May 22, 2006
Google Afraid of Whiners
Seems to me the common thread to all this is that some person(s) gets upset. Then, rather than use their speech, they pull the good old 3rd grade trick, “I’m going to tell!” So Google responds to those complaints because… well, that’s what corporations do. Rather than risk (the money) taking a stand you always attempt to make the whiner happy or at least make him think you did.
American Thinker: Something frighteningly ominous has been happening on the Internet lately: Google, without any prior explanation or notice, has been terminating its News relationship with conservative e-zines and web journals.The overriding interest of the company is to get the whiner to STFU. All other concerns are secondary. IÂ’m not sure Google is leaning either way. The reason the right gets this treatment may be because some have a talent for/habit of running to mommy when they donÂ’t get their way. There just are not many of those folks on the right.
Hat Tip: Allahpundit via Hot Air.
Posted by: Howie at
04:18 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.
1
That's why I no longer use Google. I use Yahoo for everything and frankly I get better hits.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 04:48 PM (8e/V4)
2
Damn, I could have used that advice, but instead I got stuck like a pathetic blood-sucking parasite, leeching onto the very first blog ( JawaReports ) that came into my Google sites! Like a good parasite I am doomed to remain, never seeking greener pastures until my present host is sucked dry, withers and expires ... life might have been so different ....
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 05:07 PM (FCC6c)
3
Larry,
that's because Google will always direct you to rightwing sites if you're looking for 'racists', 'hate mongers', 'war criminals', etc.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 05:15 PM (8e/V4)
4
I think it was a search on " muslim " or " muhammed caricatures " which turned my life around and put it on the ill-fated fast track of full foaming frontal frothing blogging.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 22, 2006 05:36 PM (FCC6c)
5
I can't speak for Google, but I would certainly be unwilling to be a company giving a voice to sites that propgate comments regularly calling for all out Civil War, murder of anybody deemed to "liberal", and endless racism.
If you don't think that sort of comment is orthogonal to your site, ax the posters who make them and let them go somewhere like Stormfront where they're welcome (maybe, since even Stormfront won't tolerate most calls for violence).
If you think that the comments accurately reflect the spirit of the site, then deal with the fact that your views are extreme and will be relegated. Google is under no obligation to give you a voice, so if your voice is unwelcome by digital society - which it must be unless Google is making poor business decisions, which is not a conclusion borne out by the facts - deal with the fact that your painting yourself into a corner by hosting and encouraging extremist thinking.
Seems to me that the only whiners here, then, are the ones complaining that they're being relegated to a minority status in a society where they ARE a minority status.
You have every right to speak (though the extreme, violent rhetoric very likely is illegal in most cases), but you have no right to any private channel you want.
As a random aside, the content filter on this site is atrocious and needs some major retooling. It just blocked my comment because it contained "h0st com" as part of "h0st comments".
Posted by: TxMxP at May 22, 2006 06:02 PM (ZNd6p)
6
TxMxP: The Jawa Report is carried as a news site by Google, but perhaps you might get some perspective by reading the comments at say, DailyKos or Democratic Underground.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 22, 2006 06:28 PM (RHG+K)
7
TxMxP,
seems to me you'd rather be living in China, or Liberal lalaland. My preference is for freedom, and a search engine that doesn't make those decisions based on the ideology of its owners but rather on my search specifications as well as the popularity of the particular website.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 06:47 PM (8e/V4)
8
txmfp: You idiot this is the Jawa report. We report on the Jawas and what they are doing. If you don't like our reports move your butt to some liberal, crybaby site that we more suit your ideas. People seem to forget this is the JAWA REPORT. May I suggest your read jawas explained to the left of screen.
I hate the muslim animals causing so much misery in this world. THIS MAKES ME A RACIST, BIGOT, ETC: Proud to be one.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 07:09 PM (pSK/I)
9
None the less Google only acted on complaints. And I'm not racist. I don't care if you are white, black, arab or orange. I don't care if you are Christian Jew or Muslim. What I care about is terrorism. My highly unfavorable negative opinion is due to their actions only. Stop terror and I go home. Peoples relationship whith their god is none of my business unless it leads them to try and kill me and my countymen. After that well, All is fair in love and war.
Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 07:34 PM (D3+20)
10
>>TxMxP: The Jawa Report is carried as a news site by Google, but perhaps you might get some perspective by reading the comments at say, DailyKos or Democratic Underground.
KoS and kin have a number of truly absurd and idiotic posts, on the same level as LGF, Freep, etc. Rarely, however, do they devolve into discussions calling for homegrown genocide and terrorism. They seem content to keep their spittle-laced ranting to calling neocons "stupid". LGF, as an example of a hate site which Google has continually refused to carry, routinely houses discussions threatening indiscriminate violence within the mainland and calls for ethnic cleansing. Treating LGF "stories" as valid news would be of no practical difference from carrying anti-semetic Stormfront content as "news".
Google is making a smart business decision by not treating such disgusting gibberish as "news".
>>seems to me you'd rather be living in China, or Liberal lalaland. My preference is for freedom, and a search engine that doesn't make those decisions based on the ideology of its owners but rather on my search specifications as well as the popularity of the particular website.
Google carries LGF and all the other "whining" sites in its search results. It does not carry them in its news section, because they are not news sites.
In fact, the only problem with Google's news section is that it still carries far too much psuedo-news as it is.
>>txmfp: You idiot this is the Jawa report.
Thank you for taking the time to post such an intelligent retort. Excuse me for not reading past the first sentence, but I was afraid the rest of it might have something on the same general IQ level as "borderline retarded" and the sudden contrast could blind me.
As a point of reference, THAT was an insult, your pedestrian nonsense was merely an embarassing display of testicular shriveling. In the future, if you're going to expend the energy pounding at your keyboard like that, do at least do everyone the service of making it entertaining, since you've apparently forfeited any attempt to make it meaningful.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 22, 2006 07:37 PM (ZNd6p)
11
What Rooster said. But with more hatred for muslims and libturds.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2006 07:40 PM (0yYS2)
12
lol! good one, IM.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 07:56 PM (8e/V4)
13
Dear Mr. Temp. So do you work for a temp agency? Just trying to figure that out. Yes, welcome to the smokey pool room of the internet.
#2 yahoo search for pedestrian nonsense
http://forums.men.style.com/thread.jspa?messageID=86361
I think you missed your pick of sites there Temp man.
The derogatory connotation of pedestrian derives from class discrimination in england. I'm correct on that right? Just so we all know that we lower classes can comprehend your subtle weak insult there.
Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 08:17 PM (D3+20)
14
Such is the red-brown-green alliance. This tactic isn’t new, but has gained new life since MarKOS accused the right of having a “noise machine,” an organization dedicated to protesting out unflattering news. When you’re convinced ‘the other side is doing it,’ just about anything can then be justified in closing the gap.
The part about them conspiring with Moveon for Internet regulation legislation is the most dangerous aspect for liberty. The code for Google News is open-source, so anyone can compete with little capital necessary, but Internet regulation, especially if it has a provision against "hate speech," could push anti-jihad rhetoric, or anything abhorrent to the red-brown-green alliance, deep into the shadows.
Posted by: Typewriter King at May 22, 2006 08:21 PM (qjJ88)
15
I yahoo it's good stuff. Google too. Yahoo brings it to you google you go after it. Googles tools are cool too if not exactly user friendly.
Posted by: Howie at May 22, 2006 08:23 PM (D3+20)
16
Little does that little shithead know.
Anyway. A report on the 4 mexicans I hired yesterday. We had breakfast at started to work about 8:00. Showed mondo how to drive tractor and drive metal posts with front in loader. By 10:00 AM they ran me off saying they no longer needed me in the way. Had to go to Biloxi to pick up more field fence and t-posts. Returned at 1:30 PM to find all line posts and corner posts installed on west side of west pasture. Ready to pull field fence. They had the brains to copy the front fence exactly. Fence in perfectly straight for 1200 ft. Concreted posts will be ready tomorrow.
Wife said she didn't think they stopped for lunch. They said they didn't want to stop because it would be hotter later. Knocked them off at 3:00. Gave them a ice chest full of Dos Equis and sodas. They went to the river for awhile and relaxed. I went out to check the new cows as some are calving. They had cleaned out the water troughs and were sweeping the barn on their own. I asked if they needed an advance on their wages. They replied they had plenty of money as they have been working here for 8 weeks.
They are from Chihuahua. Where ever that is. Now I understand how these guys make it. You have to respect these guys. They smile all the time. Being normally anti immigration I am now rethinking the guest worker idea. Two weeks with these guys and I'll have my place back to pre Katrina. Without the trees.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 08:23 PM (pSK/I)
17
TxMxP: I don't understand why you bother to read and comment on this site if you don't approve of it. It's a free country!
And so far, a free web! move on! (no pun intended) and find another site.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 22, 2006 08:32 PM (aH6Zf)
18
txmxp: If you check the archives you will find at least 10 exactly worked paragraphs like the one you wrote above. Do you liberal assholes have a certain book you read before turning your computer on? Same replys from different libturds. Bunch of friggin clones. Nothing ever new from them. Just one replaces the last with the same crap almost verbatim.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2006 08:35 PM (pSK/I)
19
"LGF, as an example of a hate site which Google has continually refused to carry, routinely houses discussions threatening indiscriminate violence within the mainland and calls for ethnic cleansing. Treating LGF "stories" as valid news would be of no practical difference from carrying anti-semetic Stormfront content as "news"."
TxMxP: Are you freaking kidding? I assume you mean littlegreenfootballs. There certainly are hateful comments made, but I see a lot more comments about botany and homemade cookies.
Are we reading the same site?
Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 22, 2006 08:46 PM (ZB+tY)
20
rooster,
that's the silver lining to the Mexico invasion. They are hard working, generally christian (not muslim), and morally conservative and anti-pudding, etc. If they assimilate they'll make fantastic citizens and taxpayers-- unless the Libtards get to them first and turn them into victims. In that case this country will go further into decline.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 22, 2006 08:48 PM (8e/V4)
21
TxMxP-
1. We're at war
2. We didn't attack them, they attacked us.
3. Hate is part of our instinct for self-preservation
and as such enables us to stay alive.
4. The word for a culture that can't (or won't)
use their hate to defend itself is "defeated"
There's a season for all things, and it's the season of
war. We'll live or die by our ability to hate.
Here's a news flash for you. The hate you see here is ugly to be sure. Not so ugly though as having to bow to those who would bring about our end though. Or to lose your head for not bowing.
Personally, I think that the left wingers would be the first to bow down, because they never had any steel to begin with. Just sophistry. Pity the liberal. They are truly empty.
Posted by: jamsler at May 22, 2006 09:10 PM (VqA/E)
22
I think the head whiner has a name.
Al Gore Junior
He owns 50 mil in stock in Google.
Posted by: RepJ at May 22, 2006 09:29 PM (pTcGU)
23
JC: "anti-pudding"
lol! Followed by coffe through the nose.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 02:46 AM (YudAC)
24
That's my point Rooster; most Mexicans I've met, to about the 99th percentile, are the nicest, friendliest, most hard-working people you could ask for, and if the Mexican government wasn't so corrupt, I'd move there when I retire. Plus, real Mexican food is only rivalled by Indian or Lebanese in its deliciosity. Deliciosity is a word, isn't it? Well it is now.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2006 05:24 AM (0yYS2)
25
Seems that Googles news is filtering Jawa too. Jawa is in the news search, but this post is missing.
Posted by: Fred Fry at May 23, 2006 05:38 AM (JXdhy)
26
>>The derogatory connotation of pedestrian derives from class discrimination in england. I'm correct on that right? Just so we all know that we lower classes can comprehend your subtle weak insult there.
Don't act like a buffoon and you won't be treated like one. I can tolerate a difference in intelligence since I wouldn't want the many people out there who are smarter than me to look down on me for god-given traits I can't control anymore than you would. What I refuse to tolerate is willful ignorance, which is what this site is made of.
In other words, if you really are an idiot, I apologize for making a point of it. If, however, as I suspect, you are merely acting like an idiot, feel free to stop and I'll be happy to provide the appropriate level of respect. It takes a few moments to become tacitly familiar with most conversation topics in this day and age. I don't think it's that you're not equipped to do that, it's that you choose not to.
>>TxMxP: I don't understand why you bother to read and comment on this site if you don't approve of it. It's a free country!
Why shouldn't I? I have better things to do than sit around in an echo chamber with people who are just stroking my ego. It really doesn't mean much to have a position on something if all you're going to do is talk about it with people who will always agree with you.
>>Here's a news flash for you. The hate you see here is ugly to be sure. Not so ugly though as having to bow to those who would bring about our end though. Or to lose your head for not bowing.
If you think the best way to fight is out of blind rage, you must lose a lot of fights. The biggest mistake you could possibly make against a competent opponent, regardless of the battlefield, is to lose your head, do something rash, and wind up getting everybody killed. In fact, one of the things any competent teacher will teach you about a fight is not to be put off by apparently wild and random flailing. An experienced opponent will immediately recognize it, wait for you to wear out or open a hole, and knock your teeth right down your throat.
If you didn't think your way to the solution, you don't have one, and if you execute your plan your only hope is that luck is on your side.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:29 AM (gOPcw)
27
Fred,
Google does filter Jawa, that's why I switched to Yahoo. I prefer my search engines ideology free.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:15 AM (8e/V4)
28
I'm thinking of starting a company. I want me to make the descisions strait up like my post. I want TxMxP to supply the bullshit at press conferences.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 09:12 AM (D3+20)
29
TxMxP-
To have a hatred of the enemy is not the same as lashing out blindly (flailing). The hate that I refer to is the hard heart it takes to win a fight. I've never advocated genocide or indiscriminate killing, nor will I. I don't know how old you are or how much you have conversed with those who were alive during WW2, but it seems to me that they had the proper mind-set to win a war. And a big part of that is a hate so deeply instilled that for many it hasn't ceased from that day to this. In war we must lower ourselves nearly to the enemy's level or else they will prevail.
Sooner or later I think, the islamic enemy's actions will incur the hatred of the American public. Only then will this war end.
Oh yeah, TxMxP I've been in a few fights and still have my full set of teeth.
Posted by: jamsler at May 23, 2006 10:38 AM (ZVOFa)
30
>>In war we must lower ourselves nearly to the enemy's level or else they will prevail.
I don't recall the U.S. setting up gas chambers to murder millions of innocent Japanese immigrants during WWII...
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:10 AM (gOPcw)
31
Google blows:
"Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50323
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:39 AM (8e/V4)
32
Gas chambers?, yeah the H-bomb pretty much trumped the need for gas chambers. Remember Iwo Jima? Not much left to gas after that.
Indeed the war will end when the American public is fed up and realizes it is in a serious tooth and nail fight for it's life. That's when the practically minded will outweigh the " goody-goody " mentality and the first round of nukes will begin to set things right.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 12:14 PM (FCC6c)
33
TxMxP-
Nor do I. And I don't see any gas chambers today, either. Seems like the only ones committing mass murder are the islamists, the ones you seem to be inclined to defend.
Posted by: jamsler at May 23, 2006 02:47 PM (ZVOFa)
34
txmxp. The difference between an educated punk and a punk is very little. Punk.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 05:05 PM (BEvWK)
35
>>Seems like the only ones committing mass murder are the islamists, the ones you seem to be inclined to defend.
I fail to see why I need to defend Muslims. Being a Muslim isn't inherently a bad thing.
Of course, if you meant to conflate terrorists with Muslims, I wouldn't know. I don't conflate the two anymore than I conflate the KKK and Protestants.
>>txmxp. The difference between an educated punk and a punk is very little. Punk.
You know, Dirty Harry was a stupid movie. Clint Eastwood did far better elsewhere.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 07:02 PM (ZNd6p)
36
>>>Of course, if you meant to conflate terrorists with Muslims, I wouldn't know. I don't conflate the two anymore than I conflate the KKK and Protestants.
Isn't it odd then how Liberals DO appear to equate muslims with terrorists when they say terrorism is the result of U.S. policies in Arab lands. The conclusion: that terrorists are acting on behalf of the legitimate interests of those Arab lands (and presumably its people). So who's really conflating terrorists with Muslims? Not conservatives. Liberalism is such a mess. It's amazing it can survive with so many internal contradictions. That's one of them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 09:03 AM (8e/V4)
May 15, 2006
Michael Hampton on Freedom, Privacy.
Mike Hampton has a good post today on Freedom, Privacy and Government. As some of you may recall IÂ’m not too fond of the Patriot Act. Not because of it'is use against terror but because of how it will be twisted to other purposes. The natural progression off all governments is to gain more power. To slowly trim freedoms so that eventually none remains. IÂ’m all for taking it to the terrorists as hard as you can. But I think there were already plenty of laws available to do so. By limiting our freedom we hand them a victory. My opinion is go after the terrorists, but congress has to pass laws to make them appear to be doing something. You might think that after 200 years the congress could take a day off as much of the work had been done. But the trend every year is more and more law. Freedom here was a function of our remote frontier location. There were laws just no Law. Each generation finds itself a bit less free and a bit less private. At what point does freedom become not freedom? Discuss.
Posted by: Howie at
09:58 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You mean you would not trust the Worst president with the same powers that you have given to the BEST ?
Posted by: john Ryan at May 15, 2006 10:13 AM (TcoRJ)
2
I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson chose Washington, D.C., as the site for the new nation's capital because it was hot, muggy, humid, full of mosquitoes and just generally unpleasant during the summer, thus creating a strong incentive for Congress to adjourn for several months out of the year.
Then came air conditioning.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at May 15, 2006 10:21 AM (FVbj6)
3
I donÂ’t trust any of them any further that I can throw them.
One of the things that bothered me was the politicians coming out to defend Ernie Fletcher last week. “it’s a stupid law anyway!” , “really a very minor issue and politically motivated prosecutor”. So on and so forth.
Last time I checked judges donÂ’t buy those arguments but a politician in an impeachment proceeding might.
It's the laws are for thee and not for me attitude. Last time I checked the "it's a stupid law defense" was not available to ordinary people.
Posted by: Howie at May 15, 2006 11:25 AM (D3+20)
4
The "it's a stupid law" defense was available to ordinary people, but judges absolutely hate it. It's called jury nullification. It probably happens once or twice a year now, but it was a major factor in ending alcohol prohibition in the 20's and 30's -- almost no jury would convict, precisely because it was a stupid law.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at May 15, 2006 11:30 AM (FVbj6)
5
True but how many can afford the risk to take it that far.
Posted by: Howie at May 15, 2006 12:30 PM (D3+20)
6
Feel the crunch ... then impeach ...
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 15, 2006 12:48 PM (FCC6c)
7
Catching terrorists requires human intelligence obtained by focusing on small select groups of people. Terrorising the general public just requires large scale indiscriminate surveillance!
*** What I want to be when I grow up: a tall tree, or the itching powder in Big Brother's jockstrap! ***
*** Freedom's Friends: titter with Tiffany (www.nearlyperfectprivacy.blogspot.com) and weep with Witness (www.witness.org) ***
Posted by: Little Acorn at May 19, 2006 10:57 AM (LIaFd)
May 12, 2006
Alien Civil Liberties Union Defies American People
Americans said this; the ACLU said this. Thank goodness for these guys. Really the idea that someone looks out for my civil Liberties is a good one. Except for the fact that, when you or I call them for help, we get diddly squat. When an alien terrorist needs defending they are first in line.
more...
Posted by: Howie at
11:23 AM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
1
HA HA, you really dont want to go there Howie.
Shall we dredge up ALL the opinions of the American people that we can find in the polls these days? Along the lines of....Bush says this - American people think this...
Me think the lefties will make that trade quite happily.
The ACLU is one of the finest, most important organizations in American political life. It is the organization that insures that America lives up to the standards that free people are entitled to. Authoritarians, who crave to be slaves (wont mention any names, Howie) and to be utterly subservient to the government, hate the ACLU. Makes me love 'em even more...
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 12:52 PM (lI3TA)
2
I'm not against the idea of the ACLU just it's silly actions. Seems to me it's far more interested in defending the rights of aliens or whatever story makes the news.
Thus the name Alien Civil Liberties Union. They have all of two attorneys in my state and all the cases they take are high profile news cases in Chi town. The rest of us are screwed. Not going to make the Tribune they don't give a rats ass. They may have been what you say at one time. they could be in the future.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 01:02 PM (D3+20)
3
Observer, STFU with your communist propaganda bullshit. You'll hang with the rest when the time comes, so don't make it any worse for yourself than it has to be.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 12, 2006 01:26 PM (0yYS2)
4
The ACLU apeears to be extreme in it's goals. Homosexual marriage, child sex, get rid of the cross everywhere, Christain speech is hate speech, etc... The ACLU seems to have forgotten history, and whats to rewrite it to be very new age. An age of no limits, and what ever feels good is OK.
The majority rules, yet the ACLU would like to see judges make law from the bench. That is the America the ACLU would like to have in all 50 states. I want to see the ACLU arrested as a terror group, given a fair trial, and lined up to be shot at dawn.
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 12, 2006 01:45 PM (D2g/j)
5
Hey Max, kiss my ass.
(luv this site!!!)
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 01:51 PM (lI3TA)
6
Leatherneck,
Thanks for making my point.
We need more limits. Imposed by the government. Implemented by jarheads. Thats a fantasy America allright, for authoritarians (I'm being kind and keeping the rhetoric cool).
The majority rules - but only within the framework of protected rights. Don't you understand the first thing about our contitutional order? Judges are there to protect individual rights from the potential tyranny of the majority. Thats why we can still have our guns even if 51% of the people vote to take them away. Thats why 90% of the people, or even 99% could never vote to enslave the remaining people.
Spending some quality moments with airheads like you makes me want to run out and send the ACLU all my spare change.
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 02:00 PM (lI3TA)
7
>>>Authoritarians, who crave to be slaves (wont mention any names, Howie) and to be utterly subservient to the government, hate the ACLU. Makes me love 'em even more...
That's orwellian in the extreme. The ACLU and its ilk believe in outlawing majority rule in favor of tyranny from the bench by small special interest minorities.
It's minorities leading the majority by the nose, where elites dictate to the masses, and where elections and the will of the people no longer mean anything. That's the ACLU.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 12, 2006 02:01 PM (8e/V4)
8
>>>constitutional order
except for the 2nd amendment! lol! In that case the Founding Fathers couldn't predict assault rifles and 357 magnums! Must grab guns from the masses!
We at Jawa all believe in constitutional order-- just not the Left's version of it, i.e., not the ACLU's version of it.
When you try to hide behind "the Constitution", we at Jawa recognize that as just more empty rhetoric.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 12, 2006 02:08 PM (8e/V4)
9
gee Jesus,
Kinda full of yourself, aintcha? Putting the big J in your name. Speaking for an entire community? Maybe you are right though, maybe nobody here has an independent thought in their head....What would be the use of protecting individual rights for people who don't want them? Lets just all follow you....
It is minorites being protected from tryanny. Might sound familiar to you if you ever learned anything about America, and its history. I know you think that allowing non-majority people to exist is equal to them "leading the majority by the nose", but that is just because you are an idiot.
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 02:25 PM (lI3TA)
10
Observer : Thanks for making my point. They protect minorities and aliens. Fair enough except they forgot the rest of us "Americans". Show me the last case where they defended a WASP. Or WASCatholic against from the Govt. So why the word "American" in the name. How about minority and alien civil liberites union. Yes Virginia there are poor disadvantaged white people too.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 02:29 PM (D3+20)
11
Observer, you are foolish. I did not make your point. I suppose you feel there should not be any limits. That would be new age, and is not what most Americans want.
Why do slander everyone, did your Mother not love you when you were a child? Perhaps, she droped you on your head.
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 12, 2006 02:37 PM (D2g/j)
12
>>>It is minorites being protected from tryanny.
Observer,
"Jesusland" is what YOU LIBERALS call us Red states! So I fail to see how that makes me full of myself when I play along (except you Libs spit the name Jesus as an insult).
You see the ACLU as minorities being protected from tyranny, But I see it as tyranny OF the minority over the majority. It's anti-democracy. In fact, it's AUTHORITARIAN. Kinda like in apartheid South Africa where the minority elites ruled it over the majority. Same thing.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 12, 2006 03:37 PM (8e/V4)
13
Howie,
Its just not true that they don't protect white people. Hell, they even went to bat for the neonazis, protecting their right to speech. And they are involved in lots of cases where poor (white) communities are not recieving their fair share of resources for schools or other state distributions. Go check it out, instead of just reading the nutjob websites.
Fact is though, majority groups tend not to need protection to the same extent that minorities do, because majorities are ,,,well, they are majorities. They can prevent themselves being oppressed by the government because they control the government, by definition.
But the country is so diverse in so many ways, not just racial, or ethnic groups, but diverse in ideas, ideologies, religions etc. that everyone gets to be a minority sometimes, on some issue. If you ever find yourself in the minority, and the majority not only gets its way with you, but tramples on your basic rights, who ya gonna call?
Consider yourself lucky that you havent been in that position (I presume) yet, but if you ever are, then you will be damn glad that there are a bunch of people out there who will work to demand that you get a fair shake, under the rules, even though the majority is against you.
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 03:44 PM (lI3TA)
14
Now you are getting warm.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 03:50 PM (D3+20)
15
Yes poor whites control the government, LOL.
Rather than Damn glad overall I'm damn disspointed. I have my reasons the perception is that they prefer to defend those who abuse America over America. That's my perception. No matter how off base you think that is there are a lot of people who share that perception. That perception is real so they have to deal with it. One thing I will fault conservatives on. If they think the the ACLU is too liberal that may be because few young conservative attorneys are willing to put off the big pay day and get involved in the work. Liberals are into that so therefore logic says it would lean left. If conservatives want the ALCU to be better they not only have to share their perceptions but a few may need to get invlolved. I'm not a a lawyer so not me. But protecting the rights of all americans and is an idea I'm OK with but not at the expense of our war effort. Afterward we can talk about it.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 03:55 PM (D3+20)
16
Oh poor little Jesus, you are being oppressed by the minorities? Gimme a effin break, clown. What are you being prevented from doing in your life by the ACLU? Putting a cross on a government building and pretending that we have a theocracy instead of a democracy? Teaching MY kids YOUR religous dogma in science class? Maybe you think that because you are of the majority opinion on every matter (bet you aint) that that opinion should be the only one allowed - in free America?
You are just trying, desparately to find some way to play victim here. And to make a bunch of pro-bono lawyers out to be oppressors, as if they had any power other than what the constitution guarantees us all....It is so laughable -
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 03:58 PM (lI3TA)
17
You did't give me time. Oh and I believe in evolution dip. I'm science geek. You assume I'm a far right Chritsian Conservative. No I'm a middle right fiscal conservative socially liberal.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 04:06 PM (D3+20)
18
great Howie,
Apologies for my assumptions. We may have some common ground.
To get back to the issues at hand though, I do think that it is not asking to much for the government to get a warrant before tapping phone lines, especially given how damn easy it is to aquire one. And is the idea of having the government maintain a database of every call ever made by every American completely non-problematical to you? Why not ENCOURAGE some sharp lawyer-types to challange it in court, if, for no other reason, than to force the government to prove to a judge that they are doing it by the book. IF necessary, we could always change the book. But it is a step toward tyranny if the government can just ignore the book.
And it doesnt help any of us for the cheerleaders to encourage them to do that.
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 04:32 PM (lI3TA)
19
Observer,
what you call "minorities" are just perverts, degenerates, and extremist freaks. Those are the "minorities" the Leftists in the ACLU represent. And when the Leftist ACLU normalizes that freakish degeneracy through force of law, yes, that oppresses me.
The fact that they are a "minority" and I'm in the majority makes not the slightest difference if they've got Leftist lawyers at their beck and call, and I don't. Force of numbers are irrelevant in a courtroom.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 12, 2006 06:14 PM (8e/V4)
20
On the way home I thought of a for instance just so we understand.
There is a small town in KY that some guy targeted to open a porn shop becuase well that was something they just had not thought would happen so the guy opens the smut show or strip club just because he could. he didn't tell anyone just did it. He put it where it was just because they were unprepared for it and he could "get away with it" Not that I'm against nekkid chicks or anything 
But the people of the town didn't like it so the local government got together and figured out how to do the needed legal work and zone so that they could make him close or move. He lost in court. Rather than appeal becuase he had no case as the city had done well. He saw a ten commandments display on the courthouse lawn. He gave an interview or made a statement to our local news that he would, "get them back by making them remove the ten commandments".
Now see it's their town. And the monument was old and historic and people liked it there because it's part of their home Nothing political about it except you don't like some dickhead porno guy coming into your town and telling you how to run it. Asking you to allow a porn shop and then with open malice sue to make you amputate part of your town. it's their town. Well he shopped around and no lawyer would take it because he's a dickhead but who rides to the rescue???? The ACLU so now you have asshole one and two coming to their town and forcing them to take it down.
In another KY case the supreme court ruled they had to take theirs down and set guidelines to how they can be displayed. The town planned to intergrate the old display into a new one to cmply with the court and have files to lift the stay.
The ALCU is arguing against lifting the stay saying they can't because the rest of the display is just to "get around/comply" with the court. Saying the other parts of the law are cover for the rest. Well duh they are trying to comply.
See how this works?
From where we stand it's just a bunch of assholes riding into town making an ass of themselves and leaving a scar as they ride out. How is that good?
Also it may be harder to get them to turn up than you imagine.
But the people of the town didn't like it so the local government got together and figured out how to do the needed legal work and zone so that they could make him close or move. He lost in court. Rather than appeal becuase he had no case as the city had done well. He saw a ten commandments display on the courthouse lawn. He gave an interview or made a statement to our local news that he would, "get them back by making them remove the ten commandments".
Now see it's their town. And the monument was old and historic and people liked it there because it's part of their home Nothing political about it except you don't like some dickhead porno guy coming into your town and telling you how to run it. Asking you to allow a porn shop and then with open malice sue to make you amputate part of your town. it's their town. Well he shopped around and no lawyer would take it because he's a dickhead but who rides to the rescue???? The ACLU so now you have asshole one and two coming to their town and forcing them to take it down.
In another KY case the supreme court ruled they had to take theirs down and set guidelines to how they can be displayed. The town planned to intergrate the old display into a new one to cmply with the court and have files to lift the stay.
The ALCU is arguing against lifting the stay saying they can't because the rest of the display is just to "get around/comply" with the court. Saying the other parts of the law are cover for the rest. Well duh they are trying to comply.
See how this works?
From where we stand it's just a bunch of assholes riding into town making an ass of themselves and leaving a scar as they ride out. How is that good?
Also it may be harder to get them to turn up than you imagine.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 06:59 PM (D3+20)
21
I guess it's not much of an issue for me as I was never under the illusion that phones were not tappable listenable.
Let me make a point.
Intelligence collection I care nothing about.
If you can show me a case where this intelligence was used to militarily to stop terror. That is the intelligence was good enough to act on then that's OK
If we have intelligence that billy is going to paint the water tower on up to pretty serious stuff that does not rise to the severity to warrant military action. We then turn that over to law enforcement and then prosecute, using that intelligence. Intelligence that was aquired for a military purpose only, then that would be not OK with me.
give me a minute to fix the eye bleeding. (edit this)
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 07:06 PM (D3+20)
22
Carlos, I think you just living in the wrong country. If you don't love America, land of the free, (that means free to be pervy, degenerate and extremist) then get yourself to some nice regulated dictatorship - believe me, you would fit right in.
Sorry, but you don't get to play "oppressed" because of the mere presence of people you dont like - even if they have the gall to exercise their constitutional rights. They punch you in the nose, you got a case. Otherwise, you don't.
Why not just get off the ol' outrage addiction, and get a life?
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 07:11 PM (lI3TA)
23
So Howie, what are you some commie or something? A businessman opens a legal business (we can assume that he spent some capital setting it up) and a group of the town bigwigs don't like it, even though its legal, and they conspire to shut the guy down - how much money did he lose? Is that right? You want big government - there it is. Doesnt seem so big when we talk about national issues, but for the the one guy trying to make a buck, its big oppressive government.
They dont want porn in town - well pass a law. Too late for that? Well, buy the guy out. I would be pissed too.
Now the ACLU doesnt know, or care about the whole backstory. Personally, I dont care if Buttfart KY has a monument up, and nobody objects. We cut each other some slack here. But if someone who does live in the town objects, well then we go to the lawbooks. And the law, and the constitution, is pretty clear. Government doesnt take sides on religion. Thats what allows for religious liberty - for once the government gets involved, the government can control. So put your commandments up in the churchyard, but not on government property. Thats fair, thats common sense.
Posted by: Observer at May 12, 2006 07:24 PM (lI3TA)
24
The ACLU doesn't know or care? I bet they freaking know and I bet they care about not talking up the fact that one of the clients they are "helping out" is a porn dealer whod rather than go to the city council first? And if I have a lawyer that doesn't know the case or my clients history well then I have an idiot for a lawyer.
A reasonable person might imagine that in a rural community people might be a bit. That seems to be the way most of these things work in cities around here. There are permits for certain businesses like liquor stores, sex shops, yahda yahda.
that way you don't end up with your elementary school right between a bunch of bars and stuff. Kind of makes sense. He targeted the place just becuase he could not get a permit elsewhere. If he had went first and got a vote could have saved all the trouble. My point is no one complined about he commandments except one out of town porn dealer.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 07:59 PM (D3+20)
25
I've not noticed any Judge I've seen taking out he bible to judge. I think they have lawbooks there.
oh and GFYS
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 08:02 PM (D3+20)
26
You can always tell when we are winning because he asked carlos to mellow out and then resorted to calling me a commie. Being one of the most liberal posters on the jawa of all the commenters you are the first one to call me commie. Thanks. I just think the feds have no business in the issue except that the ACLU has a cob up their ass.
Yep everybody should run around passing laws for problems that have not occured yet. Yep you're liberal.
Also so how is the local government acting wrong. Seems the big government is stomping the little one. And why should samll governments have to pass the smae laws that large cities have before problems arrive. That's inefficient you are asking small areas to carry burdens they don't have.
Run your big cities how you like. I like to go. We have all that stuff withind driving distance if you want to. I like to have a bar and liquor store within reasonable driving distance. But I don't live there because that's where I want to live. I like my little berg let us run it the way we like.
Also he had every chance to argue his case to government before the law was passed.
Posted by: Howie at May 12, 2006 08:08 PM (D3+20)
27
For those of you who have been missing my famous orations; I believe I might be right in naming Carlos, Oyster, JJ, and Rooster, (Where are you Grayrooster?), or if you haven't, here's one anyway...
Only someone like Observer could think that just because we hate the ACLU it means we love the government. That's why liberals can never be reasoned with; they only see diametric opposites, and cannot understand that there are many of us who love liberty more than safety and do not tolerate anyone who wants to take away either. I don't care if it's turbaned fanatics, Armani-suited lawyers, or the BATF gestapo trying to kill me, I'm ready to fight.
Notice how Observer deviated from the oft-failed liberal tactic of twisting the meaning of the Bill of Rights and creating new rights where none were written, such as special rights for oppressed minority group X; rather he tries to convince us that he understands the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and that we have nothing to fear since the federal government always upholds the Constitution and can be trusted implicitly to do the right thing. Sure.
So, he accuses us of being government sycophants because we oppose a group which seeks to undermine the Constitution by exploiting the flaws in our legal and legislative systems, which only exist because our elected officials, who are supposed to represent us, instead exploit their positions and see to their own best interest because there is nobody to stop them... or so they think.
The ACLU, like the government, is made of people. There are no machines making decisions at either place; just people. Idealistic, misguidable people; imperfect, corruptible people; ambitious, power-hungry people; elitist, holier-than-thou people; and just plain crazy people. The only claim to legitimacy the government has is that it is ordered in the Constitution, and is itself governed by We, the People, whereas the ACLU only exists by right of association, (also provided in the Constitution,) but the activites of which may not infringe on any other part of the Constitution, nor foment sedition or rebellion against the nation. Guilty, guilty, and guilty. So does this mean we love the government because we hate the ACLU? Do I really have to answer that? If you think I should answer that, seek help. Now.
Now that we've determined that groups are made of people, the questions pertaining to alliances among groups are thus:
What is most precious in life; security or liberty?
What is the price of each, individually?
Can one have both?
What is the price of both together?
Is it worth the price?
Can one avoid making enemies?
If not, will one need an ally?
With whom does one ally, and at which time?
What are the criteria for alliances?
What is the price of an alliance?
What will be the consequences of an alliance, whether in victory or defeat?
Does being the enemy of an enemy make one a friend, or just another enemy?
Will an ally of convenience become the next enemy?
What if an enemy seeks or proclaims a false allegience?
What happens if one chooses to ally with no one, but to stand alone if necessary?
The above questions in slightly different form would make an interesting flow chart which would produce a different answer for each combination of answers, and which would be historically verifiable because the results of certain actions by people are almost completely uniform throughout history, but which would follow a general theme; the right allies promise victory, but the wrong allies portend defeat. Liberals, as ever, have chosen to stand with the enemy du jour of Western civilization, with whom they join to attack the principles and institutions which are its foundation.
Why do they do this? The answer is multi-faceted, but the question itself is moot. The proper response to this question is not an answer, but a statement: One who stands with my enemy is also my enemy and must turn or be destroyed; one who stands with me is my ally and must be protected. The greater threat must be confronted before the lesser threat; an enemy who is trying to kill me is a greater threat than an enemy who is trying to steal from me. Liberals have proven themselves countless times over to be incapable of exercising good judgment when it comes to allies and enemies, though they occasionally (rarely) get it right, and then usually by accident.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 12, 2006 08:56 PM (0yYS2)
28
Bravo, IM
Posted by: REMF at May 13, 2006 01:21 AM (7RMSi)
29
Go IM now it the rest of the old timers around here show up here or next week that would be cool. Argument city baby.
Posted by: Howie at May 13, 2006 08:30 AM (D3+20)
30
>>>They punch you in the nose, you got a case. Otherwise, you don't.
Observer,
likewise. I don't see any "minorities" getting "punched in the face" either. So I guess they don't have a case! Your rules, buddy.
People who have nothing better to do than get "offended" 24/7 by the most insinificant public displays of religion and seeking to impose themselves on an entire society through the courts (which ultimately means threats of violence if they don't comply) and you're telling ME to get a life? lol! Irony, your name is Observer.
It's like when someone comes around and starts smacking you on the back of the head and won't stop, and when you turn around and tell him to fuck off, he responds "get a life." lol! Welcome to the upside down world of Liberalism.
Get a life is exactly what I would tell the ACLU and all their "offended" clients. It's so rough being a "minority" these days! The "oppression" is just about more than they can bear!
The "oppression" that the Left focuses on these days is a testament to how truly oppression-free this country really is.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 13, 2006 10:23 AM (8e/V4)
31
IM's " A Beautiful Mind " persona again ....
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 13, 2006 12:34 PM (FCC6c)
32
"Liberals, as ever, have chosen to stand with the enemy du jour of Western civilization, with whom they join to attack the principles and institutions which are its foundation.... One who stands with my enemy is also my enemy and must turn or be destroyed; one who stands with me is my ally and must be protected. The greater threat must be confronted before the lesser threat; an enemy who is trying to kill me is a greater threat than an enemy who is trying to steal from me."
Dude, OBL isnt the only one who wants to kill me - apparently so do you.
Posted by: r4d20 at May 13, 2006 10:09 PM (fN/ah)
33
What was the WP:s exact question that gave those 63% approval ratings? Did they ask if it was OK to check the phone records of ordinary people, or did they actually ask something completely different?
"According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/
Posted by: wmt at May 14, 2006 02:03 AM (CdtRy)
34
Well R4, if you fit the criteria for an enemy, then yes.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 14, 2006 12:13 PM (0yYS2)
35
Time to send the ACLU to mexico or cuba its nothing more then a leftists bunch of crinmals with its HQ in HANIO ON THE BAY SAN FRANCISCO
Posted by: sandpiper at May 14, 2006 01:15 PM (h6CK1)
36
You're dead right Carlos. I'm an atheist and I don't have a problem with religious displays on public ground in most contexts. The real issue is that Marxists are still trying to destroy Christianity because it is one of the cornerstones in the foundations of Western civilization. If they win, we all lose.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 14, 2006 04:54 PM (0yYS2)
37
"Well R4, if you fit the criteria for an enemy, then yes."
If being an "enemy" means disagreeing on issues like School prayer ... well, im willing to kill you over this too.
Posted by: r4d20 at May 14, 2006 07:45 PM (fN/ah)
38
let me know when tickets go on sale ....
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 14, 2006 10:50 PM (FCC6c)
39
>>>If being an "enemy" means disagreeing on issues like School prayer ... well, im willing to kill you over this too.
I don't see the pro-prayer folks going around killing over their beliefs. Are you Lefties going to kill people when the Court throws out Roe v Wade too? Probably. Just goes to show the secular Taliban are the real fanatics in this country.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 14, 2006 11:42 PM (8e/V4)
40
They're not going to kill anyone Carlos, because they're gutless, chickenshit cowards; instead they hope their muslim pets/masters will do all the killing and they'll get all the fat government jobs when it's over. It's not about principles, but power.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 15, 2006 04:43 AM (0yYS2)
41
It's time everyone woke up to the facts of what's going on in the world today. Fourteen hundred years ago, islam burst forth from one of the most backward places on the planet with only one goal; complete global conquest by whatever means necessary, and it hasn't erred from that path. In 1789, leftism conquered the most powerful nation in the world at that time - France, and began to steadily spread outward to the rest of the world also with one goal in mind; complete global conquest by any means necessary. These two ideologies have been at odds with one another from time to time, but have most often been aligned in common cause; the destruction of Western civilization, because as long as traditional Western culture stands strong, leftism and islam can never conquer.
Leftism cursed the world two main totalitarian ideologies - fascism and communism, from which all other non-islamic totalitarian ideologies have spread. Many people believe that fascism and communism are ideological opposites, but in reality they only have one point of contention; fascism is ethnic-based nationalism, and communism is ideological-based internationalism. In other words, the difference is moot, because both are virulent and destructive to the individual and society. Both are statist and totalitarian in nature, both are socialist, and both require violent outward expansion in order to fund their massive economic pyramid schemes, which consume more at each level than they produce.
The main historical difference between islam and leftism was the point of religion. Islam is a religion, and so is leftism, though leftists would have one believe that they are atheistic or agnostic in nature. The Soviets and Red Chinese did the most complete job of eliminating all non-statist religions from their midst, but even they faild. Now, modern leftists see that the need for religion is as basic in humans as is the need for food and water, though not as urgent, and so they have chosen to align themselves with islam, because despite obvious superficial differences between the two ideologies, islam and leftism have far more in common than not.
Both rely on a massive underclass of ignorant, superstitious, fearful peasants who would rather have a full belly than freedom of speech. Both require authoritarian regimes backed by a brutal and omnipresent military and police presence to keep the people suppressed. Both rely on "bread and circuses" to keep the people appeased. Both rely on the absolute absence of dissent in order to operate. As I said; other than minor, superficial differences between the two, there is really not much difference between leftism and islam, but far more important than their differences is what they hold in common; they both seek the destruction of traditional Western civilization by any means necessary.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 15, 2006 05:56 AM (0yYS2)
42
Tell me, r4d20 and Observer, where was the precious ACLU for these parents? Oh, that's right. They were busy climbing all over this.
There are a vast many cases the ACLU won't take which, they claim are due to various reasons like "lack of funds". Interestingly, these cases are often against leftist organizations that share the political viewpoint of the collective ACLU.
Every one of these cases they win and then collect our tax dollars for is one step closer to the socialistic micro-management of our country and the rights of the vast majority on behalf of a disgruntled extreme minority.
While the initial inception of the ACLU was (conceivably) for a noble cause, to keep the big guy (big business, big government, etc.) from running roughshod over the lives of ordinary Americans, the whole concept has gone awry. Now they support NAMBLA and sue the Boy Scouts. They sue schools who allow the Boy Scouts to use an empty auditorium for a weekend meeting or a city who allows them to camp for free at a public park, yet, are strangely silent about schools who set aside rooms for Muslim prayer and allow students to actually leave class for that prayer. They go to bat for those who want to view porn on public library computers and routinely turn down cases for those who are victims of blatant reverse discrimination. They zealously sue for public displays of Christian iconography and ignore Islamic indoctrination in an Arizona school. There are limitless numbers of these hypocrisies. Now they're even paying for full page ads in newspapers comparing George Bush to Richard Nixon. Odd though, that we never heard a peep out of them for all the transgressions of a previous President.
Sometimes I wonder if it really has gone awry and isn't just finally picking up steam toward its initial hidden purpose:
NB:
From the book Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU: "The ACLU founder and executive director from 1920 to 1950, Roger Baldwin, described the Soviet Union as a "great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world." He wanted to bring socialism to America, but he knew that to be effective, he had to disguise and mask this goal in terms of individual rights. He wrote: "Do steer away from making it look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.""
I could go on, but I need to get to work. You two have fun defending them.
Posted by: Oyster at May 15, 2006 06:29 AM (YudAC)
43
IM: For an athiest, you sure do have a true Catholic perspective on the dangers of leftist idealogies.
God Bless,
YBP.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 15, 2006 06:22 PM (42Ghj)
44
YBP, just because I don't believe in the divine doesn't mean I don't recognize the benefits of religion in society. I'm an objectivist, not an ideologue.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 15, 2006 06:40 PM (0yYS2)
45
Hey, so am I! And so is G. K. Chesterton! (Read "Orthodoxy" by if you haven't already. Good read.)
How is the construction business treating you? Weren't you doing free-lance photography for a while?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 16, 2006 01:47 PM (42Ghj)
46
I'm working about 60 hours a week on construction, and still do the photography from time to time, so I limit my reading to a few minutes a night before bed, and as I already have a nice stack of books on my nightstand, I don't think I'll get around to anything new for a while.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 17, 2006 05:48 AM (0yYS2)
May 10, 2006
Good News/Bad News From Egypt.
Egypt is on the front burner today. The nation suffers from al-Qaeda inspired terror and is fighting hard. ThatÂ’s a good thing. WAPO :
The bad thing is that Egypt has also jailed several bloggers and Democracy activists. Between a rock and a hard place I reckon. Increased democracy may allow a crack for the Islamists to gain more power. However, jailing pro democracy non-terrorist bloggers is not the answer. Big Pharaoh reports the response in support of the bloggers has been good. Keep up the pressure people.
ROME — One day after police killed a man described as the mastermind of an attack last month at the seaside town of Dahab, Egyptian authorities claimed to have all but broken up a group that bombed several Red Sea resorts.
Big Pharaoh :Just got information that the Egyptian embassy in DC was bombarded with e-mails demanding the release of Alaa and the others. Good job.Also Big Pharoah has some new readers.Update: There is a blog dedicated to Alaa and the others who were detained during the demonstration on May 7th. As I stated before, the Egyptian embassy in DC got bombared by emails from concerned average Americans. We are also suggesting you to contact David Welch, Assistant Secertary and head of the State DepartmentÂ’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. His email is: nea-ela@state.gov
Well, 2 years ago I was told that a blog was just something you use to write stuff in and pray that people might be kind enough to spend 1 or 2 minutes reading your rantings.Hat Tip: Instapundit.Egyptian government and US state department!! That's not what I had in mind 2 years ago!
Posted by: Howie at
12:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
89kb generated in CPU 0.0227, elapsed 0.1115 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.0966 seconds, 332 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.0966 seconds, 332 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
