Conservatives control Congress, and have the president.

Conservative ideologies hold that the government should butt out, and allow the states to govern themselves (let me do what I want, if I don't hurt anyone doing it). Right?

Why are the conservatives pushing free speech out the window, in the name of 'decency'?
Why are the conservatives turning homosexuals into second class citizens?

Funny how they'll fight to the death for the right to hold a gun, but won't think twice about taking others' freedoms away.

(No, I'm not against the right to own a gun).

Do you mean true conservatives, or Bush conservatives?

I've nothing wrong with true conservatives. I have a problem with gung-ho Christian right-wingers who want to govern what I can and can't do with my life.

So, you support the government governing individuals private life?

What is harming society?

Is Howard Stern harming society?

Are homosexuals harming society (and since I know your answer, are they harming society any more than unmarried parents)?

Why should the FCC govern public airwaves in the manner they see fit?

And a potential fine of $3 million dollars a day ($500,000 a fine, maximum $3 mil a day) is censorship .

How are homosexuals trying to destroy marriage?

And when did marriage become this holy sacrament? We've been crapping on marriage every year, with divorce rates approaching 50%.

Do you support banning divorce, or severely limiting it?

And the government owns the airwaves... sounds socialistic.

Not exactly true. REPUBLICANS control Congress and the Presidency. The overlap between the GOP and conservatism is imperfect.

What free speech are you referring to?

Really? What rights that homosexuals already had are now being removed?

If you're referring to the FMA, that isn't an issue of taking away rights (there weren't any to begin with). It's a matter of stopping a handful of activist judges from redefining marriage for the entire country.

Not nearly enough.

Reasonable people can debate this issue, and eventually democracy can produce a consensus that all can live with.

The problem is that democracy isn't being allowed to prevail. Activist judges are forcing a radical redefinition of marriage, and unleashing a potential slippery slope, WITHOUT public approval or buy-in. The matter isn't getting decided by democracy, with all its necessary public debate and consensus-building. The matter is being decided for the entire nation by slim majorities of 7 judge courts.

Anyone see about how they're saying that the one person was an Iraqi spy, although they're just claiming that they've been trying hard to keep peace and get weapon inspectors into Iraq, not to mention been supporting anti-war sentiments?

Of course...this is kind of like how they've been looking into those people who went to an anti-war thingy..one of them group thingies..yup.

And the courts' job is to uphold the constitution, despite what popular support was.

You know, the majority used to support slavery. Was that 'right'?

And 'activist judges' declared segregation unconstitutional.

Except that gay marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Non sequitur.

Non sequitur. This is not a constitutional issue. Further, your example is ludicrously reversed. Southern politicians were obstructing desegregation. The activist judges were seeking to have the existing laws upheld, NOT create new law.

Activist judges are a positive ONLY when a) they are clearly and inarguably doing the right thing and b) voters and legislators are obstructing the debate and this is the only way to get action.

But neither is the case. You can't say that gay marriage advocates have raised a legislative issue and been denied. Indeed, they are the ones bypassing democracy. They are the ones using the courts to circumvent public debate.

Judicial activism is a LAST resort, when a clear and inarguable injustice exists, when there is clear Constitutional basis, and when all other mechanisms of democracy have failed. It is a penny in the fusebox. It is the clear abrogation of democracy, the substituting of a judge's opinion for everyone else's.

It is certainly not a FIRST resort, when democracy is still available and untried, as in this case.

Allegedly attempting to help the Iraqi by influencing the policies of America in reference to Iraq, JLB.

And I think it's kind of hilarious how, yet again, they're targetting someone who has just wanted to advocate peace as well as stability, not to mention hasn't demonstrated anything more than a wish to maintain solidity between countries.

But anywho...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



NEW YORK (AP) -- An American woman was arrested Thursday on charges that she acted as an Iraqi spy before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, accepting $10,000 for her work, prosecutors said Thursday.

Susan Lindauer, 41, was arrested in her hometown of Takoma Park, Maryland, and was to appear in court later in the day in Baltimore, authorities in New York said.

She was accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and with engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.

According to an indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Lindauer made multiple visits from October 1999 through March 2002 to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in New York.

There, she met with several members of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the foreign intelligence arm of the Iraqi government that allegedly has played a role in terrorist operations, including an attempted assassination of former President George H.W. Bush, the indictment alleged.

The government said she accepted payments from the Iraqis for her services and expenses amounting to a total of $10,000, including $5,000 she received during a trip to Baghdad in February and March 2002, where she allegedly met with Iraqi intelligence officers.

Her acceptance of the money and her willingness to bring it home from Iraq violated a law prohibiting transactions with a government that sponsors international terrorism, the government said. The indictment did not specify a motive.

The charges against Lindauer were included in an expanded indictment in the case against Raed Rokan Al-Anbuge, 28, and Wisam Noman Al-Anbuke, the sons of Iraq's former liaison with United Nations weapons inspectors.

The brothers were charged last year with acting as Iraqi government agents and conspiring to do so, prosecutors said. The indictment said Lindauer conspired with the brothers.

On January 8, 2003, prosecutors said, Lindauer tried to influence U.S. foreign policy by delivering to the home of a U.S. government official a letter in which she conveyed her access to and contacts with members of Saddam's regime. The official was not identified in the indictment.

The United States invaded Iraq last March, and the government fell the following month.

The indictment said Lindauer met on two occasions in Baltimore in June and July with an undercover FBI agent who posed as a Libyan intelligence representative who was seeking to support resistance groups in postwar Iraq. It said she discussed the need for plans and foreign resources to support these groups.

According to the indictment, she continued to correspond with the undercover agent until last month and followed the agent's instructions to leave packages on two occasions in August in "dead drop" operations.

Lindauer, who has not yet been assigned a defense lawyer, faces up to 10 years in prison on the most serious charge and five years on the lesser charge if she is convicted, prosecutors said.

She was paid for lodging and living expenses while basically on the job.

If that's "being paid off" then hot dang so many people have been paid off