Justin's Posts - Crzy House

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

Replies:

• Conservatives dont like Racicot's positions on abortion, school choice, taxes, unions, and gay rights. That sounds promising. And it will be interesting to watch Ashcroft prosecute the anthrax hoaxe/planned parenthood attacker. he will have to do his job even though he would prolly like to mail out a few spore to abortion clinics himself! haha. Thanks for the articles Justin. (NT) -- Lance, 11:57:24 12/06/01 Thu

• hehehe...I have erm...quite a few things on my comp I prolly should of that nature Lance =P well...you know though *g* (NT) -- Justin the Okie, 16:41:28 12/06/01 Thu

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

Replies:

• I remember reading the story about the teen at advocate.com, I think I posted something about it months ago...but it is the PERFECT example of why we need a federal hate crimes law...the police are completely IGNORING this crime and trying to cover it up...how does a 115 pound teen fracture his skull, break ribs, get black eyes, BURN blisters and a giant bruise from falling down drunk? I chanllenge ANYONE to tell me why a hate crimes law is a bad idea in the face of situations like this (NT) -- Drew Greyfox, 17:46:07 12/06/01 Thu
  • I remember that story too. They are still not doing anything? I guess they will wait until someone kills him and then say if was self- defense for the murderer? (NT) -- Sergio, 17:59:35 12/06/01 Thu
• Focus on Family claims state law exempts religious organizations from the law. I guess it will go to court. To read Dr. James Dobson's article on how to "prevent" your child from becoming a homosexual, click the link.. -- Markus, 19:29:03 12/06/01 Thu
  • Wow, even this idiot doctor admits that gays have a higher suicide rate (The only thing I agree with in the whole article!) (NT) -- Greg C., 19:44:27 12/06/01 Thu
  • Another laughable (if it wasn't so ignorant) article about the supposed causes of homosexuality that cites more supposedly scientific research from christian organizations using only select participants...I say we do a survey of our own...(inside) -- Drew Greyfox, 03:12:56 12/07/01 Fri
    • I couldn't agree more. Speaking for the "older" generation, my father was certainly the head of our household. My Mother was too busy to be domineering, taking care of household things, cooking, washing clothes, cleaning, and raising a large family. My Dad was very involved with us boys, camping, hunting and fishing with us. He spent a lot of time with us growing up and we enjoyed the same interests, sports teams, cars, etc. There was real bonding. So much for that theory. (NT) -- Dan, 06:38:21 12/07/01 Fri
  • Focus on Family is just another one of those "Kill a Queer For Christ" groups....GOD! Ex-gays my ass. These people who go around trying to convert gays to straights are insane and abusive fucks. (NT) -- crz, 10:40:45 12/07/01 Fri

• You ARE all warm and fuzzy Justy, ...do you have a fever? HAHA! J/K I'm in a playful mood! I like seeing you getting all involved in these issues!! I think it's awesome! And you have to get up pret --tee darn early in the morning to beat Drew cause he's our #1 NEWS GOD and provides the BEST in political commentary!! You couldn't find a better role model to set your sights on, Justy! So give it your best shot! I'll read these and post comments after class today. Thanks!! (NT) -- crz, 10:35:41 12/07/01 Fri
  • BTW....WHERE'S THE NEW PICS DREW???? HMMMM???? BLONDIE.... (NT) -- crz, 10:37:39 12/07/01 Fri
    • *EEEEEEEEKKKKKKK* (NT) -- Drew Greyfox, 11:49:14 12/07/01 Fri

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

Replies:

• Beware the new form of McCarthyism in the West -- Justin the Okie, 17:10:28 12/07/01 Fri
  Again, from The Independant.
  
  08 December 2001
  The key to the success of the next phase of the campaign against terrorism is the now-forgotten concept of "patient justice" expounded by President George Bush in his address to the joint houses of Congress on 20 September. Unless the members of the coalition against terrorism adhere to this principle, the terrorists will have gained.
  Although the uncertainty over the whereabouts of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden has rendered the question temporarily theoretical, the issue of how they and their associates will be tried ought to be decided quickly. It is important that it should not be seen as a purely US affair, but one endorsed by the international community.
  What matters most, however, is that the mode of trial is both fair and seen to be fair by the widest possible range of opinion across the world – and the cavalier way in which the Bush administration has treated the principles of civil liberty on which the US was founded sets a depressing precedent.
  The plan to bring in military courts to try and sentence alleged terrorists in secret would be intolerable even to American public opinion at its most McCarthyite, except that it applies only to those who are not US nationals.
  Such judicial xenophobia ought to be abhorrent to any civilised nation. This is no "naive" concern for civil liberties, as David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, dismissed similar criticisms of his own – less offensive but still unacceptable – anti-terrorism measures.
  There are two practical objections to the panic measures proposed by the US and British governments. One is that they will not work. Reducing the burden of proof will not convict more terrorists; it will only produce more miscarriages of justice.
  The other is that it will give insecure democracies scope to define the right to a fair trial, just as the rhetoric of the "war against terrorism" has given licence to authoritarian rulers the world over to define their own dissidents as terrorists. Thus Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin and, above all, Ariel Sharon have excuses for their own repression.
  A new form of oppressive McCarthyism is sweeping not just America but the whole world. It is not "naïve" to point out the real and present danger from this phenomenon.
  
  ---------
  
  I figured I'd post this just to show that other countries are noticing the things Ashcroft is doing.
  
  
• The U.S. Taking a Page Out of Egypt's Book? -- Justin the Okie, 17:11:41 12/07/01 Fri
  This one is from Time Europe.
  
  Monday, Dec. 3, 2001
  In fighting terrorism with mass sweeps and military trials, the United States resembles Egypt, a country with a poor human rights record. Egypt has had its share of extremist violence. And in using draconian methods to fight it, President Hosni Mubarak's government has had some success in bringing it under control. Given that Egyptian terrorists are deeply involved in the bin Laden network, Egypt's own war on terrorism is worth a hard look.
  
  Almost 20 years before Sept. 11, the country lost its peacemaking president, Anwar Sadat, when Islamic extremists assassinated him during a military parade in Cairo. After a lull in the 1980s, the result of a major sweep against Sadat's killers, Muslim militants began striking again in the early 1990s. Egypt experienced no single massive attack, but the wave of violence shocked Egyptians all the same.
  
  In 1993 alone, there were more than 250 terrorist attacks resulting in the deaths of 274 people. Over a five year period, militants killed politicians, Christians and foreign tourists. In 1997 came the chilling Luxor massacre, the bloody climax of a campaign to kill foreign visitors and destroy Egypt's tourist industry. A band of terrorists seized control of the Temple of Hatshepsut in Upper Egypt's Valley of the Queens, and then methodically hunted down 58 mainly European tourists, including women and children.
  
  Egypt eventually suppressed the violence, but at the price of growing criticism from human rights groups. In 1993, Mubarak sacked his interior minister for being soft on terrorists and appointed General Hussein Alfi in his place. Alfi vowed to confront the terrorist groups with "extreme force, resolution and firmness." The authorities embarked on a program of mass arrests and "fast-track" military courts to pack suspected terrorists off to prison. Amnesty International complained that the government had given the police "a license to kill with impugnity" and called the courts "a travesty of justice."
  
  But by 1995 Alfi, with some justification, was claiming victory in Egypt's war on terrorism. Ironically, Alfi was summarily dismissed by Mubarak for the security lapse that enabled the terrorists to reach the Hatsehpsut Temple in 1997.
  
  Rejecting criticism from human rights groups, Mubarak's government has complained about how Egyptian extremists found refuge in the West, especially in Britain, by taking advantage of civil protections not afforded in Egypt. The government recently applauded steps taken by British authorities to arrest two prominent Egyptian fundamentalists wanted on terrorism charges back in Cairo.
  
  Egypt continues to receive criticism, including from Washington. The latest State Department report on human rights criticizes Egypt for its counter-terrorism tactics, including the use of military courts. Human rights groups have also criticized the government for not promoting greater democracy and human rights that would take away some of the grievances of the terrorists. "In combating terrorism, the security forces continued to mistreat and torture prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, hold detainees in prolonged pretrial detention, and occasionally engage in mass arrests," the 2000 State Department report says. "The use of military courts to try civilians continued to infringe on a defendant's right to a fair trial before an independent judiciary."
  
  The Egyptians point out the irony of the U.S. stance. "You have Egypt's sincere approval for the policy of trying terrorists in front of military courts," said government spokesman Nabil Osman. "We put our terrorists in front of military courts as a deterrent. The only difference is we did it 10 years ago, and the American media and the human rights groups were so critical. Now you are doing the same thing."
  
  But, one State Department official said before Sept. 11, Egypt's strategy creates new problems while solving old ones. "The effort is pushing the terrorists into disarray," he explains, "but that creates its own dangers. They start splintering and some of them go out and kill people without any direction. That becomes hard to prevent."
  
  As America found out on Sept. 11, some of those terrorists leave Egypt and go elsewhere, searching for other targets for their rage. "If you deter the threat inside the country," the official said, "they end up going elsewhere."
  
  
• ‘Terrorism’: the word itself is dangerous -- Justin the Okie, 17:13:06 12/07/01 Fri
  Last one, this one again from The Daily Star, out of Lebanon.
  
  
  The greatest threat to world peace today is clearly “terrorism” ­ not the behavior to which the word is applied but the word itself.
  For years, people have recited the truisms that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and that “terrorism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.” However, with the world’s sole superpower declaring an open-ended, worldwide “war on terrorism,” the notorious subjectivity of this word is no longer a joke.
  It is no accident there is no agreed definition of “terrorism,” since the word is so subjective as to be devoid of meaning. At the same time, the word is extremely dangerous, because people tend to believe that it does have meaning and to use and abuse the word by applying it to whatever they hate as a way of avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior.
  
  There is no shortage of precise verbal formulations for the diverse acts to which the word “terrorism” is often applied. “Mass murder,” “assassination,” and “sabotage” are available (to which the phrase “politically motivated” can be added if appropriate), and such crimes are already on the statute books, rendering specific criminal legislation for “terrorism” unnecessary. However, such precise formulations do not carry the overwhelming, demonizing and thought-deadening impact of the word “terrorism,” which is precisely the charm of the word for its more cynical and unprincipled users and abusers. If someone commits “politically motivated mass murder,” people might be curious as to the cause or grievances which inspired such a crime, but no cause or grievance can justify (or even explain) “terrorism,” which, all right-thinking people agree, is the ultimate evil.
  
  Most acts to which “terrorism” is applied (at least in the West) are tactics of the weak, usually (although not always) against the strong. Such acts are not a tactic of choice but of last resort. To cite one example, the Palestinians would prefer to fight for their freedom by “respectable” means, using F-16s, Apache attack helicopters and laser-guided missiles such as those the United States provides to Israel. If the United States provided such weapons to Palestine as well, the problem of suicide bombers would be solved. Until it does, and for so long as the Palestinians can see no hope for a decent future, no one should be surprised or shocked that Palestinians use the “delivery systems” available to them ­ their own bodies. Genuine hope for something better than a life worse than death is the only cure for the despair which inspires such gruesome violence.
  
  In this regard, it is worth noting that the poor, the weak and the oppressed rarely complain about “terrorism.” The rich, the strong and the oppressors constantly do. While most of mankind has more reason to fear the high-technology violence of the strong than the low-technology violence of the weak, the fundamental mind-trick employed by the abusers of the epithet “terrorism” (no doubt, in some cases, unconsciously) is essentially this: The low-technology violence of the weak is such an abomination that there are no limits on the high-technology violence of the strong which can be deployed against it.
  Not surprisingly, since Sept. 11, virtually every recognized state confronting an insurgency or separatist movement has eagerly jumped on the “war on terrorism” bandwagon, branding its domestic opponents (if it had not already done so) “terrorists” and, at least implicitly, taking the position that, since no one dares to criticize the United States for doing whatever it deems necessary in its “war on terrorism,” no one should criticize whatever they now do to suppress their own “terrorists.”
  
  Even while accepting that many people labeled “terrorists” are genuinely reprehensible, it should be recognized that neither respect for human rights nor the human condition are likely to be enhanced by this apparent carte blanche seized by the strong to crush the weak as they see fit.
  Writing in the Washington Post on Oct. 15, Post Deputy Editor Jackson Diehl cited two prominent examples of the abuse of the epithet “terrorism”: “With their handshake in the Kremlin, Sharon and Putin exchanged a common falsehood about the wars their armies are fighting against rebels in Chechnya and the West Bank and Gaza. In both cases, the underlying conflict is about national self-determination: statehood for the Palestinians, self-rule for Chechnya. The world is inclined to believe that both causes are just … Sharon and Putin both have tried to convince the world that all their opponents are terrorists, which implies that the solution need not involve political concessions but merely a vigorous counterterrorism campaign.” Perhaps the only honest and globally workable definition of “terrorism” is an explicitly subjective one ­ “violence which I don’t support.”
  
  The Western press routinely characterizes as “terrorism” virtually all Palestinian violence against Israelis (even against Israeli occupation forces within Palestine), while the Arab press routinely characterizes as “terrorism” virtually all Israeli violence against Palestinians. Only this formulation would accommodate both characterizations, as well as most others.
  However, the word has been so devalued that even violence is no longer an essential prerequisite for its use. In recently announcing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against 10 international tobacco companies, a Saudi Arabian lawyer told the press: “We will demand tobacco firms be included on the lists of terrorists and those financing and sponsoring terrorism because of the large number of victims smoking has claimed the world over.” If everyone recognized the word “terrorism” is fundamentally an epithet and a term of abuse, with no intrinsic meaning, there would be no more reason to worry about the word now than prior to Sept. 11. However, with the United States relying on the word to assert, apparently, an absolute right to attack any country it dislikes (for the most part, countries Israel dislikes) and with President Bush repeatedly menacing that “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” (which effectively means, “either you make our enemies your enemies or you’ll be our enemy ­ and you know what we do to our enemies”), many people around the world must feel a genuine sense of terror (dictionary definition: “a state of intense fear”) as to where the United States is taking the rest of the world.
  
  Meanwhile, in America itself, the Bush Administration appears to be feeding the US Constitution and America’s traditions of civil liberties, due process and the rule of law into a shredder ­ mostly to domestic applause or acquiescence. Who would have imagined that 19 angry men armed only with knives could accomplish so much, provoking a response, beyond their wildest dreams, which threatens to be vastly more damaging to their enemies even than their own appalling acts? If the world is to avoid a descent into anarchy, in which the only rule is “might makes right,” every “retaliation” provokes a “counter-retaliation” and a genuine “war of civilizations” is ignited, the world ­ and particularly the United States ­ must recognize that “terrorism” is simply a word, a subjective epithet, not an objective reality and certainly not an excuse to suspend all the rules of international law and domestic civil liberties which have, until now, made at least some parts of our planet decent places to live.
  
  
  • "Who would have imagined that 19 angry men armed only with knives could accomplish so much, provoking a response, beyond their wildest dreams, which threatens to be vastly more damaging to their enemies even than their own appalling acts?"....I've said it before, terrorists do not have the power to destroy our democracy, only we do...and we are doing it for them (NT) -- Drew Greyfox, 23:19:50 12/07/01 Fri
    • Ashcroft’s exact words to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists." (NT) -- Dano, 10:53:55 12/08/01 Sat

• gonna apologize beforehand, that came off a lil too confrontational. I'm not a happy person before I get my morning caffiene intake, and I have very stron views about this. Arguments are bad, so I'm trying stop one before it starts, k? (NT) -- Justin the Okie, 14:32:52 12/08/01 Sat
  • You don't ever have to apologize for having a different opinion Justy! -- Lance, 08:40:53 12/09/01 Sun
    And if I implied in any way that suicidal people are weak and selfish, that wasn't at all my intention.
    
    The act of suicide is selfish in my opinion.
    
    But I know for a fact that my friends weren't weak or selfish. They were funny, and smart, and they weren't scared of anyone or anything. I loved them. I miss them. and I'm still really angry at them and I'd like to ask them why?
    
    You see, they were just like that kid that Drew wrote about...
    
    and they (he) didn't stop to think about the consequences...
    someone has to find the body,
    someone has to tell the parents,
    someone has to go on living without their laughter, their smile, their hugs, their voice....
    
    Its selfish as hell. Thats my opinion.
    
    My main points were supposed to be (and this is only my opinion, I'm not saying that I am right its just how I feel based on my own experiences - I'm not a psychiatrist):
    
    1. If a person feels suicidal because of something that happened, then suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem - a problem that won't even matter or most likely even be remembered 10 years from now.
    
    2. If a person has suicidal thoughts all the time, they aren't sad, they have clinical depression. Clinical depression is an illness, not an emotion, and it can kill you really fast if not treated by a doctor.
    
    They need a doctor. They need meds. It's not as easy as taking an aspirin, I know that but the anology was supposed to convey that depression is a medical condition that you treat like you would take insulin for diabetes or antibiotics for pneumonia.
    
    3. Suicides are contagious, so I personally don't want to see this person held up as a gay icon.
    
    Justy, you can disagree with me anytime about anything and I promise, no fights. **HUGS**
    
    
    • Re: I agree with u too Justin (NT) -- Josie, 09:09:16 12/09/01 Sun
    • hey its true. punx doesn't get mad at you if you disagree. Me and him argue all the time. So its cool. No worries, mates. (NT) -- Sprite, 12:01:02 12/09/01 Sun

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

Replies:

• LOL I'm the Jonny Carson of the board? "I did not know that, Ed did you know that?" LOL...So you tell me I'm damn hot (blush) and tell me to get some good sex in the same post...is that an offer? hehehe (NT) -- Drew Greyfox, 00:35:41 12/10/01 Mon

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

Replies:

• **HUGS** I'm sorry to hear about your Mother's death. If you want to talk - IM me or send me an e-mail. **HUGS** (NT) -- Lance, 17:31:00 12/12/01 Wed
• Sorry to hear about your Mom. Mine also died this year... makes for a great Christmas huh? Sometimes we don't always realize what we do to others..or just can't deal with it.... sigh.. motherhood is very hard. -- Kris, 17:57:31 12/12/01 Wed
  • Kris, I doubt your kid will need an analyst...if he does it'll be his own fault :P :) (NT) -- jalaki, 02:06:25 12/13/01 Thu
• {{{{{{{{{{Justin}}}}}}}}}}} (NT) -- Sergio, 18:33:58 12/12/01 Wed
• ;;;;;goes an sits wid justin;;;; (NT) -- jErEmY, 19:22:05 12/12/01 Wed
• I’m sorry to hear about your mother, Justin. *Hugs* (NT) -- Dano, 20:27:22 12/12/01 Wed
• *hugz for justin* (NT) -- Bester, 20:54:25 12/12/01 Wed
• *hugs for justy* talk to me on IM if you want *has an ear or two to listen* (NT) -- jalaki, 02:05:03 12/13/01 Thu
  • And he is good at listening! Thanks so much , Jalaki (NT) -- Kris, 07:51:17 12/13/01 Thu
• Re: *HUGS* Justin. (NT) -- Josie, 03:25:18 12/13/01 Thu
• ~hugs~ (NT) -- craigers, 15:49:16 12/13/01 Thu

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

Replies:

• I think this news about the SA shows they are already feeling some real pressure after the news about their backdoor deal with Bush and the recent benefits decision...they're lying to the public, trying to say that they do not disciminate cause they know public opinion is swaying towards equality...they want to talk the talk to get money, but they dont want to walk the walk (NT) -- Drew Greyfox, 19:51:52 12/13/01 Thu
• Ok...Voy does weird thing to quotation marks...anyhow, the headline that read Opposition to change the bill failed or something, thats about a gay rights law being passed through in Western Australia. (NT) -- Justin the Okie, 21:48:01 12/13/01 Thu