h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Don't you think Ashcroft's actions are eroding the liberties he's been assigned to protect? It seems that every time he needs to pass another piece of draconian legislation they just crank up the colour-coded Terror-o-Meter a few places, whip up a frenzy on Fox and convince people that if John Law can't read their e-mails, John Arab will eat their children.

All that aside...isn't the man himself pretty ridiculous? That business about covering up the nude statue of Justice in his lobby... Why liberate the women of Afghanistan from the burkha only to impose it on statues back in the land of the free?

Okay, you *asked* for that, waving the red Ashcroft flag

wow, I thought ashcroft supporters hung out with santa, the tooth fairy and Iraq's WMD

All at the end of a type 6 rainbow next to the pot of gold (flagrant Dead Ringers reference)

"I am also not a Bush-supporter. I'm WORSE - an Aschcroft supporter!

Nerd42"

Are you relieved now the s are under cover? Face it, the guy's a total wack-job. With almost unlimited power.

As for Rush Limbaugh, being referred to as the "Most Dangerous Man in America" doesn't count when he's the one doing the referring.

And I've got a few ideas for actions with that little plastic Bush doll, but it would probably be too much to expext GW to cooperate by bending over. (I think)

SC

All you'd need would be a fully poseable Tony Blair doll...

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/tony_bum_snort.asp

And, for good measure...

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/grandma.asp

Liberals are funny. Confused, but funny.

Here's a funny little trio of quotes from leading neoconservative thinkers.

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution [the traditional international system] that is not capable of defending us."
- Richard Perle, ex-chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, author of the Israeli Likud Party's report 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm', advocating the 'creative destruction' of the Middle East as we know it.

Defence, right. Well, who can argue with that? But wait, there's more...

"American power should be used not just in the defense of American interests but for the promotion of American principles."
- William Kristol, chairman of the Project for a New American Century.

And how shall this promotion be done? Get the feeling they're about to invoke Manifest Destiny...?

"Change - above all violent change - is the essence of human history."
- Michael Ledeen, advisor to GW Bush.

Ach, neocons are funny. Not really bothered about coming up with credible excuses for their atrocities, but funny

since when did these two words go togeather?

"neoconservative thinkers"

Although the hive mind of conservatives (rather like ants) needs some controllers I guess.

Can you imaging if conservatives started thinking for themselves?

There, now I've done it too. Uses those two words in the same sentence.

Never fear. Conservatives thinking for themselves will never happen; you never do something you've convinced yourself you are already doing.

SC

>Can you imaging if conservatives started thinking for themselves

Ahem, British Conservative over here.

You know, over here we hear all over the news, everywhere except FOX, about some new liberal think tank of other, the Advancement of Liberal Thought or something, and we're emailing FOX and saying "Hey! Why aren't you guys all over this? This is news! Wow! Liberal thought? Who could have imagined that liberals actually think!?"

Nerd42

As for Conservative thinking, I think that is in severe doubt (Sorry Kerr, but I have a point to make)

The US interferred in Iraq before.

After the latest UK imposed government was deposed by revolution, a new leader came to power. When it looked like the new leader of Iraq would be friendly to the communists they decided to get him assasinated (probably proto-neo-cons who came up with that idea). So they found someone they described as "a thug with no class" to kill him, the assasin missed and barely escaped. The US hid the would be assasin in other countries until it was safe for him to return after another assasin hit the mark.

The would be assasin was Sadam Hussain

So with the country being flooded with foreign terrorists, the factions setting up there own groups of armed gunmen to maintain order as they say the US can't, and an administration seen as a bunch of US puppets. Who are the Americans inadvertantly going to get put in power this time?

Researcher PSG

I should of probably put some allegedlys in there, but it is a well held theory that the CIA was involved in the plot to overthrow the Comunist supporting leader. And this involved Sadam, who did seem to visit the US embassey alot in his time in exile.

Basically, I am questioning whether anyone who has given Iraqs history a glance, with the number of imposed leaderships that get overthrown, and the response to outside interference, can think it will be a piece of cake to turn it into a friendly democratic nation. Which is what the neocons thought.

Researcher PSG

I do remember seeing some footage of Saddam puffing on a cigar and grinning for the camera at a party conference as his opponents were taken out and 'disappeared'. This was before he reformed and became virtuous enough to merit American, French and British support, naturally.

Apparently Colin Powell made a lot of money on the dinner party circuit in Washington after the first Gulf War giving the reasons the US pulled out; it was folly, he said, to assume that you could march into a country with a long history of despots and foreign rule, and expect to find some spotless local Thomas Jefferson figure to take power. If the allies had taken Baghdad then, he said, they would still be driving around looking for Thomas Jefferson. Looks like his prophecy is coming true now.

My feeling is this; sure, many liberals may be wishy-washy, vacillating, uncertain creatures. But when they *do* come up with an idea, it generally won't involve marching out and slaughtering the population of a Third World country.

I resent the term 'wishy washy'. My ideals and areas of support are and have beed steady. They probably appear to change through the eyes of which ever talking head is telling conservatives what to think this week.

Okay, you realise it wasn't a personal insult but that is the perception or cliché of many liberals.

An example - the polls on public opinion before and during the war. Seems as soon as the tanks began to roll a huge percentage of the population decided that maybe 'No to War' had been a little hasty... It's those bloody vacillators who infuriate me.

Yes I realise, It's just that I've ignored it every time and it seems that the previous time was the last.

There seem to be certain cultures that anti war sentiments are replaced with 'support our boys' when actually at war. The aussies did it too.

I can't honestly say if it's the same here as our 'boys' ony go on peace keeping and UN police missions. The exception being the NZSAS which can be deployed by the PM (regular forces require a parliament vote and our PM is not the commander in cheif)

Of course conservatives think.

They think how can we stay rich and continue to do nothing but leach of the hard working majority of the world.

They think lets throe the liberals a bone and give them a rehabilitation centre for young offenders who have been locked up and lack the social skills to go straight. Just not-in-my-back-yard.

Neo conservative think too.

They think its rubbish loosing all the time lets turn the National Front into the BNP.

They think its rubbish loosing all the time lets make labour more like the conservative party.

"They think its rubbish loosing all the time lets turn the National Front into the BNP."

Now that I *do* resent. None of the tenents of Conservatism embrace racism. There's no reason, in the Conservative system, for politics to get involved in race issues. Just because the BNP's other policies, which are there just so they don't look like a one issue party, happen to conservative in tone, that's no reason to tar all Conservatives with the same brush as the BNP deserve.