Ashcroft Deconstructed

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Violence Policy Center (VPC) learned this week that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is opposing an effort by law professors David Yassky and Carl T. Bogus-who are friends-of-the-court in U.S. v. Emerson-to have the recent VPC study, Shot Full of Holes: Deconstructing John Ashcroft's Second Amendment, considered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Emerson case. The VPC study analyzes Attorney General John Ashcroft's May letter to the National Rifle Association in which he reverses longstanding Justice Department policy and argues that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The request by the attorneys came after appellee Timothy Joe Emerson submitted the Ashcroft letter to the court for consideration. Paradoxically, the Department has not voiced opposition to Emerson's introduction of the Ashcroft letter.

The DOJ calls the VPC study an "unauthorized supplemental brief." Yet the VPC analysis of the Ashcroft letter introduced by the two attorneys is directly related to Emerson's submission of the letter and would actually support the Department of Justice's-as opposed to Ashcroft's-position in the case.

In Emerson, a federal judge in Texas, Sam R. Cummings, flouted more than a century of Supreme Court precedent to find that the defendant, under an active domestic violence restraining order that prevented him from possessing firearms, had his Second Amendment rights violated.

"Justice Story in his commentary on the Second Amendment, Justice Story interprets the right that the amendment protects as tied to militia service. Justice Story wrote:

§1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition from a sense of burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. No Recess For Ashcroft Hypocrisy

Ashcroft Deconstructed

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 10, 2001

Answers

Cherri,

The bottom line is that the same court who ruled against Gore and in favor of Bush in the Florida election case, may very well end up ruling on an appeal of the U.S. vs. Emerson case.

Are you a betting lady, and if so, would you like to place a wager as to how that scenario would play out?

By the way, if the U.S. Supreme Court does agree to hear the U.S. vs. Emerson case, someone better get the local group of socialists into a padded cell for their own safety. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 10, 2001.

Only purist socialists (Cherri included) and government control freaks believe that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted as a set of "government" rights and not wholly citizen protections. The 2nd Amendement is not a National Guard protection act, it is what it is - the rights of the citizenry to their own self-protection.

Those who believe otherwise are the radicals.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), August 10, 2001.


Only purist socialists (Cherri included)There you go pinning labels on me again. What part of "I believe in a citizen's right to own a gun" do you NOT understand?

I was very surprised to find the interpretation of the amendment focused on States rights for an armed militia, and not on individual ownership rights. Can't you join in a discussion without trying to discredit me?

This is getting rather old, no matter what I post, you have to label me as some kind of socialist extremist. Even though I am not. You never respond to the "meat" of what I post, you just sling insults. Don't you have the ability to respond to what is posted?

It's getting obvious that you have a mindset that considers me a threat to your beliefs.

But this is becoming common, a device used by extreme right-wing conservatives to distract attention away from their won actions.

The word is out, the textbook responses have become obvious, the "man on the street" has learned to look beyond the instant hype (seen it has become the norm, no matter the subject) and is finally questioning the reason it is being done, and wondering why no answers are never given.

I may post a lot of different things pointing out what I consider underhanded, corrupt, an more often than not hidden from the population at large. But as happened during the Y2K debate in TB2000, when I would post something that went against the mindset of the majority, the information I gave would be ignored and I would be attacked from every direction in an effort to "shut me up". Seldom, if ever could any of them respond to the subject I posted.

Your consistent automatic response to whatever I post is exactly the same method used by the Y2K doomers. You give the impression that you don't have a valid argument against what I post and have to use distractions to draw attention away from something you don't want others to think about.

I admit I post about Bush and co a lot, but there appears to be no end to the things he is doing. You on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the same mantra over and over.

You do not discourage me from posting, your responses tell me I am bringing up points you are not pleased with. Either you blindly accept everything being done is honest, necessary, above board, and acceptable, or you accept the corruption and socially unacceptable actions as justifiable. Do you condone the behavior I bring to your attention? Are the things Bush and co. do ok with you? Why is it OK for Bush to do the things he does, yet if it were Clinton you would scream your head off? What happened to intellectual honesty? Why is it necessary to take sides rather than take each situation on an individual basis? Does it make you feel better about yourself and beliefs to automatically slam me no matter what I post? Do you really believe what you say about me or is it just done out of habit?

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 10, 2001.


"There you go pinning labels on me again."

This tactic is pandemic in political discussions these days. It even has a name: label and dismiss. I won't say this is the exclusive province of conservatives, since it gets used by all sides (for example: pinko and warmonger used to be popular in the 60s), but I will say it appears to me that conservatives seem to lean on it more heavily of late than liberals do.

Some of the favorites these days seem to be "socialist" ("communist" has lost much of its power), "lunatic fringe greenie", "left wingnut", "enviromental extremist", "leftist whacko", "anarchist", and "tree hugger". Name calling sure beats thinking! Thinking is hard.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 10, 2001.


Have known John for a long time. One thing that I know, he will enforce the law, even if he doesn't like it. He is honest that way.

Now, I don't agree with his beliefs [I voted for the dead man who won] but I respect him.

When it comes to the gun question, I have spent years reading the original intent of the folks who wrote the constitution and the first 10 amendments.

From their private writings [some of which aren't publically available], my impression is that they were protecting the rights of individuals to possess guns.

As a real liberal, I am uncomfortable siding with some of the fringe gun lovers. But, despite their unintelligent babel, they seem to be right; as far as I can see. We have to be honest about these things.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 10, 2001.



Do you condone the behavior I bring to your attention? Are the things Bush and co. do ok with you? Why is it OK for Bush to do the things he does, yet if it were Clinton you would scream your head off? What happened to intellectual honesty? Why is it necessary to take sides rather than take each situation on an individual basis? Does it make you feel better about yourself and beliefs to automatically slam me no matter what I post? Do you really believe what you say about me or is it just done out of habit?

I love the smell of hypocrisy on a Saturday morning...... Cherri, are you telling me that every action clinton did was honorable?? Now, tell me once again who is being intellectually dishonest here? I cannot recall once where who railed against an action of clinton's.... leaving dna samples on the lips of young interns, whitewater, and pardon gate, what a legacy!

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 11, 2001.


Gary,

No time now for more. Everyone who still frequents this borad will know what I mean: You are an idiot. BTW... despite your attempt to change the subject: Ashcrofts's position is indefensible. With the resources at your disposal, why not deconstruct the deconstruction? Ashcroft is an Ass, and he will take this country down the tubes if he is allowed three and one-half more years in office. Why did Dumbya appoint him? Hmmmmm????? Doc is quite correct.

-- FedUp (AsGood@sAnywonelses.com), August 11, 2001.


Deconstruct the deconstruction.

Deconstruct the deconstuction of the deconstruction.

Deconstruct the deconstruction of the deconstruction of the deconstruction of the.....................................

Fractals to the nth power.

Microcosm.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), August 12, 2001.


You are an idiot. BTW... despite your attempt to change the subject:

Fed up,

Thank you sincerely! I honestly strive to be an idiot in the face of any type of blatant hypocrisy and I am glad it worked in this case!

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 12, 2001.


Gary: "Now, tell me once again who is being intellectually dishonest here?"

You are. You do not apply the same standards to yourself as you are trying to apply to Cherri. Then you accuse her of hypocrisy.

For example, try this on for size: 'are you telling me that every action Newt Gringrich, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding and Lyndon Johnson did was honorable?? What about Dennis Hastert? Gary Condit? Ted Kennedy? Barry Goldwater? U.S. Grant? Calvin Coolidge? Dan Quayle? George Bush, the elder?

If you fail to address every wrong action of every politician in this thread, right now, then you are just as much a hypocrite as you make Cherri out to be.

What's that you say? That Calvin Collidge is irrelevant to this discussion? Well, if that is true, then Clinton is equally irrelevant and you are just trying to change the subject, exactly as charged.

Face it, Gary. You're in a bind. And stupid. Now defend yourself without just dismissing my arguments rather than answering them. I'll just sit back and watch. Should be fun.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 12, 2001.



Face it, Gary. You're in a bind. And stupid. Now defend yourself without just dismissing my arguments rather than answering them. I'll just sit back and watch. Should be fun.

Uhh, no I am not in a bind. Hell why not go back to before Washington, let's go all the way back to the Governor's of the Colonies!!! I'm not the one with a hard on for dubya like Cherri has... (you should really jack off to relieve that pressure Cherri!) I am not the one who post ad nauseam every liberal rag that has something nasty to say about dubya... Haven't heard a peep outta Cherri about Condit, about any Kennedy, about Daly, about Clinton, about Jesse Jackson,.... need I go on?? I think not. I just dismissed your pathetic attempt at an argument right now! Care to come up with something better? (yawn - I won't hold my breathe)

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 13, 2001.


"I'm not the one with a hard on for dubya like Cherri has..."

You can't defend yourself. All you can do is attack Cherri and attack Cherri and attack Cherri.

You lose.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 13, 2001.


Gary, pay no attention to little nipper. He is a Cherri clone without a penis.

-- All (liberals@must.die), August 13, 2001.

Cherri still thinks Gore won... she wants her welfare check and sees Bush and Ashcroft as a block in her way. Cherri you lost and what do you know, the people prefer Bush to gore any day of the week. You are simply a loser cherri a LOSER.

-- kjzfhkasdgfjkg (kjsdfh@kjags.com), August 14, 2001.

GORE DID WIN

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), August 14, 2001.


Of course he did, that's why he lives at the White House.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 14, 2001.

I think Bush and Gore should have been handcuffed together in such a way as to require each other's assistance to meet basic biological needs while they served as co-presidents. They should have been sentenced to this arrangement until they persuaded their political factions to work together in a positive way.

-- helen (send@them.to.their.room.together), August 14, 2001.

Ah, a glimpse as to why FutureShock is "gone away now"; he's just sore about the election.

Is leaving the game pouting because your team lost now considered "enlightenment"? LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 14, 2001.

"...pay no attention to little nipper. He is a Cherri clone without a penis."

Instead of "label and dismiss", he dismisses and THEN labels. Genius!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 14, 2001.


Helen--

I am trying to picture the handcuff configuration that would require two miscreants to aim each other's wanky and wipe each other's butt. It might be a good alternative to capital punishment.

Could you post a diagram?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), August 14, 2001.


How could I have possible gotten the ‘order’ mixed up?

Sorry.

Let’s start over shall we.

Gary, the Nipper and Cherri are twins’….he’s the one with no penis. Pay minimum attention to this argumentive little asshole for like most liberals, he is suffering from post Gore syndrome.

I’zat better little one? I’ve labeled you, now you are dismissed.

And yes, I am a genius.

-- All (liberals@must.die), August 14, 2001.


As several here have pointed out, Cherri's selection of political material is quite as fully predetermined as the doomers' selections before y2k, and for the same reason. Furthermore, it reflects the same basic grasp of reality.

Now, Nipper is a clever fellow. He knows all this perfectly well, but since he shares Cherri's political leanings, he certainly can't admit it. What can he do?

Well, he can point out Gary's flaws. Now, Nipper is easily clever enough to recognize that Gary could be an axe murderer and Cherri's bias would not be diminished in the slightest. Nipper is well aware that his observations are irrelevant, intended only as distraction.

Adding to the irony, he chooses to attack Gary for the sin of *attacking*. Yes, Gary is quite awful, is he not? No right-thinking person would use attacks as a distraction, especially irrelevant attacks. Would they? Let's look down on Gary, everyone.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 14, 2001.


"... since {Nipper} shares Cherri's political leanings, he certainly can't admit it."

Oh, the nostalgia!

I get it, Flint. I adhere to the political leaning that cannot say its name! I daren't. I mustn't. For I am (gasp) more.... (dareI say it?) liberal than either you or Gary! Do I get to wear a scarlet "L"? Huh? Huh?

Ple-e-e-e-a-s-e? Pretty please with sugar on it? Scarlet looks good on me.

Now just how plausible is this assignment of motives (because that is exactly what Flint is up to here)?

He seems to believe that I "certainly can't admit" that I am closer to Cherri's political views than I am to... shit, who knows what the yardstick is that Flint is administering to "normalcy" in this case? Or dare I say it? Political correctness??!

Well, Flint knows I am more politically liberal than he is. How? Because I regularly post my political point of view on the Internet! Copiously. Without let or hindrance. In gobs.

But now, to back up Flint's theory of my dark intentions, I "certainly can't admit" my "lenaings". Why? That detail is passed over in silence. We all know it is a DARK SECRET THAT MUST NOT BE REVEALED ON PAIN OF... Flint's disapproval!

Mr. Flint. You are tired. Go to bed. You will feel better tomorrow. Maybe then you will make better sense.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 14, 2001.


Actually wrote more like J on ludes than Flint. Flint cold never be so tired as to write in that fashion. I will not believe that poster was acutally Flint. Bait only - no hook.

-- A (A@b.com), August 14, 2001.

My heart leapt with joy over Flint's return, and now maybe this wasn't Flint?

Lars, both of them are left-handed, aren't they? You wanna make sure the dominant hand of each is hampered by the dominant hand of the other. Then they have to do their manuvering with the non-dominant side of the brain, which may result in creative thinking. Who said they got to wipe...?

-- helen (implement@reform.more.quickly), August 15, 2001.


Nipper:

You are more clever than that. I already said you share Cherri's political leanings. As you attest, you have written them in great gobs. What you cannot admit is that "Cherri's selection of political material is quite as fully predetermined as the doomers' selections before y2k, and for the same reason. Furthermore, it reflects the same basic grasp of reality." Gee, didn't I already write this? Well, that's one problem with being very clever. You already know what someone intends, so why waste the time reading what they actually say?

Now, stripping away from your post all the verbiage resulting from this careful misreading, we are left with -- why, nothing! How astonishing! So let's return to the point, which (if you care to actually focus on it) is quite interesting.

Everyone has political leanings. We all think we have the best answer (or at least that our hearts point in the right direction) to the problems of society and the world. Nobody here is either stupid or evil. However, nearly everyone recognizes that there is a law of unintended consequences, and that the *results* of our policies are often distinct from the *intentions* of our policies. Most of us, in other words, are not blindly fanatical. We recognize that if there weren't something important to be said for other sides, there wouldn't be but one side and we'd all agree.

And this is what makes Cherri distinct and her approach invalid. She selects a single position, extreme beyond any plausibility, and admits of *nothing else*. And this removal from reality is irrespective of any flaws you might find in anyone else's positions or personalities. You have enough grasp (nay, command) of logic to recognize that our being unworthy ipso facto makes Cherri no MORE worthy, right?

It's clear from what Cherri writes that she considers her political enemies to be stupid or evil or both, and that any other possibility cannot cross her mind because she has armored her mind so as to make it uncrossable to thoughts of give and take. When our local extremists recognize their political enemies for doing something for motivations *other* than greed or venality, maybe we can take them more seriously. Meanwhile, it's no defense of anyone's shortcomings to find flaws in their critics. You know this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 15, 2001.


Good to see you Flint!

-- helen (the@real.flint), August 15, 2001.

You have enough grasp (nay, command) of logic to recognize that our being unworthy ipso facto makes Cherri no MORE worthy, right?

Cherri is very worthy, dipso wacko.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 15, 2001.


Flint:

It's clear from what Cherri writes that she considers her political enemies to be stupid or evil or both,

The serious question isn't about here approach or selection of articles.

The question is: Is she correct?

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 15, 2001.


The question is not "is Cherri correct?" The question is does Cherri have the same right to express her opinion as anyone else here?

-- helen (is@this.my.side.or.yours), August 15, 2001.

Yes, but only if she says she loves Z.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 15, 2001.

Helen, I would LOVE to hear Cherri's opinion, but all she post are cut and paste articles from liberal rags that have the same theme, George W Bush over and over again..... I can go to a pet store and listin to more intelligent rants from a parrot than I can get from Nip's/Cherri's *parroting* of the same old liberal puke.

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 16, 2001.

Gary, if Cherri posts her own opinions, she gets blasted for not citing her sources, her spelling skills, and her opinion in general. Negative personal remarks reflect a lack of debate skills.

-- helen (fairness@the.concept), August 16, 2001.

Helen, Cherri cannot post her opinion before or after she does her cut and paste job?? I've seen Lars do it and you have, so have many others..... we all can find these articles ourselves, but I am interested in *your* take on it and why.

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 16, 2001.

Gary, Cherri posted her opinion. I reread this thread several times, and my impression is that your initial response to Cherri's opinion was to refer to it as hypocrisy. From that position you decended to a remark about Cherri involving masturbation and another comparing her opinion unfavorably with a parrot and still another referring to her general political leanings as puke.

This type of negative behavior is not debate and does nothing to promote greater understanding of your own opinion. It may be that you and Cherri have several points of view in common, but at this rate you may never discover them.

-- helen (no@offense.intended), August 16, 2001.


Gary: Cherri is NOT alone in her disdain of W. MANY Republicans are wondering how this guy got into office. Do you consider Newsmax a "liberal rag?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 16, 2001.

Helen, wise beyond your years and always the peace maker!

If I go back and look at all the post by Cherri since *the election*, they have all railed on way or the other against Bush, incessantly.... I hate to break this news, but Bush doesn't have the market cornered on *scummy politicians*.. I gave the same grief to Aint gonna happen when he was parroting his brand of one minded BS right after the selection...errr..election of bush. I was under the handle, it is happening.

One could draw the conclusion that Cherri thinks all right wing leaning politicians are scum and left wingers are saints... WRONG!! There are more sinners than saints in politics by a long shot and they cover both parties, hence the hypocrisy. Anyone can cut and paste, many do. Lars paste some very interesting articles on a wide variety of topics, but I never get the feeling he is trying to promote a single minded agenda. Be original, use the story to back up your opinions, that's all Helen. and you're right, Cherri and I could probably find more common ground than we realize.

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), August 17, 2001.


Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.

--Henry Kissinger

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 17, 2001.


Gary, I agree with you that taking one side exclusively is never a good idea. We participate in our local political process and have found that the person running for office (reputation, willingness to compromise, etc) is far more important that their political party. In my personal opinion, government at the federal level is so huge that it is virtually impossible to get a good handle on who is doing what and with whom. I think this makes accountability difficult.

I love you Gary. :)

-- helen (every@day.is.love.day.at.unks), August 17, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ