Karl Rove calls it like he sees it

[revprez]

Dismissing other people's opinions is what's not useful. Yet you do it here constantly.

 

Did you get warm fuzzies after writing that?

 

Rev Prez

[YT2095]

Did you get warm fuzzies after writing that?

 

Rev Prez

 

How Very ODD! I was just about to ask you the same thing

[Douglas]

Simply pointing out that something plays a role isn't very useful. How big a role do each of these individual attack dogs play? How powerful a voice is Ann Coulter compared to Walter Cronkite?

Good point about the relative power of the attack dogs. I suppose "talk radio" would go to the conservatives, but TV and the papers would go to the liberals.

[Mokele]

58 percent of American self-identify as either liberal and conservative when actually asked. 99 percent of American voters in the last election voted for either Kerry or Bush. Its fair to apply the labels liberal and conservative exhaustively and exclusively to the significant players and constituencies in this game; the independents are a second order consideration.

 

You're missing my point. I'll use myself as an example. If I were asked in such a survey, I would say I am liberal, and I voted for Kerry (reluctantly). However, that does not mean I am *entirely* in line with "liberal" positions. I despise socialized medicine and disagree with thier extreme attitude towards guns. But at the same time, I like their positions on other subjects, such as church-state separation and gay rights. I prefer the conservative view on some issues (mostly economic, though admittedly that's my weakest area), but cannot stand the Religious Reich, and I like the libertarian view on some things, but their environmental policy is so stupid an infant could see the flaws. The point is that I, as a person, have my own constellation of views, as a product of my experiences, upbringing, education and whatnot. I categorize myself by best fit, not total fit, and I know very few people who do not do so, and do not disagree with their own party, even if only on minor issues. My mother is a staunch republican, but she similarly detests the RR and doesn't like conservative views on guns. Yet if anyone asked in a survey, she'd say she's conservative without missing a beat.

 

My point is that just because someone self-identifies as "liberal" does not mean that *must* hold the liberal position on all points, only that it's the best fit for their personal views.

 

If I had to accuse anyone of not thinking, it'd be those who toe the party line on all issues. If someone says "Well, I'm a blank, but I disagree with them on X, Y and Z", to me at least that signifies that they have invested significant thought into the process, rather than just swallowing the party line whole and saying whatever they're supposed to. I'm not saying nobody who does toe the party line thinks it through, only that I, personally, see disagreement as an indication of active thought.

 

It is a plain fact that people do hold contradictory positions. I'm sure you have at some point; and I know I have. It is not an exercise in critical thought, it is an inevitable consequence of intuition.

 

My point is that these thoughts are not, necessarily, contradictory. Just because someone has arrived at different conclusions does *not* mean they are wrong, only that they're working with different data, some of which are arbitrary assumptions which cannot be tested. Imagine the options of "people are basically good/bad/stupid/selfish". Which one you hold as a core personal belief will *massively* affect your political leanings, and none of the options can really be proven; they're just beliefs. Repeat this for all beliefs, and you'll find a lot more variation in the *logical*, *consistent* conclusions that people can draw in politics than can be accounted for by two parties.

 

Your defense of shallowness and ignorance as intellectual virtue is as fatuous as it is boring.

 

Where did I defend shallowness and ignorance. I defended the idea that *Gasp* maybe some people might not be 100% with the party on all issues, and that is not erroneous in any way.

 

In contrast, *you* have offered not a single justification for your dismissal of this possibility. You have yet to offer any justification for your ridiculous and arbitrary division of everyone into two neat little boxes.

 

So, let's have it, clear and in the open. Justify your dismisall, and not with more flippant comments about ignorance and shallowness. *SHOW* precisely why an individual cannot hold views different from their party without committing logical errors.

 

Ok, let's examine your total failure to do this for one simple point.

 

I asked:

Tell me *precisely* why I cannot simultaneously believe that gays should marry *and* that tax cuts stimulate the economy?

 

To which you responded:

I never said you couldn't hold contradictory positions. I said doing so is not the consequence of critical thought.

 

Here's some Logic 101 for you, since you seem to have totally missed it. There's a phrase for this:

 

Dodging the question

 

I asked a SPECIFIC statement. I asked why one cannot be for both tax cuts and gay marriage. I asked for *specific*, *precise* reasoning as to why you cannot hold both of these views at once. You ignored the request and failed to provide any reasoning?

 

Maybe this is because you are wrong, know you're wrong, and know that any attempt to show why one cannot hold these views at the same time will merely further expose you as the knee-jerk partisan hack that you are?

 

Seriously, I want you to show me why FOR THAT SPECIFIC EXAMPLE it is logically inconsistent to hold those two views.

 

Or are you just going to dodge the question again?

 

Show us that "critical thought process" that renders those two views contradictory, if you even can.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

You're missing my point.

 

I'm pretty sure I haven't.

 

I'll use myself as an example. If I were asked in such a survey, I would say I am liberal, and I voted for Kerry (reluctantly). However, that does not mean I am *entirely* in line with "liberal" positions.

 

That's probably true. And I'm saying that a mixed bag of contradictory political positions is not a consequence of critical thought. For example, there is a shallow quality about how you self-describe yourself as "liberal" and yet hold a libertarian political program. Either it reflects an indefensible hostility towards to the standard definitions or an indefensible ignorance of them period. Either way, critical thought has nothing to do with it.

 

My point is that just because someone self-identifies as "liberal" does not mean that *must* hold the liberal position on all points, only that it's the best fit for their personal views.

 

No, it doesn't have to. But it does anyway; we can correlate self-identification with survey data on electoral and other political questions. Party ID went for the party candidate about 90 percent of the time. Liberal and conservative self-identification went for the corresponding candidate 85 percent of the time. Self-described moderates gave 99 percent of their vote to one of the two major candidates. When we cross correlate according to religiosity, region, views on moral, economic and health issues and most importantly (as far as this thread is concerned) views on the War on Terror and the Iraq War, the fact is we have only two significant groups worth considering--liberals and conservatives. So either you haven't thought it through or you have some odd grudge against the labels; either way it's immaterial to the discussion. Who'd care if some neo-Nazi on message board wanted to be a called a social democrat?

 

If I had to accuse anyone of not thinking, it'd be those who toe the party line on all issues.

 

You'd probably be wrong. All of the talent is in the two major parties. I wonder where all the apathy lies? Also, why is it you seek weak rationalizations rather than evidence to advance this argument? I mean the point is entirely empirical.

 

If someone says "Well, I'm a blank, but I disagree with them on X, Y and Z", to me at least that signifies that they have invested significant thought into the process, rather than just swallowing the party line whole and saying whatever they're supposed to.

 

And that's probably the depth of so-called "independent" political thought. Positions arise from nothing more than gut reaction.

 

I'm not saying nobody who does toe the party line thinks it through, only that I, personally, see disagreement as an indication of active thought.

 

And that's a very shallow position to take. That's not to say anyone else doesn't on any number of issues. Hell, I occasionally begin with a good "I personally believe yada yada yada." But at least I try to restrict personal opinion to unempirical matters.

 

My point is that these thoughts are not, necessarily, contradictory.

 

No, they're not. An example of contradictory thoughts would be your "present" opposition to eminent domain to support private interests. In short, you seem to avoid spelling out any underlying principles that others could use to evaluate the substance and boundaries of your positions.

 

Just because someone has arrived at different conclusions does *not* mean they are wrong...

 

You haven't arrived at a conclusion. You've simply stated that based on some nebulous personal experience and "education" that people who hold a mix bag of views are generally better critical thinkers. That doesn't mean your wrong, but it does mean you could at least explain why majority of the most well organized and informed players at any level of politics are partisans.

 

Where did I defend shallowness and ignorance.

 

That would be your defense of mixed bag political positions on principle.

 

I defended the idea that *Gasp* maybe some people might not be 100% with the party on all issues, and that is not erroneous in any way.

 

Which is on its face an odiously useless observation. We're not talking about marginal disagreements over the amount of judicial discretion under strict constructionism, but measurably significant differences on which labels can be applied.

 

In contrast, *you* have offered not a single justification for your dismissal of this possibility.

 

I haven't argued against it, anymore than I've argued against the notion that people may be genetically different to some degree from one another.

 

You have yet to offer any justification for your ridiculous and arbitrary division of everyone into two neat little boxes.

 

I have. I've pointed out that liberal and conservative are labels applied to the two politically significant groups in American politics. The polling is pretty clear on that point.

 

Ok, let's examine your total failure to do this for one simple point.

 

Here's some Logic 101 for you

 

Read up on strawmen and get back to me, Professor.

 

Rev Prez

[Mokele]

Dodging the question again?

 

You still have not answered the question from the previous post, and I'm through until you do so and stop avoiding it.

 

I repeat: Show me why it is logically inconsistent for a person to support tax cuts and gay marriage.

 

I want an answer *specifically* to this *particular* question. Not in general, *SPECIFIC*. I want you to address why these *exact* positions are contradictory. If your thesis is that there is some great logical divide between republican and democratic positions, show it, explicitly.

 

Once you do that, I continue this debate. Until you actually put your money where your mouth is and show *why* these views are contradictory (something you have been avoiding for 3 posts), I will not waste my time with your stupidity.

 

Answer the question, or stop wasting our time.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

I want an answer *specifically* to this *particular* question.

 

Then ask somebody who's interested.

 

I want you to address why these *exact* positions are contradictory.

 

You believe they are?

 

If your thesis is that there is some great logical divide between republican and democratic positions, show it, explicitly.

 

If by logical divide you mean that most Americans fall into two categories with a distinct set of views derived from liberal or conservative political philosophies, then I already have shown that's the case using the polling data. If you're suggesting I've argued that Republicans are rational and Democrats are not, then you're way off base.

 

Once you do that, I continue this debate.

 

And why should that interest me?

 

Rev Prez

[john5746]

Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."

Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."

Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."

 

This was the Robertson/Falwell interview comments in context. They later apologized for the remarks. Are you going to defend even this?

 

RevPrez, I'm confused by your remarks. Are you saying the country isn't or is divided liberal/conservative? The main problem I have with Rove's comments is that he is talking political ideology, not about specific groups. It leads people to believe that the country is divided into two groups, with one group(The non-BUSH crowd) being the liberals.

[Mokele]

Then ask somebody who's interested.

 

In other words, you're only interested in spouting your bullshit, not supporting it or the logical extensions of it.

 

You believe they are?

 

No, *YOU* do. Or at least claim to in general. You specifically state that, and I quote,

That wouldn't be thinking for yourself, that would be operating on shallow gut reaction. I chalk it up to some defense mechanism whenever someone declares they honestly believe critical thinking includes the ability to hold two generally contradictory positions.

In response to:

Can't think for yourself and have both liberal and conservative views on different subjects. What an idiotic statement.

 

This exchange makes it perfectly clear that you believe that it is logically inconsistent to hold a liberal view on one issue and a conservative view on another one. This was the single biggest problem I had with your posts in this thread (even more than your apparent defense of that bigoted remark by Falwell).

 

I have *repeatedly* called you to task about this, and you perpetually repeat that you believe having a political position in which you are liberal on some issues and conservative on others is "shallowness" and "ignorance".

 

So I designed the above bolded statement as a test. I selected two *totally* unconnected beliefs, one conservative and the other liberal, and challenged you to put your money where your mouth is.

 

Once again, I notice you have dodged the question. Is that your response to every difficult problem, to run away from it?

 

If by logical divide you mean that most Americans fall into two categories with a distinct set of views derived from liberal or conservative political philosophies, then I already have shown that's the case using the polling data. If you're suggesting I've argued that Republicans are rational and Democrats are not, then you're way off base.

 

No, you argued that it is logically inconistent to hold political views that are not 100% conservative or 100% liberal. See the above quote, in which you *explicitly* state as much.

 

And why should that interest me?

 

You know, I don't know. You clearly have a dogmatic attitude and refuse to even consider anything outside of your gospel truth, so why are you even here? Unlike your local Republican headquarters, we actually like thought and discussion, not blind assertion.

 

Frankly, your debating style reminds me of that of creationists.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

In other words, you're only interested in spouting your bullshit, not supporting it or the logical extensions of it.

 

And how is it my bullshit as opposed to something you just made up?

 

No, *YOU* do. Or at least claim to in general.

 

Where did I state that gay marriage and tax cuts were contrary positions?

 

This exchange makes it perfectly clear that you believe that it is logically inconsistent to hold a liberal view on one issue and a conservative view on another one.

 

No, I said: "I chalk it up to some defense mechanism whenever someone declares they honestly believe critical thinking includes the ability to hold two generally contradictory positions."

 

Perhaps you'd like to start from the top.

 

So I designed the above bolded statement as a test. I selected two *totally* unconnected beliefs, one conservative and the other liberal, and challenged you to put your money where your mouth is.

 

Um, on tax cuts I agree that's a conservative position. How is advocating gay marriage a liberal position?

 

No, you argued that it is logically inconistent to hold political views that are not 100% conservative or 100% liberal.

 

Really? Where?

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Then Falwell said...

 

If you're going to quote in context: "And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters - the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats--what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact--if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

 

This was the Robertson/Falwell interview comments in context. They later apologized for the remarks.

 

Where's the apology?

 

Are you going to defend even this?

 

Yes, I am going to defend it, largely because the abortion and homosexual rights activists, the ACLU, and secularists easily fit into a leftist fifth column. Are their homosexual conservatives? Sure, are their pro-choice folks sick of liberals undermining the security of the country, sure. So what? Politics isn't waged with respect to handfuls, and the fact remains that the other major political party in the United States is the party of a program abortion rights, gay marriage, Godlessness, and internationalism arising from liberal principles. We can argue whether the fringe on any given issue is culpable of supporting the whole by supporting the part.

 

RevPrez, I'm confused by your remarks. Are you saying the country isn't or is divided liberal/conservative?

 

I'm saying that the country is divided between liberals and conservatives, and that Moleke's view to the contrary is easily refuted by the polling data.

 

The main problem I have with Rove's comments is that he is talking political ideology, not about specific groups.

 

Why not? Liberalism is well-defined in political science circles. We can predict the political preferences of people abiding by the philosophy. We can even determine the unstated preferences of shallow folks who attach to no manageable set of political principles and instead, as Moleke does, go by their guts simply by gauging their responses on a series of issues. That's why it's easy to break down moderates into liberals and conservatives, even when they don't self-identify as such or register with a major party.

 

It leads people to believe that the country is divided into two groups, with one group(The non-BUSH crowd) being the liberals.

 

There is evidence that liberals and conservatives are psychologically distinct. Liberalism and conservatism are well understood American political philosophies which in model successfully predict the positions taken by organized players. In the Congress and state legislatures, we can use interest group ratings to determine median attitudes and find that there is very little variance within parties; only across party lines. And finally the vast majority of Americans cast their vote for one party or the other at all levels of government.

 

I never did limit conservatism to the Bush crowd, although its something to say that better than four fifths of Bush's voters actually supported their candidate rather than voted against Kerry.

 

Rev Prez

[john5746]

He clearly accuses liberals' date=' in the very least in a theological sense, of aiding and abetting the terrorists, not the United States. I have no problem with that argument, but Karl Rove's is far more basic. Liberals are weak pansies who'd sooner sell out their own country than kill the enemy. And predictably the single most important 527 and arguably a key factor in Democratic general election prospects during the 2004 elections [i']did just that[/i].

 

He clearly states that GOD allowed the US to be attacked. Not liberals, but the US. Maybe we should make women cover their faces? If any comment would incourage the terrorists, this one would have, because it is what they believe - that GOD is against the US.

 

 

Since 50 percent of the country doesn't identify as liberal' date=' how'd you come up with that number?[/quote']

 

from people like YOU,

 

 

There is evidence that liberals and conservatives are psychologically distinct. Liberalism and conservatism are well understood American political philosophies which in model successfully predict the positions taken by organized players. In the Congress and state legislatures' date=' we can use interest group ratings to determine median attitudes and find that there is very little variance within parties; only across party lines. And finally the vast majority of Americans cast their vote for one party or the other at all levels of government.[/quote']

 

Sounds pretty close to 50% from your thinking.

 

You have shown yourself to be a pansy for the right. To support even Falwell is idiotic.

[revprez]

He clearly states that GOD allowed the US to be attacked.

 

He said God allowed the US to be attack because of people who are, for lack of a better word, liberal. Let's just be clear.

 

Maybe we should make women cover their faces?

 

When did he say that?

 

If any comment would incourage the terrorists, this one would have, because it is what they believe - that GOD is against the US.

 

I'm sure the terrorists are confident that God is against the US. Besides, its been three years. Any evidence these remarks have shown up on al Jazeera as Rick Durbin's have?

 

Sounds pretty close to 50% from your thinking.

 

Where did I say 50 percent of the country was (even generally) wrong?

 

You have shown yourself to be a pansy for the right.

 

I've promised to avoid throwing insults, so if you'd answer the questions above I'd really appreciate it.

 

Rev Prez

[Phi for All]

EVERYONE needs to remember that we debate the stance here in the Politics forum, we do not denounce the person taking that stance. Let's leave the mud-slinging and ad hominem attacks for the elections.

 

As many of you are experiencing, Flaming carries a warning penalty. No more name-calling, please.

[Douglas]

The main problem I have with Rove's comments is that he is talking political ideology' date=' not about specific groups. .[/quote']I believe his remarks were at least partially directed to moveon.org

[husmusen]

Quote of revprez quoting Falwell:

He said God allowed the US to be attack because of people who are, for lack of a better word, liberal. Let's just be clear.[/Quote]

 

And I wonder how Mr Falwell happens to know it was just this as opposed to perhaps because the republicans gave a sadistic dictator biowarfare and chemowarfare agents and delivery tools and satelite maps to help him. And thought they were really really clever as long as the oil kept flowing.

 

Or perhaps because many Americans revere money too much.

If you want to play these games, surely the fact that it was your commerce towers that were bombed is a sign?

 

Or maybe because over a century US and Britain have been screwing up the middle east like Russia screwed up the Caucuses. And as a logical moral consequence of your actions, you allowed a breeding ground for hatred and lies and evil. And now the vipers egg has hatched and it's crawling home to mummy.

 

Just a few possible alternate suggestions.

 

Cheers

[revprez]

And I wonder how Mr Falwell happens to know it was just this as opposed to perhaps because the republicans gave a sadistic dictator biowarfare and chemowarfare agents and delivery tools and satelite maps to help him. And thought they were really really clever as long as the oil kept flowing.

 

Liberals actually exist. Republicans who gave sadistic dictators biological and chemical weapons and the intelligence to use them do not.

 

Or perhaps because many Americans revere money too much. If you want to play these games, surely the fact that it was your commerce towers that were bombed is a sign?

 

Where's the Biblical prohibition against commerce? I can find the ones against blasphemy and butt-plugging. On the other hand, the terrorists did succeed in striking targets in counties that went heavily for Gore and Kerry while the brave passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 took down the bastards over a county that went for Bush.

 

Or maybe because over a century US and Britain have been screwing up the middle east like Russia screwed up the Caucuses.

 

Doing what? Keeping dangerous pan-Arabist dictators from cutting Europe off from the Suez? Landing in Lebanon? Selling weapons to a Jewish state surrounded by Muslims with murder on their mind? Knocking off pro-Soviet authoritarians? Buying oil period? The Islamic Near East can blame itself for most of its problems; what little else is the result of foreign adventure usually has to do with Jews.

 

Rev Prez

[john5746]

Where's the Biblical prohibition against commerce? I can find the ones against blasphemy and butt-plugging. On the other hand' date=' the terrorists did succeed in striking targets in counties that went heavily for Gore and Kerry while the brave passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 took down the bastards over a county that went for Bush.

[/quote']

 

Let's be clear:

 

OSAMA BIN LADEN attacked the US. Why? Supposedly due to the first Gulf War. It doesn't matter to me. He will kill anyone, even Muslims. We did nothing to deserve it.

 

So the far LEFT and the far RIGHT are wrong.

[Severian]

As a brit, the thing that pisses me off most about the whole thing is the American attitude. They seem to think that they are on some kind of new crusade - that some unholy evil has been unleashed on the world and it is their job to 'cleanse' it.

 

But lets be honest, the terrorists are a lot less of a threat than communism ever was, or even N Korea of many African countries. They are less of an issue even than the drug cartels imho. The only reason that they are being pursued so vigourously is because the 911 attack was taken so personally by the US people, and the only reason it was taken so personally was because it was so visually striking. Not a lot of people died in the scheme of things (much less than the number of civilians killed in Iraq since the end of the war).

 

Restricting civil liberties to curb terroists is in my opinion much more damaging to the west than anything the terrorists could do.

[Pangloss]

As an American, the thing that pisses me off most about the whole thing is the European attitude. They seem to think that terrorism is no big deal, and that the real enemy is American imperialism. That some unholy evil has been unleashed on the world and it is their job to 'cleanse' it.

 

See how ridiculous that sounds when you turn it around? Be honest yourself. Terrorism is a serious threat, and if anybody should know that it's Europeans. Try selling that "terrorists are a lot less of a threat than communism ever was" line in Madrid. Or Northern Ireland. I'll send out a search party if you're not back in a couple of days.

 

I totally agree with you that restricting civil liberties is a serious problem, and I actually sympathize with your point quite a bit (and I'm not trying to mock you here). I just think you go too far the other way is all.

[Severian]

Terrorism is a serious threat' date=' and if anybody should know that it's Europeans. Try selling that "terrorists are a lot less of a threat than communism ever was" line in Madrid. Or Northern Ireland. I'll send out a search party if you're not back in a couple of days.

[/quote']

 

I think that is where you are wrong. Europeans have dealt with terrorism for decades and we didn't have a knee jerk reaction to resrict our civil liberties. Now that it has happened (twice!) in the US you somehow think you are special and go off on a crusade.

[Phi for All]

I can't help feeling manipulated by the whole thing though. Many things we are doing that benefit many powerful people get justified over and over by the 911 attacks. Is that just opportunism at work?

 

I still maintain that trying to thwart terrorism with conventional military means just fuels more terrorism. And look at the cost in lives and resources compared to what it costs the terrorists. No business would consider the ratios acceptable. Unless the costs of doing business gets funded by the taxpayers.

[Dave]

This isn't about protecting and defending the country anymore. It's all about how much the politicans can milk the terrorism card.

 

I would very much like to know what acts managed to get passed "in the name of terrorism".

[Pangloss]

Europeans have dealt with terrorism for decades and we didn't have a knee jerk reaction to resrict our civil liberties. Now that it has happened (twice!) in the US you somehow think you are special and go off on a crusade.

 

For the record, I was opposed to Iraq, but I understand that you're "you" refers to Americans in general, not me in particular.

 

I share your concerns. But I can't help but think that at least some of that kind of sentiment arises because of US involvement. Still, I don't mean to suggest that anyone here is guilty of such. I respect your opinion on it, and defend your decision to speak your mind.

 

I have to take issue with you on something else, Sev. Europe is *very much* in the throes of "knee-jerk reactions to civil liberties", and they have nothing to do with Americans. ID cards in Britain are a major issue right now, are they not? And where can you go in London without being viewed on a camera? You guys are not immune to that kind of thing, and you clearly cannot blame those examples on Americans.

[Dak]

I would very much like to know what acts managed to get passed "in the name of terrorism".

 

ID cards in Britain are a major issue right now, are they not? And where can you go in London without being viewed on a camera?

 

the idea of introdusing ID cards have been around for quite a while, but yeah, all of a sudden its 'to combat terrorism', even tho it wasnt before, and even though we (UK) havent been attacked by al kaieda, and even though we'v been putting up with IRA* attacks for yonks.

 

i find it dispicable when polititions will capatalise on the deaths of thousands of people to push through their only passingly related ideas.

 

There are a few laws in the uk which got passed about detaining 'terrorist suspects' without trial, and without legal recourse for them: which smaks of the same issues surrounding guantamolano bay, including the lack of public explanation.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

*not sure how well known these are in the US, but its the Irish Republican Army, not the Inland Revenue Assosciation. the latter arent quite that nasty.