Re: A Republican I could almost be talked into torturing.

[Guest guest]

>

> Thus, " Bushies " is not a slur. It's a description. One that's fitting

> for neo-cons who hold their ideology as sacrosanct above all else,

> including God, law, human rights, morals, etc. And their arrogant

> unilateral canceling the some 400-year old *Writ of Habeas Corpus* is

> merely a sad fact.*

Read through this topic and couldn't keep from noticing that the

" descriptions " & " facts " above are really just opinions.

Kim

[Guest guest]

>

> Thus, " Bushies " is not a slur. It's a description. One that's fitting

> for neo-cons who hold their ideology as sacrosanct above all else,

> including God, law, human rights, morals, etc. And their arrogant

> unilateral canceling the some 400-year old *Writ of Habeas Corpus* is

> merely a sad fact.*

Read through this topic and couldn't keep from noticing that the

" descriptions " & " facts " above are really just opinions.

Kim

[Guest guest]

:

I should hope so. No one should be apathetic about torture.

Particularly any of us who may have experienced it, or favored it.

And, as I suggested in my first post, anyone who favors torture should

proudly say so, then step right up and offer to be tortured themselves

to make sure they still favor their abstract position statement.

Reminds me of an old Emo joke (paraphrasing):

" My Dad asked me to mop the floor. I said, 'But Dad! The floor

is only a metaphysical construct; it doesn't really exist except

for in the construct of my own head.' My Dad disagreed, and

then proceeded to repeatedly juxtapose the two constructs...

[mopping motion] "

Don

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, " Bushies " is not a slur. It's a description. One that's

> > fitting

> > > > > for neo-cons who hold their ideology as sacrosanct above all

> > else,

> > > > > including God, law, human rights, morals, etc. And their

> > arrogant

> > > > > unilateral canceling the some 400-year old *Writ of Habeas

> > Corpus* is

> > > > > merely a sad fact.*

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Read through this topic and couldn't keep from noticing that the

> > > > " descriptions " & " facts " above are really just opinions.

> > > >

> > > > Kim

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Don it is obvious that you are good at debating. you keep coming

back to the same points your words have a rythmic effect, it is easy

to believe that you are well informed.

I brought up experience because I had it and I wondered where you got

your great respect for the arab peoples?? I did use them in terms of

they and I will relate another experience. While in the Arab quarter

I was walking again with my relatives. I very much do not look

Middle Eastern. I have light skin and at the time I had blonde

hair. (darker now, also not the point) while walking I was pinched

in the posterier. I was surrounded by a crowd. I tured back with

teenaged indignation, only to see a veritable sea of smiling male

arab faces. I went as an american. I really had no previous dislike

or notion of these indiginous people. I was prepared to allow what I

saw to heard experienced, to make my determination. My family you

see (my Israelie family) aren't the nicest bunch. They are shallow,

determined. I actually don't hold them in high regard, and they

really eminate from Iraq. You cannot negate my experience because it

is a truer gague than your romanticized political view. I spoke to

people when I was there I had eyes and ears. The distinction between

the peoples is slight.

You also cannot deny that culture dictates general feeling. Some

cultures don't have the same degree of person space as Americans.

Even those with AS have common likes that could be looked at as

cultural. You cannot expect different peoples to have the same

values as yourself just because you like them. Individual and

culturewide. Not every Italian likes tomatoes but you may think of

tomatoes when you think of Italy. But they do all think in " Italian "

and that may because of common language, and culture and experience

make " them " The nasty them word think Differently than Americans.

Just as you refer to Bushys. See even you do this us them thing.

All I wanted was for you to see that your view is a View just as you

state mine is.

BTW I do not believe in torture. If some one has taken innocent life,

(not in wartime) and they show no desire to ammend that way of

thinking. I am refering to Psychotic behavior. Voices in your head

not a mental view of your grocery list. I am being cautious so you

understand my position and don't use my words in your way to bend to

your view. In those cases death should occur(no point in taking

detours along the way.) If someone is to die it should be swift and

to the point. Torture serves no purpose, many times life is more

punishing then death as many of us that grew up with abuse knows.

Oh and since you view the Arabs as victims, you forget that they seem

quite willing able and ready to torture any number of innocents. No

not every person of Arab disent. But in America we don't have a word

like the viking did for Jihad and holy Jihad. A womans greatest

contribution in Arab culture is to die, taking as many of the enemies

lives with her as possible. Desperate yes but also DON cultural.

Perspective

[Guest guest]

Miminm:

Thanks for the compliment, I guess. But I'm not really trying to

debate. I'm trying to get some moral clarity from fellow ASers.

Trying to turn it to a simple values debate is what offends me.

Passion BELONGS in a debate about torture.

I wouldn't invalidate your experience. Just, I hoped to get you to

recognize your experience(s) cannot represent the whole of a people.

Regarding your " pinching " story--and speaking of Italians--I have

heard similar stories from American women who walked through Rome. It

only proves that some men are pinchers. Not that " Arabs are seedy. "

I also think you mistake my motives. I don't have any particularly

great respect for any specific enthic peoples. I just have a lot of

passion for folks who get oppressed, whether they be ASers, Israeli,

Palestinians, Armenian, African-Americans, Darfurians, etc. I

introduced Arab cultural contributions in an attempt to re-humanize

them. Dehumanizing someone is a form of oppression (i.e., depicting

Jews as rats in Goebbels' propaganda allowed other dutiful Germans to

the seemingly natural conclusion of using the rat poison Zyklon-B in

the " showers " at the death camps). Unfortunately, the genocidal

ultra-Zionists and cowardly, lying Bushies combine both

oppression and hypocrisy.

Finally, of course I agree that culture often contributes to values,

and values to actions. But most people I've met--whether layman,

preacher, policeman or politican--often talk values but don't really

live them. And that's called " hypocrisy " .

And culture isn't a finite thing. It's fluid and dymanic. In fact, I

suggest that our discussion on torture here is a very small attempt to

try to rid our own culture of the cold, lazy acceptance of torture as

an acceptable administrative technique. I should hope the AS

subculture could at least do that.

Thank you for your sympathy on the torture issue. I'm sorry to hear

about your abuse, too.

Don

>

> Don it is obvious that you are good at debating. you keep coming

> back to the same points your words have a rythmic effect, it is easy

> to believe that you are well informed.

>

> I brought up experience because I had it and I wondered where you got

> your great respect for the arab peoples?? I did use them in terms of

> they and I will relate another experience. While in the Arab quarter

> I was walking again with my relatives. I very much do not look

> Middle Eastern. I have light skin and at the time I had blonde

> hair. (darker now, also not the point) while walking I was pinched

> in the posterier. I was surrounded by a crowd. I tured back with

> teenaged indignation, only to see a veritable sea of smiling male

> arab faces. I went as an american. I really had no previous dislike

> or notion of these indiginous people. I was prepared to allow what I

> saw to heard experienced, to make my determination. My family you

> see (my Israelie family) aren't the nicest bunch. They are shallow,

> determined. I actually don't hold them in high regard, and they

> really eminate from Iraq. You cannot negate my experience because it

> is a truer gague than your romanticized political view. I spoke to

> people when I was there I had eyes and ears. The distinction between

> the peoples is slight.

>

> You also cannot deny that culture dictates general feeling. Some

> cultures don't have the same degree of person space as Americans.

>

> Even those with AS have common likes that could be looked at as

> cultural. You cannot expect different peoples to have the same

> values as yourself just because you like them. Individual and

> culturewide. Not every Italian likes tomatoes but you may think of

> tomatoes when you think of Italy. But they do all think in " Italian "

> and that may because of common language, and culture and experience

> make " them " The nasty them word think Differently than Americans.

>

> Just as you refer to Bushys. See even you do this us them thing.

> All I wanted was for you to see that your view is a View just as you

> state mine is.

>

> BTW I do not believe in torture. If some one has taken innocent life,

> (not in wartime) and they show no desire to ammend that way of

> thinking. I am refering to Psychotic behavior. Voices in your head

> not a mental view of your grocery list. I am being cautious so you

> understand my position and don't use my words in your way to bend to

> your view. In those cases death should occur(no point in taking

> detours along the way.) If someone is to die it should be swift and

> to the point. Torture serves no purpose, many times life is more

> punishing then death as many of us that grew up with abuse knows.

>

> Oh and since you view the Arabs as victims, you forget that they seem

> quite willing able and ready to torture any number of innocents. No

> not every person of Arab disent. But in America we don't have a word

> like the viking did for Jihad and holy Jihad. A womans greatest

> contribution in Arab culture is to die, taking as many of the enemies

> lives with her as possible. Desperate yes but also DON cultural.

>

> Perspective

>

[Guest guest]

Don,

You wrote> > > Thus, "Bushies" is not a slur. It's a description. One that's fitting> > > for neo-cons who hold their ideology as sacrosanct above all else,> > > including God, law, human rights, morals, etc.

Ok the fact is, that you believe this statement above to be truth. I do not.

> > > And their arrogant unilateral canceling the some 400-year old *Writ of Habeas Corpus* is merely a sad > > > fact.*

This is an untruth.

Discussions about beliefs on religion, politics, and ethics rarely changes. People take a stance, which is good. I think everyone should read, learn, and know what is going on in the world but to expect harsh words to bring about change in the members of this forum is wrong. Sometimes it's best to agree to disagree and leave it alone.

Kim>> Kim: > > You are wrong. Factually, wrong, in fact. > > You can't really think that such things like canceling the *Writ*> (like sh!t, it happens) and torture are merely opinions. There was> quite a bit of press on both. I know I didn't imagine it, although I> wish I had, so then I could wake up from this nightmare of insidious> facism. > > Such an "opinion only" posture is also dangerous, in that it only> serves to give a false moral neutrality to those who don't deserve it,> like the Bushies. If you are a Bushy, then please DO feel indicted. > It would be a good start. > > Torture is not an opinion. And accepting that premise from the> Bushies is what led us down the moral quagmire of narrowly-defining> what constitutes acceptable torture by bureaucrats. > > Torture is wrong. And it doesn't work, besides. When someone> tortures you, you can pretty quickly determine whether that's an> opinion, fact or description. Although, after a while, you can't> anymore because the mental state is unstable and you'll tell them what> they want to hear. > > As ASers are often targeted for abuse and torture in their lives--I> understand some even develop PTSD like POWs--we should be very> sensitive about torturing others. Only torture survivors groups should> perhaps be more passionate about it. I'm frankly very surprised and> disappointed that I've not seen anyone here taking the torture issue> very seriously. > > Don

[Guest guest]

Don,

You wrote> > > Thus, "Bushies" is not a slur. It's a description. One that's fitting> > > for neo-cons who hold their ideology as sacrosanct above all else,> > > including God, law, human rights, morals, etc.

Ok the fact is, that you believe this statement above to be truth. I do not.

> > > And their arrogant unilateral canceling the some 400-year old *Writ of Habeas Corpus* is merely a sad > > > fact.*

This is an untruth.

Discussions about beliefs on religion, politics, and ethics rarely changes. People take a stance, which is good. I think everyone should read, learn, and know what is going on in the world but to expect harsh words to bring about change in the members of this forum is wrong. Sometimes it's best to agree to disagree and leave it alone.

Kim>> Kim: > > You are wrong. Factually, wrong, in fact. > > You can't really think that such things like canceling the *Writ*> (like sh!t, it happens) and torture are merely opinions. There was> quite a bit of press on both. I know I didn't imagine it, although I> wish I had, so then I could wake up from this nightmare of insidious> facism. > > Such an "opinion only" posture is also dangerous, in that it only> serves to give a false moral neutrality to those who don't deserve it,> like the Bushies. If you are a Bushy, then please DO feel indicted. > It would be a good start. > > Torture is not an opinion. And accepting that premise from the> Bushies is what led us down the moral quagmire of narrowly-defining> what constitutes acceptable torture by bureaucrats. > > Torture is wrong. And it doesn't work, besides. When someone> tortures you, you can pretty quickly determine whether that's an> opinion, fact or description. Although, after a while, you can't> anymore because the mental state is unstable and you'll tell them what> they want to hear. > > As ASers are often targeted for abuse and torture in their lives--I> understand some even develop PTSD like POWs--we should be very> sensitive about torturing others. Only torture survivors groups should> perhaps be more passionate about it. I'm frankly very surprised and> disappointed that I've not seen anyone here taking the torture issue> very seriously. > > Don

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the clarification, ok then from myself, as I can only speak

for me torture doesn't sound like a good idea. Communication,

discussion, reasoning, choice these sound like good things.

Um hence why I respect people whom are politically informed but I

myself make no claims because it's purpose seems elusive.

I have to rely on experience because that makes better sense. It makes

it real. I don't like the idea of people unseen and uncaring calling

the orders in any venue. Political or medical for that matter.

Sympathetic response that makes sense. I know that the diagnostic

parameters say this is muted within the individual with AS. perhaps it

is more an auto immune response to lying than a mutation or inability.

What you seem to be sying is that you see a group " bushys " as being in

this state of unconcern for others and I can agree with you that

uncaring people whom place money over life are not the best leaders.

Making that determination of more and less deserving of life based on a

myriad of things is also poor reasoning.

So I was confused as to what your point was as it did seem riotious,

just as mine seem naive. I know I am these things and I am honest

enough to admit them hopefully making me not a hypocrite.

I think to some extent that for me anyway is Aspie, an inability to

abide by hypocracy. So if That is what you are seeing then I concur

[Guest guest]

I think I echo Kim's words when I ask what is it that you are looking

for? And why do you think yelling in this forum will achieve it?

[Guest guest]

Don,

It just bothers me when I read what seems to be a bigoted view of any

" group " such as lumping " Bushies " . My posts were about the particular

sentences I had pointed out not your entire summation and viewpoint of

of current events. Your grouping of anyone who seems to have a pro-Bush

stance is skewed. I do not agree with everthing they have done across

the board. I'm not a smuck who believes everything that has been done

after 911 is or was in our best intrests just as I believe all people

who voted for Bush agree with everything his administration has or is

doing. I believe in long term goals not just quick fixes and this is

what I see happening. I have a large number of family in the armed

services and I am privy to their experiences overseas which helps me to

form some of my opinions of our military objectives.

To sum up and end my replies to this topic I'd like to say, there is no

person alive in the world today who is all good or all evil, no

solutions to the problems on this planet be it political, social,

environmental that will appease everyone. It is aweful that religion,

something that should bring love, joy, peace and unity, would be a cause

for hate, intolerance, and war. I believe people everwhere should be

free to prosper and live in peace but because man is flawed this is not

possible, just a dream. Freedom always seems to come at price and must

be fought for in order to be obtained and maintained. This fight can

not always be accomplished with words alone and thus we have war.

When we post our thoughts, are we looking for others to nod their heads

in agreement about everything? I think not. It is GOOD that you speak

out! It is GOOD to question the intent and actions of our government!

It is GOOD to be involved! We all have, or at least most of us, ideas

on how change for the better can be implemented in many aspects of our

lives, from the way we take care of ourselves and possibly up to global

issues. Discussions can help clarify, solidify or change our views and

ideas but it needs to go a step further or it is only considered

whinning.

Reading these posts does make me feel better in way, even if I do not

agree with what is being said. I'm encouraged by all the people on this

forum who think, read, discuss issues instead of plopping their butts in

front of a T.V.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Don,

It just bothers me when I read what seems to be a bigoted view of any

" group " such as lumping " Bushies " . My posts were about the particular

sentences I had pointed out not your entire summation and viewpoint of

of current events. Your grouping of anyone who seems to have a pro-Bush

stance is skewed. I do not agree with everthing they have done across

the board. I'm not a smuck who believes everything that has been done

after 911 is or was in our best intrests just as I believe all people

who voted for Bush agree with everything his administration has or is

doing. I believe in long term goals not just quick fixes and this is

what I see happening. I have a large number of family in the armed

services and I am privy to their experiences overseas which helps me to

form some of my opinions of our military objectives.

To sum up and end my replies to this topic I'd like to say, there is no

person alive in the world today who is all good or all evil, no

solutions to the problems on this planet be it political, social,

environmental that will appease everyone. It is aweful that religion,

something that should bring love, joy, peace and unity, would be a cause

for hate, intolerance, and war. I believe people everwhere should be

free to prosper and live in peace but because man is flawed this is not

possible, just a dream. Freedom always seems to come at price and must

be fought for in order to be obtained and maintained. This fight can

not always be accomplished with words alone and thus we have war.

When we post our thoughts, are we looking for others to nod their heads

in agreement about everything? I think not. It is GOOD that you speak

out! It is GOOD to question the intent and actions of our government!

It is GOOD to be involved! We all have, or at least most of us, ideas

on how change for the better can be implemented in many aspects of our

lives, from the way we take care of ourselves and possibly up to global

issues. Discussions can help clarify, solidify or change our views and

ideas but it needs to go a step further or it is only considered

whinning.

Reading these posts does make me feel better in way, even if I do not

agree with what is being said. I'm encouraged by all the people on this

forum who think, read, discuss issues instead of plopping their butts in

front of a T.V.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Hi Don,

Folks here may hold any political opinions they choose, but we need

to be respectful to other members if we disagree with those opinions.

The following is not appropriate:

" You are wrong. Factually, wrong, in fact.

" You can't really think that such things like canceling the *Writ*

(like sh!t, it happens) and torture are merely opinions. There was

quite a bit of press on both. I know I didn't imagine it, although I

wish I had, so then I could wake up from this nightmare of insidious

facism.

" Such an " opinion only " posture is also dangerous, in that it only

serves to give a false moral neutrality to those who don't deserve

it, like the Bushies. If you are a Bushy, then please DO feel

indicted. It would be a good start. "

I agree with you that torture is wrong by the way.

I have been offline for a while and am looking at each and every

post from oldest to newest, and so if this posting issue has already

been addressed by a mod or other members, my apologies to the group.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Hi Don,

Folks here may hold any political opinions they choose, but we need

to be respectful to other members if we disagree with those opinions.

The following is not appropriate:

" You are wrong. Factually, wrong, in fact.

" You can't really think that such things like canceling the *Writ*

(like sh!t, it happens) and torture are merely opinions. There was

quite a bit of press on both. I know I didn't imagine it, although I

wish I had, so then I could wake up from this nightmare of insidious

facism.

" Such an " opinion only " posture is also dangerous, in that it only

serves to give a false moral neutrality to those who don't deserve

it, like the Bushies. If you are a Bushy, then please DO feel

indicted. It would be a good start. "

I agree with you that torture is wrong by the way.

I have been offline for a while and am looking at each and every

post from oldest to newest, and so if this posting issue has already

been addressed by a mod or other members, my apologies to the group.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

One thing to remember though is that as autistics, oftentimes our own

wants, needs, rights and autonomy are smashed when other people

determine " what's best for us. "

" What's best for us " might be ABA therapy, medication, electro-shock

therapy, restraint and sedation.

Do these people have the right to do this to us given that we are

human beings just like them? Isn't what they are doing a form of

torture?

As much as I would LOVE to stick it to the bad guys as much as they

stick it to me, I cannot torture another and say " Don't torture me " at

the same time.

This point of view is in addition to my religious views, which I have

expressed in an earlier post.

Tom

Administrator

Summary of my view- Yes there are times when torture is justified, on

an individual case-by-case basis. But you just can't, can't,

can't!!!... trust goverments to do it right. Not in the slightest!

They wind up torturing out of sadism, torturing the innocent, tortuing

gratuitously in a kind of fit of madness. The Geneva Conventions

really are the way to go. Did we learn nothing in the 20th century?

[Guest guest]

As I said, I am going through the posts from earliest to most

recent. Hopefully this discussion has calmed down, but if it has

not, I will see to it that things are sorted out.

Tom

Administrator

Re: A Republican I could almost be talked into torturing.

I am wondering if this topic is getting a little too heated?

I do understand that torture is a very serious issue and as such I am

not sure people are going to be able to discuss this calmly without

getting very passionate and very emotional.

[Guest guest]

Hi Don,

Couple of pointers for future reference...

1) Try to refrain from using nasty language if you can.

2) Skip the sarcasm if you can.

Thanks.

Tom

Administrator

Re: A Republican I could almost be talked into torturing.

Thanks for sharing, Miminm. Three camels sounds like a VERY good

offer. I'm impressed and a bit jealous: I was only offered a single

scorpion and some used bathwater for my ass. .

[Guest guest]

Aside from that, if you present yourself as a person with some sort of

grudge against " people who believe 'x' " , those people will use your

behaviors and manner of speaking as an excuse NOT to hear your

arguments, making, in their minds, the false assumption that if

someone comes across as deranged, then the arguments that person is

putting forth must be equally deranged.

It is hard for people to talk carefully and deliberately about topics

they feel strongly about.

Still, if we are to maintain the peace here, we have to try to keep a

reign on our passions to some degree. This includes me.

Tom

Administrator

Discussions about beliefs on religion, politics, and ethics rarely

changes. People take a stance, which is good. I think everyone

should read, learn, and know what is going on in the world but to

expect harsh words to bring about change in the members of this forum

is wrong. Sometimes it's best to agree to disagree and leave it alone.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Aside from that, if you present yourself as a person with some sort of

grudge against " people who believe 'x' " , those people will use your

behaviors and manner of speaking as an excuse NOT to hear your

arguments, making, in their minds, the false assumption that if

someone comes across as deranged, then the arguments that person is

putting forth must be equally deranged.

It is hard for people to talk carefully and deliberately about topics

they feel strongly about.

Still, if we are to maintain the peace here, we have to try to keep a

reign on our passions to some degree. This includes me.

Tom

Administrator

Discussions about beliefs on religion, politics, and ethics rarely

changes. People take a stance, which is good. I think everyone

should read, learn, and know what is going on in the world but to

expect harsh words to bring about change in the members of this forum

is wrong. Sometimes it's best to agree to disagree and leave it alone.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Don,

I am probably opening up a can of worms here, but let's say for the

sake of argument that it is absolutelty proven and true that Bush is

responsible for every offense you have listed out here. If that is

the case, you have the right to make an assertion that Bush is a bad

fella.

An equally valid assertion is that anyone who supports Bush after

knowing about the bad things he has done either agrees with what

Bush has done, forgives Bush, or simply does not care.

But I am wondering if you would have slammed Clinton the same way.

This was a fellow who cheated on his wife -in the White House- with

an intern and then bombed Iraq for arguably specious reasons exactly

at the moment when the impeachment verdict against him was being

read out.

If it's Bush you are against, you have a right to say so. But if you

are some sort of Democrat with a grudge, then be advised that your

argument against Bush supporters and Republicans does not fly:

Some of the most corrupt people in our society are strong Democratic

party supporters as shown in the following (and please note that my

verbiage persists after the quotes you will find below):

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?

txtName=flynt & NumOfThou=0 & txt2006=Y

FLYNT, LARRY C

BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90211

FMG INC

7/19/2005

$1,500

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

FLYNT, LARRY C

BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90211

FMG INC

7/18/2005

$1,000

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

FLYNT, LARRY

BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90211

FMG INC

5/10/2005

$500

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

FLYNT, LARRY C

BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90211

6/30/2005

($500)

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

FLYNT, LARRY C

BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90211

8/10/2005

($2,500)

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES

4/18/2005

$1,000

Stabenow, Debbie

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES INC

4/6/2005

$1,000

Durbin, Dick

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES/CEO

5/12/2005

$1,000

Progressive Majority

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT/CHAIRMAN

9/16/2005

$1,000

Waxman, Henry A

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY/CEO

3/21/2005

$1,000

Bean, Luburich

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY/CEO

9/28/2005

$1,000

Bean, Luburich

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES/CEO

4/19/2005

$500

Schakowsky, Jan

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES

5/20/2005

$250

, Bill

HEFNER, CHRISTIE

CHICAGO,IL 60657

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES/CEO

5/17/2005

$250

Schakowsky, Jan

http://cbs13.com/local/local_story_283184001.html

AIM Report: Soros Tries to Buy Congress - October B

October 26, 2006

The Soros agenda is to transform American society into one in which

the use of dangerous drugs and the practice of prostitution are

accepted and protected by the government. Send this page to a

friend

Format this page for printing

Speaking at a Washington symposium on the continuing threat posed by

illegal drugs to American society, Calvina Fay of the Drug Free

America Foundation declared billionaire Soros to be

an " extremely evil person " who wants to legalize dangerous mind-

altering drugs. Fay said that Soros, an atheist who is a major

funder of the Democratic Party and liberal-left causes, is " our

common enemy " and that he is determined to subvert traditional

values and undermine America's families.

Soros, convicted of insider trading in France, is a financial

speculator and hedge-fund operator who manipulates the currencies of

the nations of the world in order to make himself rich. Some of his

fortune, estimated at $7 billion, has been put into causes such as

abortion rights, gay rights, drug legalization, voting rights for

felons, euthanasia, and rights for immigrants and prostitutes. His

Open Society Institute even helped underwrite attorney Lynne

, subsequently convicted of helping terrorists. In 2004, he

spent about $25 million in an unsuccessful effort to defeat

President Bush for re-election.

In this election cycle, according to Roll Call newspaper, Soros has

been cutting checks " to organizations expected to launch attacks on

GOP House and Senate candidates in the run-up to the Nov. 7

elections. " The money is going to a liberal group called Majority

Action, " which is targeting GOP candidates. "

In an appearance at the same anti-drug event that featured Calvina

Fay, Marc Wheat, staff director and chief counsel of the House

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources,

described Soros as someone who has no sense of guilt or

responsibility for his actions. He noted that, during a December 20,

1998, interview with 60 Minutes, Soros acknowledged that as a 14-

year-old Jewish boy in Hungary, his identity was protected and that

he actually assisted in confiscating property from Jews as they were

being shipped off to death camps. Asked by interviewer Steve Kroft

if he had any sense of guilt over what he did, Soros

replied, " no. "

In the interview, Soros compared his actions to the operation of

economic markets, saying, " .if I weren't there, of course, I wasn't

doing it, but somebody else would-would-would be taking it away

anyhow. " Soros then insisted he was only a " spectator " and had " no

role in taking away that property. " That is why, he said, " I had no

sense of guilt. "

Drawing attention to " The Guilt-free Record of Soros, " Wheat

noted that Soros has said, in regard to his manipulation of currency

markets, " I am basically there to-to make money. I cannot and do not

look at the social consequences of-of what I do, " and " I don't feel

guilty. Because I'm engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant

to have anything to do with guilt. "

He makes money by exploiting human suffering.

Target America

Wheat said it is his belief that Soros has found America to be " a

hard nut to crack " in terms of weakening America's traditional

cultural values and institutions, and that the billionaire would be

spending more time and money on activities in Europe, in an effort

to fan anti-Americanism there.

Nevertheless, Wheat said he still considered Soros to be the number

one danger to traditional values in the U.S. at this time.

Earlier this year, Wheat's boss, Rep. Mark Souder, became aware

through an article by AIM that Soros-funded pro-drug groups had

infiltrated the Conservative Political Action Conference in

Washington and were even being featured as speakers by CPAC

organizers. He put a statement in the Congressional Record

expressing alarm and asking, " What on earth were the CPAC organizers

thinking? " He accused Soros of trying to manipulate conservatives,

in the same way that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had done.

One CPAC official has since come forward to say that Soros-funded

groups will not be allowed to be part of CPAC next year.

If CPAC is purging the Soros influence at its conference, the same

cannot be said for the national Democratic Party. As Horowitz

and Poe maintain in their new book, The Shadow Party, Soros

is engaged in an alliance with Senator Hillary Clinton not only for

the purpose of controlling the Democratic Party but taking control

of Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008.

Rights For Prostitutes

One of the most bizarre areas of interest for Soros is prostitution.

In the name of solving the AIDS problem, Soros-supported prostitutes

are demanding their " rights. " The topic may seem strange to those

unfamiliar with the Soros agenda. Rather than oppose dangerous

conduct, such as using illegal drugs, the Soros approach is to

legalize such behavior and " reduce the harm " associated with it,

such as by providing free needles to addicts. This approach, which

actually encourages the dangerous behavior and puts more people at

risk of contracting serious diseases and even death, is now being

applied to prostitution. The Soros plan is to legalize prostitution

and then provide free condoms. In the cases of illegal drugs and

prostitution, the behavior would not only be legalized but taxed and

regulated and thus approved by government.

It didn't get any attention from the major media, but the cause

of " sex workers " was a prominent topic at the recently concluded

16th International AIDS Conference. And one of the main forces

behind this movement is the Open Society Institute (OSI) " Sexual

Health and Rights Project, " which pushes special " rights " for

prostitutes. OSI boasts that its staff and grantees participated in

over 25 conference presentations, satellite sessions and press

conferences at the AIDS event.

The official conference newspaper highlighted a workshop at the

conference on the subject of sex workers, HIV and human rights. The

moderator, Hope Ditmore, was one of those consulted by the

OSI in the June 2006 OSI study, " Sex Workers Health and Rights:

Where is the Funding? " The report highlighted the role of OSI and

various Soros foundations, as well as the Ford Foundation, in

subsidizing " a large number of sex workers organizations, " and

attacked the Bush Administration policy for refusing to fund such

groups.

Newsday Columnist and commentator Pinkerton came across some

of these organizations at the AIDS conference in Canada, noting with

some surprise that " The effort to 'mainstream' prostitution is not

at all a fringe issue here. It is being waged by those at the

pinnacle of the AIDS establishment-for example, Melinda Gates, who

delivered the keynote speech here last Sunday, alongside her

husband, Bill Gates. " He found one group, called " Stella, "

which " acknowledges funding from Soros's Open Society

Institute. "

Pinkerton said the activists see AIDS and prostitution as " a chance

to turn tragedy into an opportunity to re-engineer societies around

the world. "

Subverting America's Traditions

The Soros agenda is to transform American society into one in which

the use of dangerous drugs and the practice of prostitution are

accepted and protected by the government.

This certainly seems newsworthy. A billionaire trying to help the

Democratic Party take control of both Houses of Congress has an

agenda that includes legalization of drugs and prostitution.

But, led by the Washington Post, the national press has seemed

preoccupied with other matters, such as the " racially insensitive "

remarks uttered by Virginia Senator when he singled out

a Jim Webb campaign operative as a " macaca " at one of his campaign

rallies. The term was deemed derogatory by the Post and other media.

That is the name of the media game-get Republicans and let Soros do

his dirty work.

Meanwhile, Edsall, who was the senior political reporter for

the Post for many years, was a recent guest on the Hugh Hewitt radio

show, where he acknowledged that the ratio of Democrats to

Republicans in the national press was probably in the range of 15 or

25 to 1.

Edsall, who recently left the Post to work for the liberal New

Republic, said, " there is a real difficulty on the part of the

mainstream media being sympathetic, or empathetic, whatever the word

would be, to the kind of thinking that goes into conservative

approaches to issues. "

This is why gets savaged while Soros gets a free pass.

The one exception was a September 17 Soros interview by Wolf Blitzer

on CNN, where the billionaire was asked about his comparison of the

Bush Administration to the Nazis.

In his book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on

Terror, Soros charges that " The Bush administration and the Nazi and

Communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. Indeed, the

Bush administration has been able to improve on the technique used

by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the

innovations of the advertising and marketing industries. "

Under questioning, Soros eventually conceded that, " .maybe I did go

over the line, but I think that on the whole, my assessment is a

balanced one. And the fact that, frankly, when President Bush said,

you are either with us or you are with the terrorists, that's when I

was reminded, but I should have probably kept it to myself. "

Tom here again...

He went on to say that while he won't spend as much money on

political races this year as he did in 2004, " I think it would be

very healthy for our democracy if the House at least was in

Democratic hands. "

My point would be that neither party is corrupt, and that, since

Democrats seem to be the ones that porn purveyors and others

support, and since Democrats have no problem taking the money, it

would seem that THEIR party has its own crisis also.

So best to refrain from attacking " Bushies " and just attack (with

valid argumentation) only those who politicians who are PROVEN to be

corrupt, and the ones who are completely knowledgeable of all the

transgressions that have taken place by these corrupt politicians

but support them anyway.

Tom

Administrator

But more personally, when someone claims to love Christ and follow

his teachings, but does not (rather, they spread malicious false

gossip about a supposed interracial " love-child " of their primary

opponent in the South, call a reporter an " As$hole " , lie about WMDs,

lie about intel, cynically out a CIA agent as revenge for their

husband's exposure of these lies, cause many of our fine men and

women to be killed and endangered by having them follow an

ideological phantom of their own devising [a miraculous " Democratic

Iraq " sprung fully-formed from the mind of Wolfowitz and co.],

and cause the remorseless killing of many hundreds of thousands of

God's innocent children to try to materialize that phantom over

their graves, all the while making money for themselves and their

friends by selling the WMDs, the nuclear technology, the bombs, and

then rebuilding the infrastructure) well, frankly, I have to

question their " committment to Christ " .

[Guest guest]

" To sum up and end my replies to this topic I'd like to say, there is

no person alive in the world today who is all good or all evil, no

solutions to the problems on this planet be it political, social,

environmental that will appease everyone. "

I believe Kim speaks the truth.

I vote in every election these days. (I skipped a few when I was in

college.) As a registered Republican, I often vote AGAINST my party

because the political opponent is more in keeping with my morals and

beliefs than the candidate in my party.

In this most recent election, I voted neither Democrat or Republican

for governor because the Democrat incumbent is in the middle of a

Federal investigation into his doings and his Republican challenger is

about to be investigated. So I voted Green party for governor despite

the fact that some of the candidate's views on certain issues ran

contrary to my own.

I also voted in favor of a Democrat for state's attorney because she

has guts enough to investigate her own party's corrupt governor.

(Democrats voted against her, Republicans for).

From a purely religious persepctive, God gave me a conscience, and so

I vote for the one who appears to be one who will adhere closely to

what God wants. This sometimes means going AGAINST what the public

wants.

Nevertheless, to lump me into a pack of senseless people as you seem

to define the " Bushies " as, Don, is rather condescending and

shortsighted, especially since I have mentioned repeatedly on this

forum that we did NOT invade Iraq on specious WMD grounds. The US

government sold Iraq many of the WMDs that it had and could not

account for prior to invasion. If you know how much was sold, how much

was used, and how fast the remainder could be destroyed, you know that

there is some left over, and since it is nowhere to be found, then you

know that either it is still hidden or has been sold to some other

country, entity, or person.

Ergo those grounds are not false and the reasons for the war are solid

and justifiable when viewed from that perspective.

Other points that you have made about Bush ARE valid, but your refusal

to take words of someone who has a bit of inside knowledge about the

reasons behind the war and make the same invalid arguments for its

beginning suggests that you simply want to bash Bush.

As a voter with a conscience, one must weigh facts versus conjecture

and THEN decide who to vote for. It is never an easy decision for me

to vote, and truth to tell, I come home from voting a bit anxious over

my decisions because I am NEVER 100% sure I made the right decision

regardless of who I voted for.

The same consience ought to be accessed and taken seriously when

arguing against someone who has been, or is about to be, elected. And

if an argument is to be made against a candidate or elected official,

sticking to known facts is the best and most sound way of constructing

an argument. Simply bashing people for their views works against you.

Tom

Administrator