I think your post defines one of the differences...

...between you Brits and we Yanks. A few whack-jobs notwithstanding, if you were to even suggest a bill that would threaten jail time or deportation for simply visiting a goventment-proscribed website, ordering government-proscribed reading materilas, or publicly arguing that the govenrment needs to be overthrown, the vast majority of our populace here would rise up against it (even BeeP, I wot!). Yet, you proclaim that you're "[...] kind of sympathetic to the idea anyway." Perhaps your lack of a Bill of Rights has inured you from this sort of thing, but around here, them's fightin' words! Is it any accident that the most repressive regime in this country's history has yet to even dare to suggest such draconian measures?^[1] Is it any accident that the most conservative Supreme Court in over a century ruled 9-0 during the ~~Rove~~Bush "administration" that burning the flag was protected free speech? I think not!

Maybe I have my tinfoil hat on a little too tight today. but this shit is exactly what the Islamist fundamentalists (hell, any fundamentalists, including those of yours who call themselves Tories and those of ours who call themselves Republicans) want. This is a victory for them, and in effect validates their "ends justifies the means" philosophy on everything. When one of the great democracies remaining in the world stoops to this level, it's game over. They win. Period. Take your ball and bat and go home!

And I don't want them to win, dammit! Do you? (This is not a rhetorical question, based on the sentiments in your post....)

^[1]Yes, I know...the tinfoil hat part of me fully understands that this is quite possibly a ploy by the ~~Rove~~Bush "administration" to see how this plays in Peoria, and if the collective response is a heavy sigh followed by "Oh, well", then we might just see a similar measure floated here. (Which would of course lend the lie (again?) to the "considering foreign laws in the US" hew and cry when Souter and Kennedy did it....)

Post #217,737 by jb4 8/5/05 2:28:12 PM Reply	I think your post defines one of the differences... ...between you Brits and we Yanks. A few whack-jobs notwithstanding, if you were to even suggest a bill that would threaten jail time or deportation for simply visiting a goventment-proscribed website, ordering government-proscribed reading materilas, or publicly arguing that the govenrment needs to be overthrown, the vast majority of our populace here would rise up against it (even BeeP, I wot!). Yet, you proclaim that you're "[...] kind of sympathetic to the idea anyway." Perhaps your lack of a Bill of Rights has inured you from this sort of thing, but around here, them's fightin' words! Is it any accident that the most repressive regime in this country's history has yet to even dare to suggest such draconian measures?^[1] Is it any accident that the most conservative Supreme Court in over a century ruled 9-0 during the ~~Rove~~Bush "administration" that burning the flag was protected free speech? I think not! Maybe I have my tinfoil hat on a little too tight today. but this shit is exactly what the Islamist fundamentalists (hell, any fundamentalists, including those of yours who call themselves Tories and those of ours who call themselves Republicans) want. This is a victory for them, and in effect validates their "ends justifies the means" philosophy on everything. When one of the great democracies remaining in the world stoops to this level, it's game over. They win. Period. Take your ball and bat and go home! And I don't want them to win, dammit! Do you? (This is not a rhetorical question, based on the sentiments in your post....) ^[1]Yes, I know...the tinfoil hat part of me fully understands that this is quite possibly a ploy by the ~~Rove~~Bush "administration" to see how this plays in Peoria, and if the collective response is a heavy sigh followed by "Oh, well", then we might just see a similar measure floated here. (Which would of course lend the lie (again?) to the "considering foreign laws in the US" hew and cry when Souter and Kennedy did it....) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #217,779 by warmachine 8/5/05 5:25:53 PM Reply	Not quite The proposals are more to do with foreigners who are invovled with the web sites or books. Though you still have a point. Phrases such as "Agreements with other countries, such as Jordan, to ensure people can be deported to their nations of origin without being tortured or ill-treated" are yet more Labour spin. And when I see "consult on creating new powers to close places of worship used to foment extremism", I'm angry. This will make it worse. Get the moderates to kick them out on the pavement, like Abu Hamza. Fix the economic problems in Bradford, like fixing the Brixton riots. Not quite worthy of 'Run!' rant but too close. Maybe I ought to study Canada as a candidate plan. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #217,789 by boxley 8/5/05 5:55:10 PM Reply	Well if you ar white and nosy. canada might be good Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!