President

[Sandmanhero]

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

"Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them."

No No NO No!!!!NO!

He doesn't get it and that's what scares me. Your Religious charitties should have nothing to do with the policies of this country!

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!

Just because you believe in smoe God doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow what that god says! What about the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, etc? They don't believe in your Christian God. Why should Your God be the one that everything is based on?

SELF_RIGHTOUS ASSHOLES, that's why.

This is not the fucking 12th century. We are not in a goddamn crusade to bring the word of God to the heathens! LIVE AND LET LIVE!

go pray in your church, i don't care. I respect a persons right to their opinion and their own religion. but stop trying to force YOUR God and HIS policies down my throat! I'm a Pagen and could give a flying fuck about what the bible says is right or wrong! What is Holy and what is sinful!

See what i mean?! He's going to be voted for because of his Religious policies, not because he can actually do anything for this country!

(rant directed at bush, not you, Mael)

Originally Posted by Tstone

Keynote issues.

Who’s more pro small business, and who is less likely to screw the people in favor of corporate interests.

Well that doesn't take a genious to find out. We all know Bush to be a corporate Bitch boy!

[TeapotScar]

I agree- too many votes are mistakes because of people voting for who their friends are voting for or who they think has the best smile. It's policies that should matter, not word-of-mouth.

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by TStone

I don't want anyone voting based on my opinions or your opinions or anyone elses opinions.

Sorry Tstone, but you're somewhat wrong. We don't always agree, and it's through your reasoning out your opinions and arguments that others might evolve as well.

For example, I go and read up on an issue. It usually is either blatantly subjective or made not to upset anyone. I filter the message through my own opinions and character, which are different from yours.
I might more easily change my opinion on an issue when being confronted by an oposing argument by someone whose opinions I respect (meaning you) than by a bunch of political or business lobbyists.

You and Secretboy have made me more often than not soften my speech on things like U.S. military intervention abroad (where the fuck is Gypsy?), for example.

Fuck it, maybe I'm just stoopid.

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by Loy

Sorry...laughing my ass off as to how this thing tangented off into another retarded....hold on, let me rephrase that....FUCKING RETARDED argument on the non-issue of abortion. "Non-issue" some of you might be asking? Yes. Why do I say that? Simple-abortion has NOTHING to do with the way this country runs day to day, and is just something tossed out to get people all riled up, and divert them from getting shit done.

Oh look,Loy thinks his opinion matters........ :P

[CptSternn]

Well, if anyone has been following the news lately, Bush and his administration, namely Carl Rove, has once again come out and personally attacked the Irish people..

Kerry was quick to respond and defend Irish and Irish American's, and point out the falacies in the statements made by the Bush campaign.

This is on top of the fact the Bush campaign blew off the questions posed by the IAUC (Irish American Unity Conference) while Kerry addressed each issue privately in a personal letter and later during a few speeches he refered to the letter (showing he not only made genuine responses, even months after he quoted those responses in non-related speeches and debates).

For those who wanna see the questions and responses:

http://www.iauc.org/camp2004.htm

And for those who missed the Rova comments, I'll sum it up in a line or two. Basically Rove said that the 'War On Terror' is going to be alot like Northern Ireland conflict with the British. I along with all other Irish men and Irish Americans have always made that comparison, but until now no one has said it. Thats not where the problem was.

The problem was when asked to extrapolate on that comment Rove said 'The Bush campiagn knows there will never be a true peace with Al Queda, like the IRA, and the only way to win is through force, like the Brish have done for the past 10 years which is why they won the war.

Well, for those who know nothing of 'The Troubles' in Ireland, first, the IRA is still active. There are actually 3 major factions now, more than ever before. On top of this, people are dying on an almost daily basis in a country that only takes four hours to drive across. Because it's not a big event like a plane crash, it never makes the news in the states.

Also, the reason the major fighting has ended is because of the Good Friday Agreement, which is when the British government sat down with the IRA and agreed to stop all fighting and work towards a common goal, allowing the RIish peopl to rule themselves, on a slow plan as not to disrupt the status quo.

The Bush Administraions statements are not only wrong, but offensive to the fact they have no idea whats going on. It also should bother the people of the USA that if thats what they are aiming for, then they plan to sit down with AL Queda and give them their land back and aloow them to govern themselves as an offcial political body.

If the N. Ireland conflict shows anything, it shows that 800 years of fighting has led to peace talks between the government and the rebels. It would have been easier and less costly to start with discussions rather than having the British use military force for 780+ years. Only now, they sit down at the table.

Bush appears to want to start the same thing, and only time will tell how long the people of this country will allow a war without boundaries against an ememy that is of the people will last. You can kill people, but you can NEVER kill an idea.

Slan

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by Loy

are you familiar with the history of US foreign policy post-War of 1812, and how we have manipulated "leaders" of other countries to basically become our bitch-boys?

Yep yep yep... this is exactly what got us all tangled up in Vietnam. The only bitch-boy we had to run South Vietnam was a complete tyrant who the people all hated. Instead of keeping the government alive and just having him replaced with a more suitable, but not U.S.-friendly, candidate, we kept the tyrant in power until the people had enough of his, and our, shit.

If you are, then you cannot say that our imperialism in Iraq is a "new" form of imperialism. And it also reeks of the same hegonomical attitudes that the Spanish-American war did (which, BTW, has quite a few similarities to this one).

No, it's not. Ever since we pulled our asses out of isolationism, we've been solely imperialistic by nature of policy. Our businesses are. Our government is. It's the way it will continue to be (doesn't matter who's in office).

I'd also, agin, like to reitterate that getting rid of Saddam just to replace him with a puppet leader is not really an improvement...

This is an issue you and I will never see eye to eye on. It's not so much who Saddam is replaced with, as much as it is what... and that's the form of government. Do you remember the Iraqi soccer team getting all the press coverage durring the Olympics? Did you hear what happened to them when they lost in the past while Saddam was in power? They were tortured. Now... if they don't win, who cares? They don't have to worry about getting off the plane and getting on the rack in Iraq (yes... FEEL the pun).

And before you say "the CIA doesn't neccesarilly represent the United States", I'd like to point out that the CIA does in fact hold diplomatic/representative repute as far as their dealings with foreign powers. When people deal with the CIA, they are (in effect) dealing directly with the US government. So when the CIA fucks over people, it is in fact the United States fucking people over.

Exactly why we disavow all knowledge of CIA agents who are found out.. and again, why there were policies the US government set up that stated the CIA was never to be directly involved in the training or supplying of the Mujahideen durring the Soviet-Afghan war.

But your original post is, like 58 pages back, and I'm too drunk to figure out how to browse back properly without losing anything I've typed. My appologies.

LOL... s'ok. I've been there. :D

[TeapotScar]

Bush is sick... all of that stuff Cpt informed me about his Iraq/IRA stance... it just shows that he isn't learning from history, he's just using it to make his reign of terror just that much more terrible.

Battery Poison... I wish there was an option so that everytime you posted, I got immediately alerted. You are extremely well-informed.

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

You are extremely well-informed.

She's got an internet connection and reads up on issues. Then she thinks about things, separates fact from fiction and makes up her own mind. That's how she does it.

How are we supposed to compete with that?

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The Bush Administraions statements are not only wrong, but offensive to the fact they have no idea whats going on. It also should bother the people of the USA that if thats what they are aiming for, then they plan to sit down with AL Queda and give them their land back and aloow them to govern themselves as an offcial political body.

*double-take* What!?

They had land? Where? And when you answer that... when? Al-Queda never had a permanent "base" (second pun of the day) set up. They just bounced all around the Middle East ever since they set-up operations in Afghanistan. Basically, they're an international organization set on a wide variety of political affairs that take place all over the world (Russia, America, Britain, Spain, etc..). So unlike the IRA, it doesn't have a real nation to call home.

Secondly I'm interested in where you got that conclusion from? As good of an idea as it is*, the Bush Administration would never consider it, as Al-Queda has a vast number of political enemies all over Europe (including Russia, who the White House is trying hard to suck up to at the moment). Even if the U.S. backed this idea (which we wouldn't because we'd lose TONS of foreign political support), the U.N. would never approve it... ever. We'd be the only nation to recognize it. Al-Queda have been offically black-listed as terrorists and recognized almost world-wide as such..

(Why would it be a good idea? Put all your fish in one barrel and drop a grenade in)

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

She's got an internet connection and reads up on issues. Then she thinks about things, separates fact from fiction and makes up her own mind. That's how she does it.

How are we supposed to compete with that?

5 cups of first-hand literature
2 teaspoons of History Channel
3 ounces of Associated Press coverage
1/2 cup of internet coverage (the worst kind)
1 pound motivation

:P

Thing is, I could have given a shit less about most the stuff I'm now talking about 6 months ago.

[CptSternn]

First, I didn't make the comparison, Carl Rove did. I pointed out the same thing, so thanks for re-stating the obvious.

As I said before, that was what the Bush administration said, and what the Irish are laughing about. I pointed out why it was a bad comparison as you did. I just thought most people would get the obvious points you re-interated without having to re-type them and then make it appear as I somehow drew that conclusion.

Feel free to forward those comments to the Bush administration, as they are the ones who said that was their goal.

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=15170

Slan

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I just thought most people would get the obvious points you re-interated without having to re-type them and then make it appear as I somehow drew that conclusion.

What conclusion? Oh, that the Bush administration was set on a political path that is aimed at giving land back to Al-Quaeda (which makes no sense and is stated nowhere in that article)?

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=15170

Check out www.stretch.com ... Oh that's physical stretching, nevermind.

The article was either specifically reffering to policy with the IRA, or made bad indirect inferences that policy geared towards one terrorist organization would be the same for all (especially a lenient one). That or the writer didn't understand what Bush meant when he said we couldn't win the war on terror. Somewhere along the line something was lost in translation. Personally I didn't pull the conlusion I quoted you on after reading it.

[CptSternn]

Ok, since yer missing the pointhere, I'll sum it up and cut the main points out fer ya ta read.

"During an interview with Associated Press about the war on
international terrorism, Mr Rove said: "This is going to be
more like the conflict in Northern Ireland, where the Brits
fought terrorism, and there's no sort of peace accord with
al-Qaeda saying, 'we surrender'."

Tis where the rake against the grain begins.

And the response from various organisations, as summed up nicely by a speaker fer the Kerry campaign.

A spokesman for Democratic presidential contender, John
Kerry, rebuked Rove for the clumsy analogy.

"Karl Rove's comments to AP today suggest there was no peace
accord between the British and the IRA. We'd like to inform
Mr. Rove that in April 1998, the Good Friday Agreement,
negotiated by Senator George Mitchell, with the tireless
assistance of President Clinton, was in fact a peace accord.
Unfortunately these comments are very unhelpful to the
current peace process and come on the very day critical
talks designed to lead to the restoration of the Northern
Ireland Assembly and a devolved government are commencing.
I guess we now know why the president has failed to engage
in the peace process for the last four years."

"This comment also demonstrates once again the Bush
administration's fundamental misunderstanding of the threat
posed by al Qaeda and likeminded groups who seek to destroy
our entire way of life. We deserve a leader who understands
the threats we face and has a real strategy to fight them,"
the Kerry spokesperson said.

Not only were the comments incorrect, they were bigoted and designed to disrupt current peace talks going on as we speak over the re opening of Stormont.

I've spent the last 15 years working for Irish political organisations. To see this sort of trite hit the news, and then see that most yanks don't even undertsand why its offensive is quite painful.

As put by Fr. Sean McManus of the Irish National Caucus...

Fr. McManus said: "Karl Rove's recent statement comparing
the IRA to al-Qaeda is, above all else, stupid, but it also
may reveal the true colors of some anti-Irish Catholic
elements in the Republican Party."


Slan

[Panther]

Great! So what have we lea here?

Polticians are assholes.

They know nothing about other countries.

And they don't check their resources.

. . .

Since when has that not been obvious?

I understand being mad about what was said. And I'm glad that you're not quite as ignorant about our politicas as we are about yours.

But the real issue is not whether something was taken out of context or whatever. Our worldwide image is being tainted by things like this. People abroad think Americans have their heads so far up their asses, they don't want to talk to us.

As Eddie Izzard said "One thing you can do is pretend you're Canadian. That always helps (when traveling in Europe)."

Who gives people such a bad idea of us? Mostly the government.

I'm not saying that any one candidate is going to sway our image. But Kerry's at least trying to look like he knows what's going on.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Oh, ok. I guess I just missed the part in history where the IRA said, "We surrender" to the British.

[CptSternn]

There was no surrender, just a peace agreement. And the agreement was only between the pIRA and the British government.

Good news is, under the GFA which the US is a part of, members, former members, and supporters of the pIRA are NOT terrorists as the pIRA is not on the State Dept. FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organisation List).

Since '98 when it was signed, the pIRA have been on cease fire.

Heres another new problem, Bush and his administration have now violated the GFA, and even though the pIRA is not on the offical terrorrsit list AND the GFA is an outisde treaty which gaurtantees asylum to pIRA members, Bush has broken more than one of the treatys bounds since he took office.

The Bush admin is trying to pump their terrorist statistics. One way is finding former pIRA members who came for asylum and to live in the US legally and arresting them and deporting them.

This has happened almost a dozen times now in the past 12 months. Some of the men deported were American citizens. Not only did they deport the these men, but their families as well - most all born and raised in the USA and never even been to Ireland.

One of the men who has been recently caught up in this new travesty of justice is Ciaran Ferry.

http://www.freeciaranferry.com

Ya won't see these names or incidents on TV, but you will see them grouped in the terrorist statstics as Bush pumps his record. Americans don't want to see nice blonde hair Christian men who were accused of fighting for independence from the British being hauled away by jack boot thugs.

Too bad it's happening.

[.BatteryPoison.]

I'm going to elaborate a little on what I had previously said:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

"During an interview with Associated Press about the war on
international terrorism, Mr Rove said: "This is going to be
more like the conflict in Northern Ireland, where the Brits
fought terrorism, and there's no sort of peace accord with
al-Qaeda saying, 'we surrender'."

What Rove said in that statement is that our struggle will be like that of the British, where the conflict will never end in peace with Al-Qaeda/( the IRA) surrendering the effort. The fact that there's a peaceful resolution had nothing to do with that. He's not saying there was no peace deal, but rather that peace didn't come in the form of an IRA surrender. It's a vague analogy and didn't compair the conflicts by any other means.

As for Kerry; the man sticks his ass in front of a camera and criticises everything the Bush administration says and does. That's been his campaign since he found out people would rather have Bush out of office then Kerry in. So he'll twist shit around and try to divert attention away from what's really being said. The democratic party actually has a war-room type setup of nothing but a dozen or so people who work round the clock documenting everything the Bush administration says and tries to counter or twist that around somehow for Kerry or Edwards to leap in front of a camera and yack about.

It's unfortunate that the Irish community is buying this shit.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by .BatteryPoison.

I'm going to elaborate a little on what I had
It's unfortunate that the Irish community is buying this shit.

Buying this shite? How many of your mates have been rounded up by the Bush administration and incarcerated without being charged and held for two years for no apparent reason?

These are American citizens, being held in American jails, for over 2 years with no charges. Thats just one man. Currenlty 5 others are being held for no apparent reason.

http://www.irishdeportees.com/

That list has yet to be updated to include John Coyle, 31, of County Tyrone, Northern Ireland, was arrested at Philadelphia International on July 27 after arriving on a flight from London. He was charged with failing to reveal on a customs form that he had been convicted in Belfast in 1996 for throwing a petrol bomb at a police vehicle. Coyle's case is pending.

Black was just released, as were the three from Belfast (after almost a year of detention).

The three listed on the site have been in the States for over 20 years. Good jobs, families, and home owners - now after 20 years picked up by SWAT teams in the middle of the night and drug away to detention centers for alleged crimes that occured in Ireland over 30 years ago, crimes that were wiped away under the GFA.

Kerry even as a Senator has worked with various Irish orgranisations for some time. I know, as former chairperson of Virginia for Noraid, we had many meetings with many Senators as did our lobbyists. Kerry was always supportive and ALWAYS followed through with any promises he made to our organisation.

Bush and his administration has shunned ALL Irish organisations, not had the decency to respond to any letters, and personally attacked the peace process in Ireland on more than one occassion.

Tis not shite. You yanks need ya get out of your house and visit the world and see what these policies are doing to actual people in other countries, not just whats spoon fed to you through the mainstream media.

Slan

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Tis not shite.

What I called shit, which was the twisting of Karl Rove's analogy by Kerry and the author (I'm arguing nothing further at this point), is. Kerry's retorts made an argument out of half the man's sentence (the other half being key to context). That's a Michael Moore move.

[Andy_X69]

Not an American, but if I were id Vote for Badnarik. Bush and Kerry both suck.

[gingerbreadwench]

Thanks, TStone! I was pretty behind...

On that site though... when I read that Bush says that hate crimes should not apply to gays, I LITERALLY fell out of my chair.

So, yes. Still voting for Kerry.

[CptSternn]

Good post T.

The Patriot Act is one of many reasons I'm leaving this country fer a while. Outta here next Friday on a plane back across the pond.

*joy*

[.BatteryPoison.]

"There's what Kerry says, and there's what Kerry does." - A 527 Ad.

Kerry's a crowd pleaser. He'll say anything that will make him more popular with the American public (Bush Bashing), which isn't always what he backs in actuality (i.e. "Yes we did the right thing going to war with Iraq, even with the evidence we have today" vs a month later "We fought the wrong war at the wrong time."). The man's constant waffling, weighed with his prior voting record (which is absolutely horrible and shows inconsistancy) make it hard to really believe that's what Kerry's going to do. He's taken both sides to all of these issues several times durring his early campaign and he's continuing to change still (i.e. our presence in Iraq).


Although, I especially like this one; "Supports allowing undocumented immigrants to legalize their status if they have been in United States for certain period of time, are employed and can pass a background check."
That'll do wonders for unemployment of existing U.S. citizens, not to mention National Security - as we will be flooded with immigrants to the point where al-Queda operatives can slip through the cracks and become legal citizens of the very nation they are here to destroy.

"Supports increase in minimum wage." That'll drive businesses here to start looking elsewhere for cheaper labor in other countries and will take a nice chunk out of our economy.

"Wants to invest more money in equipment, technology." Take a look at Kerry's voting record and you'll see exactly how he's jerking everyone off with this campaign.

I could go on and on and on but I'm not up for it. Anyone who knows how the government and economy run knows you can't spend spend spend (on like a hundred different major programs), pay government personal more more more (while increasing the size of their numbers), and cut taxes all at the same time. It's just not humanly possible without throwing the U.S. further, further, and further into debt. Congress won't pass half this shit. Half this shit won't even make it to Congress.

As for the Patriot Act, let's roll back to 1989 when we had Felix Bloch, a high ranking offical at the U.S. State Department spying for the Soviets. This man was documented meeting with questionable foriegn officals in Europe and recieved calls from KGB operatives at his home while the FBI was watching him. Could anyone touch him? No. The Justice Department demands an insane ammount of evidence in order to issue warrants - evidence that's not obtainable without one (as spies and terrorits work covertly). The man passed oodles of secrets to the Soviets right in front of us and we couldn't touch him.

Sniffing out spies was easy back in the 80s because you knew where to look. Government positions. How about with terrorists? They're the average joe running groceries out to your car, or handling your stocks, driving you around in a cab, or may even be co-workers. They're the American public who work the same jobs you and I do. That's what the government is up against. Finding a needle in a hay-factory. The use of a magnifying glass has helped keep this country safe. How many real terrorist attacks have we suffered since 9/11? Since the Patriot Act?

The biggest group this legislature threatens are non-citizens as well as members of hardcore/extremist islamic groups (which seem to be synonymous with anti-american sentiment). These are the same people Kerry wants to make U.S. Citizens tomorrow (or so he says).

I believe ice was asking how you stop suicide bombers from attacking the public. The only way to do that is to take a step towards totalitarianism. Watch The Siege if you haven't already. That's exactly how it's done. Do you want your petty freedoms that are never compromised or do you want saftey and security? Sorry, until the FBI starts doing bogus stuff with the Patriot Act like rounding up U.S. Citizens (I underline that because most that have been rounded up are not citizens of this country) that don't carry traits of an islamic terrorist, then it's existance is a plus when I can come home and not turn on the TV to see mass hysteria because terrorists have blown up Wallstreet or shot hundreds of children in the back.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Military Tribunals only apply to people in the armed services. If you're the President of the U.S. and you're being impeached, you'll stand before the Supreme Court, as will politicians and civilians accused of espionage.

In reguards to the movie, it's an example of how the government responds to an unknown threat through a system of totalitarianism by first stripping the rights of people. It's the modern, and legitimate alternative to the concentration camp.

As for those freedoms, how often has the FBI stripped you of them? Do you know someone who has endured the wrath of the Patriot Act? If you do, you may want to re-examine who you hang out with. It's a reserved act that's only being used on possible terror suspects and supporters. The FBI doesn't go hog-wild with it and investigate Kobe's prior medical records and whatnot.

Instead of taking my word or Battery’s word, or anyone’s word on Kerry’s voting practice, click on the link and take a look for yourself

In that same vein, research, research, research!! Understanding the issues and understanding the candidates are two sides of the same coin.

As for Russia's use of totalitarianism, the reason they left themselves open is because the FSB, military, and the Kremlin can be bought for a price.
"Hey, are you carrying a bomb into that school?"
"Here's $50,000... you didn't see a thing."
"I didn't see a thing."
They were careless in the past, but now Putin is calling for reform, so hopefully the system will operate with the right people running the show.

[CptSternn]

Last May AShcroft was called before congrss to talk about how many times the PAtriot act had been used. He told congress about 470 times they had used provisions in the act to arrest suspects.

They used hte powers to search homes without a warrant, listen in on conversations between a suspect and his lawyer, and get phone taps for whole blocks, because they didnt know if the suspect was going to the neighbors house or using a payphone, so they just tapped the whole block, on more than one occasion.

They also used this act to arrest and detain hundreds, many who are still in confinment with no charges.

Near the end of the inquiry, they asked 'Were all these terrosim cases', the response was NO, only 14 of the 470 were terrorism related - the rest were American citizens who were wanted for book keeping (gambling), rackateering, robbery, and drug dealing.


John Gotti Jr. was one of the men arrested in one of the operations. He was arrested for book keeping, along with a dozen other Americans after they tapped all their phones, searched their homes while they were out, and listened in when they spoke to their lawyers.

The Dept. Of Justice is using the Patriot Act to go after common criminals, exactly what they are not supposed to do. They are using it to get around civil liberties, and arrest those who under normal circumstances who not be arrested.

This does not make us safer, it merely allows the government to 'skirt' those pesky constitutional rights of citizens and lets law enforcement trample across freedoms in an effort to clear their books and look good on the news.

By allowing this, we condone this, meaning its ok to withhold contisutional rights from American citizens if they break the law. Where does it stop? What crimes are your rights recognised and what crimes allow the government to suppress your rights?

Someone mentioned the NYC protests. One thing I saw on CNN is the ACLU is representing many groups suing the city and the government over arrests. It appears the FBI went to various states and stopped busloads of people and also went to where people were organising to meet and arrested them, held them the duration of the convention, and then let them go. The FBI is siteing powers under the patriot act give them the ability to do this.

They also used the new CAPPS system to keep known protestors off the planes, holding them and denying them boarding passes. A group of nuns known for their protest of the war were kicked off a plane in California because they were heading to the convention. They were sited as a security risk.

Those who think 'I'm fine because I dont break the law' are missing the main point: the USA was founded on the principal of innocent until prvoen guilty. It also was founded on the idea that the government doesn't have the right to enter your home and interfere with your daily life unless you pose a threat to society. This new act allows the goverment to enter your home, your work, even your medical records and interfere anyway they see fit without any checks, balances, or means of recourse if they make a mistake - as they are exempt from any type of prosecution or liabilty under this act.

This is what our forefathers fought against. Another ironic point is that during the 50's and 60's this is what the government said would happen if we let communism spread. It appears the US got to that point without the help of communism.

[TeapotScar]

As if everything Cpt just cited wasn't enough to convince you this government is going totally-totalitarian insane with the patriot act thing- guess how much it cost to promote...and then guess who paid for it.

Answers: $200,000 and you... oh well, [public schools/overseas soldiers/1,000 other causes] didn't need the money anyways.

Ashcroft went on a Patriot Act tour, spending $200,000 to make the extreme loss of civil liberties look pretty. Disgusting? I think so...