Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (207730)	12/6/2001 6:44:16 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The headline is a lie just as I stated when I said "The article you post starts off with an OUTRIGHT LIE". Here it is: "Congress must challenge moves by Attorney General Ashcroft to undermine civil liberties and evade constitutional system of checks and balances" The author is stating that John Ashcroft is making moves to "undermine civil liberties and evade constitutional system of checks and balances". That is a flat out lie based on the prejudice of the writer. What John Ascroft has said that he is doing is his damn best (my words) to protect innocent American lives from terrorism. That is totally different than what the author states. You say "I found what I posted interesting, that's why copied it here. Tell me, is this the part that makes me a traitor?" You are not a traitor for posting the article. Here's what I said regarding that for you to review: "If you saw the proceedings and have ANY DOUBT that the AG is doing ANYTHING with the goal of undermining our civil liberties then you are a FOOL imo. If you see the truth in his actions and spread the lies then you are a traitor." I basically am saying you are a fool if you believe what Neas says (because he has no evidence), and that if you KNOW it is a lie (which I believe the author knows), YET YOU SPREAD IT ANYWAY - then you are a traitor. Get it? "He (Neas) cited recent Washington Post and New York Times articles reporting comments by many former FBI officials—including William Webster, a conservative Republican from Missouri and former FBI and CIA Director under Ronald Reagan— that raised serious concerns about the Justice Department’s current tactics. They said this arrest-and detain approach hasn’t worked in the past, (might) undercut efforts to infiltrate terrorist cells, and (could) lead to abuses of civil liberties. News reports indicate that a number of senior FBI and Justice Department officials disagree strongly with some of Ashcroft’s initiatives" All of this gibberish is fine. They are different opinions and people have the right to say what they believe. But note that there are some caveats in those postions that indicate they are OPINIONS. His headline on the other hand states as FACT that there were "moves by Attorney General Ashcroft to undermine civil liberties and evade constitutional system of checks and balances". See the difference? See how wording can mislead? Now answer me this: Do you believe that Ascroft has made these "moves" to "undermine civil liberties and evade constitutional system of checks and balances" or did he make them to protect the American people?