There has been what- 8 people associated with abprtion clinics who have been killed for that asdociation? I have found no indication that any church or church leadership was behind it or endorsed it or encouraged it either.

The Klan never was a church either. Of course christians made up the KKK and they attempted to use the bible yo justify their hatred but i do not exactly think it is the same.

Westboro is interesting though. As vile and insane as they were, they never advocated violence.

I think you missed an operative statement the parent made. "And try to kill in the name of". While the KKK might fit in there, or maybe at one time they would have, its only the idiots who try to kill in the name of that could be comparable.

So this excludes westboro. Would include a number of but not all klansmen, and about five anti abortionist in the US. I think you missed the limiter he put there "kill in the name off".

Yes it is sort of

It should be no different than any other evidence of a crime. If your car was stolen and used to rob a bank- or they just think it was-, similar circumstances would happen.

However, with the cash and asset forfieture it is a little backwards where the only evidence of any crime is the fact that it is in your posession and few times are there any charges filed at all.

But nontheless., there is a legal process no matter how horrid or abstract it may be. This does make it different than a law enforcement officer stealing identities and trying to impersonate people in order to ensnare people they otherwise would have no clue existed.

Oh.. and you do not have to convince me about how evil asset seizure is. I'm just saying at least there is a process.

They most certainly did vote to change the rules in the recent past. No one but you in this thread is denying that and we are actually discussing the fact it may have been limited to hudicial nominies and can just as easily be done again to seat a Surgeon General. My claim is the reason it has not happened is because even if they did, not enough democrats would vote for him to pass.

You mean except when they did it about a year ago to get around needing a super majority?

If it wasn't just done, your point would have more weight. But then i would point out that the position is not unmaned, there is an acting S.G. in place and has been ever since the post became vacant. Its just not a political shill doing the job right now.

Nice straw man. You have a lot to learn about liberty, but that goes without saying.

Enjoy your next coup. Maybe the next dictator will be the one who brings prosperity.

Appointing a political hack as "Ebola Czar" to shut the GOP up is the real world version of telling everyone to calm the fuck down and go the fuck home.

That's an interesting strategy.

1. Prove you're incompetent by appointing an unqualified person to an important leadership role during a crisis.
2. ???
3. Stay calm and PROFIT!

The leftists are strong with this thread. I'm sorry that I posted now. I could have helped more by undoing this ridiculous partisan moderation that posting my pithy comments.

What kind of cocks mod up an AC who says this sort of thing? We don't even have adults here on Slashdot. Please, would the last person out shut off the lights?

Yes, I'm sure that if we had a totally socialist health care system, that woman wouldn't have gone out to shop and pick up take-out. I'm sure that the protective gear would have worked perfectly, just like other fine products of socialism like the Trabant. And I'm sure that there's no way any of them could have gotten on a plane, what with the threat of being gunned down at the airport in socialist Utopias like Cuba.

Lol. Its not like the republicans can't just change it when they have control of the senate.

I find it interesting how strongly some people are willing to ignore reality in order to create and maintain a republican boogerman. Lets forget that the current thread topic is a lie and its a democrat problem getting the surgeon general nomination through and invent a distraction instead. Wow how simply stupid people become when ideology it at risk.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Either way, with a simple majority vote, they could change that too. Thats all they had to change the rules last time even if it was limited to judicial nominies.

Oh, and slate isn't exactly a conservative site last time i checked. But i see they are trying to be less liberal so go figure.

Awe.. isn't that sweet. You are mad because i shot down your conspiracy with simply facts that anyone paying attention over the last year would already know.

I'm sorry you hate me now but i still love you.

Btw, [sic] the way you used it doesn't mean what you think it means and more than likely neither does dumass. But hey, those are just facts too.

Interesting, the truth is overrated.

You mean the republicans in the senate where the democrats changed the rules so the republicans cannot block appointments any more? The current nomination for the Surgeon General cannot even pass with a majority democrat senate (with the new lower vote requirement).

But Obama himself has stated several times we do not need a Czar for this. He finally had to do something because of all the screw ups making it appear like no one could find their own ass in Texas. I do not think they two situations could be remotely linked together given those two facts.

Well... while I'm not one for hate and vitriol like most of the politically oriented people out there (it seems), I sit back and watch and: 1) I agree with the other response that neither of the two major parties actually represent a majority of anybody but politicians and businesses,

There are a lot more offices than the federal ones. When you start looking at the state and local ones, you see where they do actually represent the people. But the third parties seem to just grab a handful of attention here and there and not even enough representation to control a city council or county board. That's where the two big parties get their power and strength from despite the federal offices appearing to be out to lunch most of the time.

2) I thought the tea party was an interesting idea until they became right wing on steroids. I thought they were interesting until they started campaigning against abortion, and inviting people like Sarah Pailin to speak at events. Again... I don't run out and start hating on either abortion or anti-abortion activists, I know they both have their opinions and beliefs, but I think it should largely stay out of politics at this point, and it's not going to change any time soon - both parties use it to rile up their bases, though.

You do realize that there are several tea parties right? It's more of a movement than a single power/party even though there seems to be a dominent part of it. As with abortion, all I have heard them speak about is tax monies being used to fund them. If they have come out and said more, I haven't heard (which doesn't mean it hasn't happened). But the very nature of tax money or government funding of abortion is political due to the fact it is a political entity involved. I don't see how it can be kept out of politics unless no tax funding for abortion ever happens.

So no hate against the Tea Party, but they are hardly a big difference between them and republicans - more like republicans demanding what the party SAYS they represent as opposed to how republican candidates actually act when they get into office. The GOP just needs some house cleaning, IMO.

The vast majority of third parties are somewhat the same. There will be a few key issues they vehemently take stands on but the rest if either echoing democrat or republican positions as stated by the idealists if not in reality. But even if it is true as you say about the Tea (Taxed Enough Already)Party- it does not mean someone else cannot do the same and infiltrate one of the parties. That's the great thing about primaries. If you win, you stop the party from running a candidate against you in the election.

People SAY they want freedom and liberty, but neither major party offers it. There's really only one out there that does (besides complete anarchists), and everybody thinks they're "crazy" because they want freedom and liberty, which, OMG, requires people to take back some responsibility for themselves.

I agree somewhat. You cannot have complete freedom because people simply do not think about what they are doing and how it impacts others. Take the libertarian stance on drugs, it's fine and all as long as the user can support their own habit and not harm others. But as we know with history and addictive substances, sometimes they lose jobs, ruin families, resort to stealing, try to operate machinery (cars for instance) and kill others and so on. It's not like we haven't tried it before or anything. And before it was illegal, it wasn't exactly peachy king either.

And yes, it is because as you suggest, people do not take responsibility for themselves.