induced deaths 16,926 Non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs 7,600 Marijuana ZERO I'm sure the government's intentions are pure. Also, check this out: A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded. In March 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report on various aspects of marijuana, including the so-called Gateway Theory (the theory that using marijuana leads people to use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin). The IOM stated, "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable." Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The World Health Organization report addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited by their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural groups. I'm not even discussing the NUMEROUS medicinal benefits of cannabis either. http://www.drugwarfacts.com/marijuan.htm has more info if you're interested. They also have links for medical marijuana and almost everything you want to know about the drug war cited from medical journals and government documents. If we're going to have ads representing one side, in a democracy is it not beneficial that people get both sides of an issue without being nailed with scare tactics and misrepresentations about the opposition like the governments, both Dem and Rep, have been too apt to do in the war on drugs. Like Bill Maher said with the commercial with the kid with the pink bong in his dad's den who shoots himself. "Only in America would we blame marijuana for a 13 year old having a giant pink bong sitting alone without a babysitter having the balls to smoke in his dad's den and then shooting himself with a loaded unlocked weapon in the desk left there by his father. Put the blame where it goes: s***ty parenting! Not the drugs!"

They also are running pro-drug war ads. But I guess that's not controversial to CBS. It's hypocisy at it's finest.

Kap, my comment was more geared towards Nuke than you. I should have specified that.

Probably the best quote of the night was when our commander-in-chief said "we found dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Let's take a look at the evolution of this phrase. March 2003: weapons of mass destruction. June 2003: weapons of mass destruction programs. October 2003: weapons of mass destruction-related programs. January 2004: weapons of mass destruction-related program activities. Man, check out all those adjectives! I had no idea our president was such a wordsmith. But seriously, the general rule of thumb with this is that the more adjectives you add, the less likely you know what you’re talking about. when I want to eat meat I don't eat potted meat food by-products, when I want cheese I don't eat processed snack food cheese puffs, and when I'm f***ing scared of weapons I don't piss my pants because of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities. To top things off, the government's chief weapons inspector David Kay quit today saying that the WMD's probably don't exist at all. Thus, we can only conclude that bush lied to us and that the WMD’s are about as nonexistent as first lady Laura Bush’s sexual appeal. (seriously, I’d feel sorry for any man that had to sleep next to that thing every night) The other point of interest in the speech was Bush's condemnation of steroid use in professional sports. FINALLY, our president is doing something worthwhile. intelligence reports indicate that baseball commissioner Bud Selig has massive stockpiles of steroids stashed somewhere. Personally I think that he's hiding them in his head, it's not like he's using that space for anything else (hooray for baseball commentary). Aside from that, Mr. Selig’s hot dog vendor rape rooms and mascot mass graves should be enough to justify war. There also is evidence of a strong link between bud selig and basketball commissioner David Stern. Therefore, we have no choice but to invade Major League Baseball for the good of the nation, or at least bomb the Minnesota Twins.

Yeah, I'd hate to have a Presidential candidate that would say something like: "If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that." - George W. Bush Oct. 3, 2000 Or how about "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." - Oct. 5, 2002 Or "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - VP Dick Cheney Aug. 26, 2002 Or "The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would not assert as bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." Or "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - Bush Mar. 17, 2003 Or "It happens not to be in the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. -- Don Rumsfeld Mar. 30, 2003 I'd rather have my presidential candidate make a speech like that. Last time I checked his speech didn't kill 10,000+ Iraqi civilians and over 500 American soldiers either. And here's another thing, at least Dean didn't lie.

That's what they said about COINTELPRO as well. The US government has a track record of being less than virtuous and less than honest, so giving them blind allegiance is not the smartest thing to do. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, Nuke. And hey Nuke, weren't you and Republicans afraid of Saddam attacking with his weapons of mass destruction that we still can't find 10 months after. Oh wait, now it's "weapons of mass destruction related program activities".

Edited by two seasoned investigative journalists, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, and featuring essays from professors, such as Shahid Alam and Michael Neumann, Israelis (such as Uri Avnery and refusenik Yigal Bronner) and American Jews, Norman Finkelstein, Bruce Jackson and Lenni Brenner. You must have good reflexes if you're such a knee jerk reactionary.

Suggested reading: The Politics of Anti-Semitism It's a pretty good read about how once the label 'anti-semite' was given to the worst human rights abusers of Jews (i.e. the Nazis) but now is given, by some right wing Likud-niks, to any person who even has the slightest critique of the Israeli state. It goes into the reasons why this occured also.

(see Oct. 7, 2001 speech by Osama for the references I am making about what he wants) Nuke, Osama wanted US troops in the holy lands of Islam drastically reduced, especially Saudi Arabia. Bush did that after 9/11. Osama wanted the sanctions lifted against Iraq. Bush did that after 9/11. So who's the appeaser? These 2 things were precipitated on the invasion of Iraq. We did not HAVE to invade Iraq. By doing this, Bush appeased Osama and Al Qaeda.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-bojinka.htm Project Bojinka was a predecessor to 9/11. It never went off because they arrested the guys beforehand but this shows that the US government had lots of knowledge in advance of planes hitting national landmarks. BTW, the Memory Hole is a site that just picks up things people and politicians would not like to remember from political stuff like this to the last meals of the Texas death row inmates that they posted online.

Actually, Nuke...your boy Bush appeased Osama on 2 of his main things that he wanted. So who's the appeaser now?

They'll look after us just like they did with COINTELPRO.