NationStates Jolt Archive

*I guess Ashcroft doesnt want american citizens to have the tools to resist govt theft of private property?

Justice Dept Orders Libraries to Destroy 5 Public Documents
The American Library Association is reporting that the Justice Department wants libraries to remove and destroy five public documents published by the government because the Bush administration has deemed the documents to be no longer be "appropriate for external use." Two of the documents are texts of federal statutes. The topics addressed in the documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation
www.democracynow.org

*I guess Ashcroft doesnt want american citizens to have the tools to resist govt theft of private property?

Justice Dept Orders Libraries to Destroy 5 Public Documents
The American Library Association is reporting that the Justice Department wants libraries to remove and destroy five public documents published by the government because the Bush administration has deemed the documents to be no longer be "appropriate for external use." Two of the documents are texts of federal statutes. The topics addressed in the documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation
www.democracynow.org


Could it possibly be, oh, that the statutes are outdated and a new printing is available?

It's not like he's Sandy "What Documents?" Berger.

Could it possibly be, oh, that the statutes are outdated and a new printing is available?

It's not like he's Sandy "What Documents?" Berger.

It's not like Sandy "What Documents?" Berger is Sandy "What Documents?" Berger. He was cleared of all allegations. This, of course, wasn't heavily covered because the whole point was character assasination.

Even if the statues are outdated, they are a matter of public record and there is no pivitol reason as to why they are now outside of that record.

Another thing from the uber-liberal democracy now.

I hope these documents are spread all over the internet by now.

:gundge:

*I guess Ashcroft doesnt want american citizens to have the tools to resist govt theft of private property?

Justice Dept Orders Libraries to Destroy 5 Public Documents
The American Library Association is reporting that the Justice Department wants libraries to remove and destroy five public documents published by the government because the Bush administration has deemed the documents to be no longer be "appropriate for external use." Two of the documents are texts of federal statutes. The topics addressed in the documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation
www.democracynow.org

Who's John Ashcroft? Don't you mean Herman Goering?

Could it possibly be, oh, that the statutes are outdated and a new printing is available?

First of all, why do you suddenly rush to defend this action with a completly fabricated theory? What's in it for you to assume that the government is a great big teddy bear -- do you really think it is a good idea to put implicit trust in these powerful few?

Second, does this scenario even make senes to you? Last week I read the original State Constitution for the Nation of Texas; by your logic it should have been destroyed when Texas joined the Union. Even if the documents are out of date, why would that warrent their destruction?

yet one more document down the memmory hole...

blah blah blah
more liberal lies
i hate bush
i hate the fact that i am going to have to live with Bush as US president for 4 more years
blah blah blah
www.democracynow.org


www.democracynow.org says it all....

www.democracynow.org says it all....

Let's make a bet: if this story isn't TRUE then I will make a 50$ contribution to George W. Bush and post the recipt on-line. If the story is true, then you have to send send 25$ to the ACLU and post your membership card on-line!

I've always hated Ashcroft.

I've always hated Ashcroft.

The people of Missouri hated Ashcroft so much, they voted a corpse into public office rather than him! :D

Let's make a bet: if this story is TRUE then I will make a 50$ contribution to George W. Bush and post the recipt on-line. If the story is false, then you have to send send 25$ to the ACLU and post your membership card on-line!
I'll wait until it is verified by an independant source.

Bush accepts Pay Pal, it will be the easiest way for you to pay

I'll wait until it is verified by an independant source.
Bush accepts Pay Pal, it will be the easiest way for you to pay

Do you accept the challenge of not? If yes, here's where your money will go:
http://www.aclu.com/

Do you accept the challenge of not? If yes, here's where your money will go:
http://www.aclu.com/
Why are you going to pay Bush if the story is true?

Do you accept the challenge of not? If yes, here's where your money will go:
http://www.aclu.com/
I would love to, but my unit and I leave on Monday to begin mobilization.

I would love to, but my unit and I leave on Monday to begin mobilization.

Stay safe, NA. I generally think you're an idiot, but don't prove me right by doing something silly like getting yourself killed.

Why are you going to pay Bush if the story is true?

I think the agreement was that if Democracy Now is correct then he pays the ACLU 25$ and if it's a lie then I pay Bush 50$: I accept (as it is my suggestion)

The ball is now in your court NA -- do you accept?

I think the agreement was that if Democracy Now is correct then he pays the ACLU 25$ and if it's a lie then I pay Bush 50$: I accept (as it is my suggestion)

The ball is now in your court NA -- do you accept?
if you can prove to me that those stories are true, and I can vaeify them from a source I trust by Monday, Im down for it.

and by the way, i think you're an idiot too :)

It's not like Sandy "What Documents?" Berger is Sandy "What Documents?" Berger. He was cleared of all allegations. This, of course, wasn't heavily covered because the whole point was character assasination.

Even if the statues are outdated, they are a matter of public record and there is no pivitol reason as to why they are now outside of that record.

He was cleared of allegations? I'd heard on the news for at least 3 or 4 days non-stop about how the Kerry advisor had done this and this and blah blah. Not a word on the news about him being cleared...and I watch CNN (or C-SPAN).

if you can prove to me that those stories are true, and I can vaeify them from a source I trust by Monday, Im down for it.

Then prepare to pull out your credit-card:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41220-2004Aug4.html

and by the way, i think you're an idiot too :)

I'm not the one that enlisted.

can you give me a differant link?

i am not going to register at WP.com

He was cleared of allegations? I'd heard on the news for at least 3 or 4 days non-stop about how the Kerry advisor had done this and this and blah blah. Not a word on the news about him being cleared...and I watch CNN (or C-SPAN).

As far as I know, it only ran in a limited release. Incertonia brought it to the board's attention. I think this is the link he gave.

http://www.kyw1060.com/news_archives_detail.cfm?newsitemid=39459

The issue remains in debate, however, because Berger is still alleged to have "accidentally" removed copies of the documents in question. So, while nothing is missing from the National Archives, the investigation is continuing.

The ACLU huh?.. arent they supposed to fight for someone's freedom of speech?

A student contributer to the University of Oregon's student newspaper wrote an editorial where he wrote about the black communities appearant willingness to choose poor role models. He was censured and fired from his job at the newspaper. The ACLU refused to look into this case because "well, he's white."

The ACLU huh?.. arent they supposed to fight for someone's freedom of speech?

A student contributer to the University of Oregon's student newspaper wrote an editorial where he wrote about the black communities appearant willingness to choose poor role models. He was censured and fired from his job at the newspaper. The ACLU refused to look into this case because "well, he's white."

Cite, please?

can you give me a differant link?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/24/libraries_ordered_to_destroy_us_pamphlets/


i am not going to register at WP.com [/QUOTE]

Is the form too hard to fill out for ya? Here, you can read the first paragraph here: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=justice+department+withdraw+destroy+five&btnG=Search+News

Don't forget to send you 25$ here: www.aclu.com

I would love to, but my unit and I leave on Monday to begin mobilization.

never forget what you're fighting for: http://www.nyse.com/marketinfo/p1020656068262.html?displayPage=http%3A//www.nyse.com/cgi-bin/ny_quote%3Fsym%3DHAL

you know something, i almost thought I was going to have to give the ACLU $25 of my money.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=news&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=72299

I guess not.

WASHINGTON, DC - The American Library Association (ALA) today welcomed the Department of Justice's decision to rescind its request that the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of five Department of Justice publications addressing forfeiture.

you know something, i almost thought I was going to have to give the ACLU $25 of my money.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=news&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=72299

I guess not.

WASHINGTON, DC - The American Library Association (ALA) today welcomed the Department of Justice's decision to rescind its request that the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of five Department of Justice publications addressing forfeiture.


okay... I hate to break it to you, but in order for the Justice Department to "rescind its request" it first has to make that "request."

So, when the news broke that the Justice Department was ordering "libraries to destroy all copies of five Department of Justice publications addressing forfeiture" it was true... now, the breaking story is that the Justice Department has flip-flopped on its decision -- but never-the-less, that does not change the fact that the Department DID order libraries to destroy the five documents...

the message that started this thread was posted AFTER the DOJ had rescind its request, so the original message was not true at the time it was posted.

the message that started this thread was posted AFTER the DOJ had rescind its request, so the original message was not true at the time it was posted.

and the battle of New Orleans occured after the War of 1812 had ended -- that doesn't mean it didn't happen!

Is the problem that you don't have the money?

the message that started this thread was posted AFTER the DOJ had rescind its request, so the original message was not true at the time it was posted.

It was true when it was posted and it is true now... the fact that the Department of Justice did order Libraries to destroy five documents is undeniable... rescinding an order does not change the fact that it was made!

and the battle of New Orleans occured after the War of 1812 had ended -- that doesn't mean it didn't happen!

Is the problem that you don't have the money?

The money isn't a problem. The problem I have with the message that was posted less than 8 hours ago is the fact that it says:

The American Library Association is reporting that the Justice Department wants libraries to remove and destroy five public documents published by the government because the Bush administration has deemed the documents to be no longer be "appropriate for external use." Two of the documents are texts of federal statutes.

When the message was posted, the DOJ was not currently requesting that libraries remove and destroy the documents.

I could say that the Atlanta Journal is advertising a slave auction. But since that whole 13th amendment thing was passed, it kind of makes a newspaper article from 1860 a little out-dated. The same applies to the copy and paste job off of democracynow.org

The correct way the original message should have been worded is:

The American Library Association reported that the Justice Department wanted libraries to remove and destroy five public documents published by the government because the Bush administration has deemed the documents to be no longer be "appropriate for external use." Two of the documents were texts of federal statutes.

so you don't want to swallow your pride and admit that you never thought that John Ashcroft would really order the destruction of library materials...

you didn't want to believe it and you had the knee-jerk reaction to say the story was fabricated, because you knew deep down inside that if such a thing were true, then all of the other things you didn't want to believe might hold some truth after all.

You saw the post and said to yourself, this is false and if it were true surely I would have seen it on the News -- what with its liberal bias an all.

But no, here in reality the story of BIG BROTHER John doesn't appear on the News until reversed his decission -- if it had not been, then you probably wouldn't have ever believed it because no one would have covered it.

think about it...

so you don't want to swallow your pride and admit that you never thought that John Ashcroft would really order the destruction of library materials...

you didn't want to believe it and you had the knee-jerk reaction to say the story was fabricated, because you knew deep down inside that if such a thing were true, then all of the other things you didn't want to believe might hold some truth after all.

You saw the post and said to yourself, this is false and if it were true surely I would have seen it on the News -- what with its liberal bias an all.

But no, here in reality the story of BIG BROTHER John doesn't appear on the News until reversed his decission -- if it had not been, then you probably wouldn't have ever believed it because no one would have covered it.

think about it...
The point is, when the message was posted, the DOJ was not reqesting that the documents be destroyed, therefore the message posted was wrong. MKULTRA passed bad information to the people of Nationstates in the same way Bush passed bad information onto the American people and to congress. MKULTRA forgot to give us the rest of the story, including the little detail about the request being withdrawn.

The message MKULTRA posted did not include the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Interesting thing is that I can't find any major press pieces covering the DOJ's requested book burning -- only ones about their "change of heart."

I wonder why the 'liberal' media didn't jump on that... I wonder...




Here's a glimpse of the future of America: http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/dnc_photos2.htm

Here's a glimpse of the future of America: http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/dnc_photos2.htm

Men with sticks and strange-looking gun things standing around looking a bit bored is the future of America?

I'm as sick of MKULTRA only using one source with no analysis as anyone, but can someone explain to me why Democracy Now are considered unreliable. As a non American I don't know enough to judge. They're obviously biased (like all media in some way or another) but what evidence do people have of them actively lying?

OK... let's try it this way:

Justice Dept Orders Libraries to Destroy 5 Public Documents

The American Library Association is reporting that the Justice Department wants libraries to remove and destroy five public documents published by the government because the Bush administration has deemed the documents to be no longer be "appropriate for external use." Two of the documents are texts of federal statutes. The topics addressed in the documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation
www.democracynow.org

Might I suggest that at the time this was written it was true? Does anybody deny that? Well there is the fact that at the time it was posted, it was only true in the past tense. Does this make it a false news story, or merely a late one?

Well, MKULTRA, this certainly does provide evidence of democracy.now's lack of journalistic objectivity and professionalism. Their story was datelined on 4 august 2004 and the A.L.A.'s story was datelined on 2 august 2004. They obviously failed to make sure that their story was up-to-date before they published it.

Texastanbul it was you who worded the bet. Take some advice: don't bet real money on anything that you can easily verify or refute, especially if it involves paying to the RNC.

Finally, New Auburnland, get real please. When a news story states that someone "is reporting" something, you can hardly expect it to be a statement of present tense actions. If this is the basis of your claim, it is cheap sophistry and proves nothing. We have no reason to believe that it was no longer current whenever the writer first started to write it.

If a man bit a dog and the next day's newpaper carried the story with a headline reading "Man Bites Dog", would it be a false story because it was no longer happening at the time? Take a journalism course and find this out: journalistic grammer follows different rules.



I suggest you both forget it. There are ways of looking at it to go either way. Auburnland your argument is as I have said cheap sophistry, while Texastambul, your source was outdated before publication. It was both true and untrue... true under journalistic grammer and true because it did happen, and untrue because the A.L.A. had publicized an update prior to its posting. Please drop it, both of you.



BTW for TheOneRule: when has the A.C.L.U. ever taken a case for wrongful firing of a journalist, Black, White or otherwise? I would be willing to believe they have if you can provide me with an objective link.

Good gosh.... you mean to tell me that Ashcroft is flip-flopper too?


At this rate pretty soon people are gonna start saying that he "looks French".......


:D

I'm as sick of MKULTRA only using one source with no analysis as anyone, but can someone explain to me why Democracy Now are considered unreliable. As a non American I don't know enough to judge. They're obviously biased (like all media in some way or another) but what evidence do people have of them actively lying?
theres no evidence of it thats why I use them--theyre always ahead of the curve and they may put their own spin on a story but the storys themselfs are never false and they also report alot of things the corporate media isnt allowed to go near

OK... let's try it this way:



Might I suggest that at the time this was written it was true? Does anybody deny that? Well there is the fact that at the time it was posted, it was only true in the past tense. Does this make it a false news story, or merely a late one?

Well, MKULTRA, this certainly does provide evidence of democracy.now's lack of journalistic objectivity and professionalism. Their story was datelined on 4 august 2004 and the A.L.A.'s story was datelined on 2 august 2004. They obviously failed to make sure that their story was up-to-date before they published it.

Texastanbul it was you who worded the bet. Take some advice: don't bet real money on anything that you can easily verify or refute, especially if it involves paying to the RNC.

Finally, New Auburnland, get real please. When a news story states that someone "is reporting" something, you can hardly expect it to be a statement of present tense actions. If this is the basis of your claim, it is cheap sophistry and proves nothing. We have no reason to believe that it was no longer current whenever the writer first started to write it.

If a man bit a dog and the next day's newpaper carried the story with a headline reading "Man Bites Dog", would it be a false story because it was no longer happening at the time? Take a journalism course and find this out: journalistic grammer follows different rules.



I suggest you both forget it. There are ways of looking at it to go either way. Auburnland your argument is as I have said cheap sophistry, while Texastambul, your source was outdated before publication. It was both true and untrue... true under journalistic grammer and true because it did happen, and untrue because the A.L.A. had publicized an update prior to its posting. Please drop it, both of you.



BTW for TheOneRule: when has the A.C.L.U. ever taken a case for wrongful firing of a journalist, Black, White or otherwise? I would be willing to believe they have if you can provide me with an objective link.
this story was on democracynow today Dru:

Justice Dept Rescinds Order to Destroy Docs
After protests from the American Librarian Association, the Justice Department has rescinded a request that libraries destroy five public documents including the text of two federal statutes. Topics addressed in the documents includes information on how citizens can retrieve items confiscated during government investigations. Justice Department officials said Tuesday the documents had been mistakenly distributed but did not contain sensitive information requiring removal from the library system.

I know that...

5 july 2004 : democracy.now publishes story of Ashcroft's recindment of order;

4 july 2004 : democracy.now publishes story of Ashcroft's initiation of order;

2 july 2004 : A.L.A. publishes story of Ashecroft's recindment of order.

...better late than never?

I know that...

5 july 2004 : democracy.now publishes story of Ashcroft's recindment of order;

4 july 2004 : democracy.now publishes story of Ashcroft's initiation of order;

2 july 2004 : A.L.A. publishes story of Ashecroft's recindment of order.

...better late than never?


uh... I think its august... unless the amount of alcohol I've consumed this month has slowed the flow of time...

Well, MKULTRA, this certainly does provide evidence of democracy.now's lack of journalistic objectivity and professionalism. Their story was datelined on 4 august 2004 and the A.L.A.'s story was datelined on 2 august 2004. They obviously failed to make sure that their story was up-to-date before they published it.

Oh come-on... It's not like they just made up the news, I mean, they're not the New York Post ( Kerry picks Gephart )

Texastanbul it was you who worded the bet. Take some advice: don't bet real money on anything that you can easily verify or refute, especially if it involves paying to the RNC.

That's Texastambul -- with an "m." Besides, I already knew the story was true and could be verified by the Washington Post...

New Auburnland has been:

http://www.t.halobrigade.com/pictures/owned!!!111!.jpg

OH MY!!!

New Auburnland has been:

http://www.t.halobrigade.com/pictures/owned!!!111!.jpg

OH MY!!!
LOL-- was he an altar boy? :eek:

The people of Missouri hated Ashcroft so much, they voted a corpse into public office rather than him! :D
I was going to say that.

uh... I think its august... unless the amount of alcohol I've consumed this month has slowed the flow of time...

Indeed you are correct sir... hey I'm still writing "b.c.e." on my checks ;)