Liam

Even the lowliest Al Qaeda operative had to assume that as part of the GWOT, the US intelligence agencies would be mining for data in every avenue (banking, phone, computer records, credit cards, cellphones, wire and money transfers, travel manifests, etc.), so it's not at all like these news stories impact the GWOT. They do not reveal anything that most of us (including the terrorists) assume the government is doing, so discussing *that* the government siezes these records is not "the story". "The story" is that the government is getting this information outside the established judicial process and without appropriate checks and balances. The right, afraid that good reporting by the NYT, USA Today, the Washington Post, etc. is going to reveal the depth and breadth of the Bush Administration's "extra-legal" shanigans are left with fabricating claims that such reporting weakens our fight against the terrorists. Guess what? The terrorists already assume we're gathering every scrap of info we can get on them and it doesn't matter to them that Bush gets it with or without a warrant.

I think we can debate whether or not chem agents are WMD separately as I think the scope of this thread is really on the announcement by Santorum and Hoekstra.

Can I ask what any of this has to do with Somerville's honorary degree?

This is truly sick. I'll give you an out in that you stated it was your belief and not that it was fact. However, I think you seriously need to question your beliefs. I have never known a gay man who has liked boys. I have, however, known straight men who had odd fixations on girls much much younger than they were. Ever hear of "Lolita" or see "American Beauty"? In college, one of the guys down the hall from me was obsessed with Alyssa Milano when she was no more than 12. Applying your logic to my life experiences, I can say that straight men have a much greater predisposition to molesting little girls than gay men do to young boys.

For someone who claims revulsion at the thought of kissing a man, you sure seem to have a pretty firm idea of the goings-on inside gay bars and bathhouses.

As a gay man, I couldn't give two sh_ts whether or not you accept me or whether or not you respect me. To be honest, there are a heck of a lot of straight people I have zero respect for. But you know what? Just because I don't respect them does not mean that I think the state should treat them differently. Are you a homophobe? I often wonder why people who claim to not be homophobes often liken being gay to bestiality or will frequently use bestiality imagery in the dialogue.

*LOL... actually, yes, I am on a diet and I didn't notice how uniform I was being in my analogy drawing!! The eating analogy is a bad habit I picked up from a former boss who always used chef/restaurant/food analogies ("...everyone at this table is like a chef who wants to flavor the dish in his own way, and it'll end up tasting like cr^p to the customer..."). Sports provides a huge treasure trove on analogies -- I'll make a concerted effort to spread the love. Glad to see that you've done a bit of your own research. I'm not a member of the ACLU, but I am a lawyer and I understand a lot of the work they do. Sometimes they go beyond what I am comfortable with and I occasionally disagree with them, but I think that rightwing bloggers, etc. completely and deliberately mischaracterize the work the ACLU does. (Dogmatic people need *someone* to rail against to justify their own existence, don't they?) I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think I see where the gap is between us. You think the ACLU is defending one brand of religion over another brand of religion. I think what they're defending is one brand of the social compact over another brand of social compact (i.e., one that allows religious speech where Constitutionally permissible over one that impermissibly merges faith with government functions).

Not entirely true, one was the actual amicus brief the ACLU filed before a court of law on the student's behalf. In any event, none of the pieces I posted were opinion pieces. Each can be independently corroborated. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily are largely right-wing editorial and opinion websites. Using either one as a basis of a fact-based argument is akin to using Air America, Rush Limbaugh or Pravda. Well, Liam, it would be impossible to find a critical word from a left wing website now wouldn't it? If the right wing ones all find fault with the ACLU does that automatically mean they're all wrong? The link that started this thread was more than just an opinion piece and I automatically discount any thread you offer that has aclu.org in it's address. Go ahead and support them if you wish but don't assume I've eaten, what did you say, intellectual poison, just because I happen to find fault with them. I never asked you to give up your criticism of the ACLU -- I've got my own. HOWEVER, someone started us down the path of "ACLU-war-on-Christianity" which is utter, 100%, certifiable BULL SH^T. The ACLU is a group that argues for individuals' Constitutional rights. They frequently defend and/or support right wingers -- but do you think Rush Limbaugh would let such news seep into his daily tirades?? Why would he, the ACLU is a favored punching bag of those who so frequently violate the civil liberties of US citizens (aka, the very conservatives the ACLU often defends). I provided links to to news releases on the ACLU website that showed their support of religious liberties in the "public square" (in these cases, public schools). I then followed them up with either a third party new source or a (friggin') brief filed before a court that corroborated the claims made in those same ACLU press releases. Ergo, the ACLU news releases were verified by a third party source. Their factuality has been established. Do you still deny their authenticity? Your lack of willingness to even consider independent third party sources indicates to me that you have, in fact, swallowed the anti-ACLU poison. Do a google search of your own. Are you man enough to learn the truth, or are you still going to fall into the spoon-fed mantra that the ACLU eats babies, burns crosses and converts your daughters to anti-American lesbians? I thought most of the people around here were smarter than that.

My brain hurts.

Or worse: that just like Santorum, right-wing nutbags know these "weapons" were useless (and NOT the WMD that triggered the war), but don't care because it feeds their perception that everything they do is right, ultimately vidicates their stubborn beliefs, and that people who deal in facts are the true nihilists.

I still don't know that we can make that assertion. Well, I should say that I don't think I can get on board with calling her a homophobe without knowing more about her and her true feelings, but I understand what you're saying. Again, I don't think everyone who opposes SSM is a homophobe. Most probably are, but I think it is possible for one to merely be a traditionalist and simply afraid of the unknown that looms out in the future. For those people, I'd say that *any* social change (abortion, tolerance of premarital living arrangements, women wearing pants, whatever...) frightens them and that it doesn't necessarily reflect inner hatred or bias against all gay people. I also think it is also possible for some people to see marriage as a special union between people of the opposite gender for the purpose of procreation -- even when the couple is infertile or beyond childbearing age, some would probably argue that miracles can happen. Heck, Mary's sister Elizabeth was an old, barren woman yet she managed to give birth to John the Baptsist. I think holding this belief is bizarre in the age of science, and I am not saying it is right, but I can understand that some people may hold that belief. Based on the Somerville statements I have seen, she seems off the mark because she fails to recognize that modern marriage, particularly after the advent of contraception and abortion, is very different than what it used to be in that fertile married couples can opt to not reproduce. Contraception decoupled (no pun intended) marriage and procreation. Somerville may be masking deep-seeded feelings of homophobia by cloaking them in the speech of traditionalism, but which of us can say what is spin and what is truly held belief?

I already posted the link to the amicus brief filed by the ACLU in favor of someone's right to express Christian faith in a public school, so I won't belabor that one. Here's the AP text reporting the yearbook case: <<<STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union, perhaps better known for helping keep religion out of the classroom, came to the defense of a high school graduate whose yearbook entry was censored because it contained a biblical verse. Moler, the class of 2001 valedictorian, was among a group of students asked by school officials to offer their thoughts for the yearbook. Her entry included the biblical verse, Jeremiah 29:11: "`For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, `plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" The entry was deleted from the yearbook because of its religious nature, school officials told Moler at the time. She responded by asking the ACLU for help. "We wanted to shed some light on this issue in the public schools," Moler told the Detroit Free Press for a Wednesday story. "There just seemed to be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding this issue." Under the settlement, the school district agreed to place a sticker with Moler's original entry in copies of the yearbook on file at the high school; ordered current yearbook staff to not censor other religious or political speech; to train its staff on free speech and religious freedom issues; and to write Moler a letter of regret. "The Supreme Court has said there can be school oversight in official publications, but the schools still have to honor the constitutional rights of their students," said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan. "I'm thrilled," Moler said. "We got everything we asked for. I received a wonderful education from Utica schools and now that I'm entering the teaching profession, I wanted to do my part in maintaining the excellence in education." Utica school officials would not comment on the settlement, according to the Free Press and The Detroit News.>>> And here's a link to the court opinion regarding the Boston subway advertisements: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn...ION=03-1970.01A So do you still think these corroborated stories are still equal to the opinion pieces you cite to support your belief that the ACLU is fighting against Christianity? Seriously, you are just regurgitating the "intellectual" poison fed to you by conservative bloggers, media and talk radio.

Not entirely true, one was the actual amicus brief the ACLU filed before a court of law on the student's behalf. In any event, none of the pieces I posted were opinion pieces. Each can be independently corroborated. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily are largely right-wing editorial and opinion websites. Using either one as a basis of a fact-based argument is akin to using Air America, Rush Limbaugh or Pravda.

A conservative making an argument for moral relativism? I thought only liberals believed in shades of grey? No, someone who wants to lynch people is not in the same category as someone who tells a joke. Not even close. There are shades of grey. Heck, I tell racist jokes but my best friend is black and I tell them in front if him and we laugh about them. I am gay and probably tell more gay jokes than anyone I know. Telling a joke doesn't make someone a racist or a homophobe. What does is what is inside the person's heart. I'm gay and even I can't say that Somerville is a homophobe, but her opposition to SSM is not logical. It is not based on reason. Perhaps her, as well as WG's, reservations about SSM is just that it defies tradition. That doesn't make the person a homophobe, IMO. It doesn't make her position on the issue correct, but it doeasn't automatically make her a homophobe. I see a homophobe as someone who has irrationally false beliefs about, hatred of, mistrust of, or fear of gay people as a whole or a gay person as an individual *solely* based on orientation.

Sorry, no. You can't state a "fact", in this case, that the ACLU is waging a war against Christianity but favors reading Islamic prayers in school, and then rely on biased opinion pieces as the documents supporting its veracity. For truth you need facts, not opinion. If Johnny and Janey got in a fender bender and one eyewitness' opinion is that Johnny must have been driving under the influence (but tests prove otherwise), it does not change the fact that Johnny was sober. Opinion is not fact. Can you find a NEWS story on CNN.com, CBC.ca, foxnews.com, the Wall Street Journal or any other respectable news source that details this war against all Christendom? Or are the WSJ and Fox now part of the left wing media conspiracy?

You'd lump me in with the anti-war crowd (though you'd be wrong), but if they found such a missile in a silo, I'd agree that the war was justified. As BD said, though, no such thing exists. How about this -- and I recognize it's impossible to prove a negative -- but what is it about the lack of evidence that our military and intelligence officers have been able to amass about this alleged WMD program? What is it about the absence of evidence that such a program existed that still makes you think that you know better than they do? That there really were WMDs just before the war? As for cosmic footballs, look no further than the DoD's own statements about this. The truth is there on this issue. Just open your eyes to it. Not on the entire war, just on this. Now, do you still think you know better than the DoD?

Who? Where? Even as a liberal, I was persuaded by and believed the evidence the Administration presented prior to invading Iraq. Once it became obvious that the foundation of this war (WMD) was built on sand, I, and many liberals and conservatives alike, began to question its wisdom. No one, but no one has ever said that Saddam NEVER had WMD. Clearly he did. At one time. In 1988, for example, when he used chemical weapons against his own people. Did he have WMD on the eve of the war as Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Rice and Powell and Perle and countless others have claimed. No. Our own military inspectors searched the country without any hindrance for a year and a half and found nothing. We now know that Saddam's WMD program was a ruse. The problem with right-wing nutbags is that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say or show to allow facts to penetrate their skulls. People who follow their government blindly, who do not bother to ask questions, who refuse to seek the truth are a greater threat to the future of their nation than a hundred million people who stand up and demand answers. It's so sad that you simply can't be men (or women) enough to even search within yourself to question whether or not we made the right decision.

Your link: http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exe...30/7781/printer 1. again, another opinion piece. 2. at least this author has some news-searchable basis for his screed, though he hardly characterizes the situation accurately or objectively. The Supreme Court has held that reading of prayers over public school loudspeakers to a "captive" audience is against the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. In this case, the ACLU sought to enjoin the school from such practices, and got such a court order against the school district. The school district still went ahead and allowed someone to read a prayer over the loudspeaker, thereby violating the court order. I'd call this guy a buffoon for getting the facts so wrong, but he's actually a devious liar in that he completely misrepresents the facts. The ACLU didn't say God was unAmerican. The ACLU said willfully disobeying a court order so as to violate the 1st Amendment is unAmerican. They are right. As with the other piece, it does absolutely nothing to prove your case.

Your link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../9/191515.shtml 1. This is an opinion piece, not a news story 2. It does nothing but make a claim without any news to back it up (in this author's case, it's the alleged "ACLU war on Christmas"). Does it offer evidence, links to court cases, newspaper articles, local news broadcasts that detail how the ACLU has been waging war on Christmas? No. Can the guy even point to a specific incident, like an ACLU attempt to get a holiday display removed in Town X? No. It's just a regurgitation of age-old hatred against perceived-left wingers by some right-wing nutbag. And you completely discredit your argument if you think this is evidence of your position.

Let's try one more... http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925pr...mas%20christmas

Or, perhaps this dish is more to your taste? http://www.aclu-nj.org/downloads/OTbrief.pdf

Really? Do you have a spoon with which you can eat your own words, or shall I give you one? http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/express...rs20040511.html

I'd probably qualify as a "lefty" to you. I am well aware of the benefits a strong US military presence has on the world. I absolutely support the men and women who serve in uniform. The difference between me and a "righty" when it comes to the military is that I prefer to use military force when it is necessary, and when it is used appropriately our military force is a righteous force and a means of doing good in the world. A "righty" tends to prefer to use military force whether or not it is necessary and that any criticism of the mis-use and abuse of our military by politicians is evidence of cowardice and lack of patriotism.

Don't let the facts get in the way... Per the Department of Defense, that font of liberal propaganda, Santorum was talking about residues from destroyed stockpiles of the pre-1991 WMD program. Are there destroyed bits and pieces of pre-1991 WMDs laying about in piles and in ammo dumps in Iraq? Sure. If an Iraqi went dumpster diving to scrape off some shavings of mostly-degraded chemicals, could they be a potential threat to western forces? Perhaps. Are they evidence of Saddam's post-1991 WMD program. No. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/37966/

You have irrefutable knowledge that the ACLU would take that position according to these same facts? If so, I'm going to call you looking for lottery numbers.