Mass Hysteria was owned by the bases
Bill O'Reilly is a conservative ass who's got his head so far up his behind he can't read what he's writing. In a vicious attack at ACLU - by calling it anti-american and un-patriotic Bill O'Reilly (Dec 09, 2005), convinced of his mass popularity, then proceeded to list the heinous crimes committed in the name of liberty by the ACLU - among these he blamed the ACLU for attempting "to stop children from accessing porn at libraries". It is a sad day indeed when children are unable to access pornography at places of public education. What a vicious attack on the personal freedom of the children! I think that when you are speaking for a clan in a publicly available forum, it's only good protocol to make sure you aren't misstating your premise. Atleast we don't have a clue what you're fighting for Billy Boy even though you would mistate it still if it bit you in the ass.
In addition, he claims that "The ACLU wants more photos from Abu Ghraib released. The organization is suing the CIA, opposing the Defense Department over detainees at Guantanamo and objects to coerced interrogation of high-ranking terrorists." Thus, since the ACLU promotes greater awareness of international crimes commmitted by our Army and the DOD, promotes the freedom of press and raises objections to prisoner torture (Third Geneva Convention anyone?) - which as C. Rice of O'Reilly's much beloved Administration, recently pointed out in Germany (in a starkly dull, ironic and redundant manner) - "USA will not indulge in torture or transference/extraditing prisoners to states that condone torture in any way", it wages a war against the Americans. The ACLU - ladies and gentleman, is here to stop our society being taken over by the fundmentalist, undiscerning, insensible, primitive and the strait-laced zealots.
What totally corrupt wickedness and abhorrent crimes these are indeed!
In short, in an article designed to hammer points of "un-patriotism" across by pointing out the humanitarian causes that ACLU dearly backs, O'Reilly in my opinion did nothing but increase my faith in the concept that it is the bane of his types to misunderstand and misrepresent everything. Never are they to be able to see the humanity of it all - being as thier privilaged situation/"way of life" is as valuable to them as it is, they think fighting without a cause or "on principle" (Lord knows what that is and I am afraid to ask)or without any inkling of the consequences, is justified.
As far as the ACLU is concerned, the outfit does sometimes go overboard with its lobbying - thier efforts are easily misinterpreted since they are so tied up in litigation all the time.
We know its asking only for a better interpretation of the laws it fights for, but that is not immediately apparent. Its heart, though, is in a lefter place and it is mindful of the delicate balance in which humanitarian justice and national liberty hang. Since a respect for self-realization and appropriation is so far up my list of things that are right, no claims of traitorship and savage, ill-researched and engendered sectarian penmanship will convince me otherwise.
In other news, "US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has expressed concern over the government restrictions on free speech in through the new media ordinance and raid on independent FM radio stations in Nepal." Critiquing the government of hypocritical stands - I admit - I will leave to bigger media forums and further developed soapboxes than mine, but this one I cannot abstain from. Amid accusations of tampering with media and spreading false information to both the American Public and the Iraqi public, thus undermining not only the judicial truth but also the average american intelligence, the Bush Administration still thinks it has the right to doctor and administer its complaints of free speech in media to other countries. Unbelievable.
In addition, he claims that "The ACLU wants more photos from Abu Ghraib released. The organization is suing the CIA, opposing the Defense Department over detainees at Guantanamo and objects to coerced interrogation of high-ranking terrorists." Thus, since the ACLU promotes greater awareness of international crimes commmitted by our Army and the DOD, promotes the freedom of press and raises objections to prisoner torture (Third Geneva Convention anyone?) - which as C. Rice of O'Reilly's much beloved Administration, recently pointed out in Germany (in a starkly dull, ironic and redundant manner) - "USA will not indulge in torture or transference/extraditing prisoners to states that condone torture in any way", it wages a war against the Americans. The ACLU - ladies and gentleman, is here to stop our society being taken over by the fundmentalist, undiscerning, insensible, primitive and the strait-laced zealots.
What totally corrupt wickedness and abhorrent crimes these are indeed!
In short, in an article designed to hammer points of "un-patriotism" across by pointing out the humanitarian causes that ACLU dearly backs, O'Reilly in my opinion did nothing but increase my faith in the concept that it is the bane of his types to misunderstand and misrepresent everything. Never are they to be able to see the humanity of it all - being as thier privilaged situation/"way of life" is as valuable to them as it is, they think fighting without a cause or "on principle" (Lord knows what that is and I am afraid to ask)or without any inkling of the consequences, is justified.
As far as the ACLU is concerned, the outfit does sometimes go overboard with its lobbying - thier efforts are easily misinterpreted since they are so tied up in litigation all the time.
We know its asking only for a better interpretation of the laws it fights for, but that is not immediately apparent. Its heart, though, is in a lefter place and it is mindful of the delicate balance in which humanitarian justice and national liberty hang. Since a respect for self-realization and appropriation is so far up my list of things that are right, no claims of traitorship and savage, ill-researched and engendered sectarian penmanship will convince me otherwise.
In other news, "US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has expressed concern over the government restrictions on free speech in through the new media ordinance and raid on independent FM radio stations in Nepal." Critiquing the government of hypocritical stands - I admit - I will leave to bigger media forums and further developed soapboxes than mine, but this one I cannot abstain from. Amid accusations of tampering with media and spreading false information to both the American Public and the Iraqi public, thus undermining not only the judicial truth but also the average american intelligence, the Bush Administration still thinks it has the right to doctor and administer its complaints of free speech in media to other countries. Unbelievable.