Dominic:

Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS

And Lyndon Johnson said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't going to send American boys to do what Asian boys ought to be doing; and Richard Nixon said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't a crook; and Ronald Reagan said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he didn't recall what was done in his own administration; and Bill Clinton said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he did not have sex with that woman.

Deeds count for more than words, and questioning Democrats' patriotism -- implicitly confusing patriotism with warmongering -- is an old Republican tactic that, of course, cannot be openly acknowledged.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.

You can get away with lying that openly and blatantly only because you aren't running for office yourself. Actual Republican politicians are more subtle.

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.

Dominic:

Chambliss specifically said IN AN AD that he wasn't questioning Cleland's patriotism, IN SO MANY WORDS

And Lyndon Johnson said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't going to send American boys to do what Asian boys ought to be doing; and Richard Nixon said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he wasn't a crook; and Ronald Reagan said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he didn't recall what was done in his own administration; and Bill Clinton said, IN SO MANY WORDS, that he did not have sex with that woman.

Deeds count for more than words, and questioning Democrats' patriotism -- implicitly confusing patriotism with warmongering -- is an old Republican tactic that, of course, cannot be openly acknowledged.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism. I state, flat out, that they have none. No "question" about it.

You can get away with lying that openly and blatantly only because you aren't running for office yourself. Actual Republican politicians are more subtle.

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.

Actually, what it says is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Doesn't say anything about being at war, but it does mention "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving "aid (and comfort)". I would say that travelling to a foreign shore against the instructions of our government and allowing the inhabitants (with whom we have had extended military conflict for 12 years) to film and record propaganda of your visit is "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving them "aid". At the least it's a debatable subject.

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.

Actually, what it says is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Doesn't say anything about being at war, but it does mention "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving "aid (and comfort)". I would say that travelling to a foreign shore against the instructions of our government and allowing the inhabitants (with whom we have had extended military conflict for 12 years) to film and record propaganda of your visit is "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving them "aid". At the least it's a debatable subject.

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Regarding the question of treason, I think it's valuable to note that this is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. Treason, according to that document, consists of making war upon the United States, or, in wartime, taking the side of the enemy, to give him "aid and comfort." As we are not at war with Iraq at present, no support of Iraq can be treasonous.

Actually, what it says is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Doesn't say anything about being at war, but it does mention "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving "aid (and comfort)". I would say that travelling to a foreign shore against the instructions of our government and allowing the inhabitants (with whom we have had extended military conflict for 12 years) to film and record propaganda of your visit is "adhering to (our) Enemies" and giving them "aid". At the least it's a debatable subject.

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Number 2: "F*&buddies" in this context = close friends, business associates and acquantainces to whom one holds (an unholy) allegiance.

Alex: If you survive the Crisis and live to be my age, you may be surprised to learn that you have a few irrational-sounding impulses yourself. Meanwhile, listen and learn, kid :-).

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Number 2: "F*&buddies" in this context = close friends, business associates and acquantainces to whom one holds (an unholy) allegiance.

Alex: If you survive the Crisis and live to be my age, you may be surprised to learn that you have a few irrational-sounding impulses yourself. Meanwhile, listen and learn, kid :-).

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Fuckin'-A told!!!

He won't, of course. How silly of you even to suggest it! After all, keeping his oil company CEO fuckbuddies in business is far, far important than avenging 3000 American lives already lost, and preventing the deaths of uncounted millions to come.

Besides, the woman-enslaving Saudis are our "friends"!!!

"Fuckbuddies"? Nice choice of language. Maybe that's why I hate posts like this one so much. The profane language makes it appear irrational.

Who really cares about the words? What matters more is the content - and what word would you use for "fuckbuddies"? Enlighten me here...

Number 2: "F*&buddies" in this context = close friends, business associates and acquantainces to whom one holds (an unholy) allegiance.

Alex: If you survive the Crisis and live to be my age, you may be surprised to learn that you have a few irrational-sounding impulses yourself. Meanwhile, listen and learn, kid :-).

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.

I stand corrected. Let's dig 'em up and retry them.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.

I stand corrected. Let's dig 'em up and retry them.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Lest you should revert to your earlier comments regarding being at war, recall that the Rosenburgs are quite dead, yet we were never at war with the Soviet Union.

They were tried, convicted and executed on the charge of espionage and not treason.

I stand corrected. Let's dig 'em up and retry them.

Chris:

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

The Rosenbergs were not guilty of treason, because the Soviet Union was not an enemy. (Ever.) Had they provided their stolen information to Germany or Japan, that would have been treason.

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Chris:

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

The Rosenbergs were not guilty of treason, because the Soviet Union was not an enemy. (Ever.) Had they provided their stolen information to Germany or Japan, that would have been treason.

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Chris:

Unless we are at war, we do not have any "enemies." That is a word with a very specific meaning. Depending on how one interprets the declaration of war clause in Article I, Section 8, our last "enemy" was either the Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Imperial Japan.

The Rosenbergs were not guilty of treason, because the Soviet Union was not an enemy. (Ever.) Had they provided their stolen information to Germany or Japan, that would have been treason.

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States.... Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

you go, dawg!

i don't really agree with what mcdermott et al. did, but i will defend to the death (or at least until i begin to chafe at the obtuse dullness of it all, at which point i'll just throw my hands up and say "whatever") their right to do it.


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States.... Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

you go, dawg!

i don't really agree with what mcdermott et al. did, but i will defend to the death (or at least until i begin to chafe at the obtuse dullness of it all, at which point i'll just throw my hands up and say "whatever") their right to do it.


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States.... Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

you go, dawg!

i don't really agree with what mcdermott et al. did, but i will defend to the death (or at least until i begin to chafe at the obtuse dullness of it all, at which point i'll just throw my hands up and say "whatever") their right to do it.


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Yes! Thank you for posting sense. Even if we do not agree with what McDermott et. al. say or do, we need to recognize that such loyal dissent can slow us down and keep us from making massive errors. Even if we do ultimately go to war with Iraq, we would at least be doing so with a clearer purpose if dissent is listened to and thought about.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The very reason why treason was defined so strictly in the Constitution is because it is an easily-abused charge. And you propose to abuse it in classic form, by confusing dissent from current administration policy with betrayal of one's country. The Bush administration is NOT the United States. Like all elected (or selected) presidencies, it is a caretaker of the nation's government, provisionally in place and subject to review and dispute. Your interpretation of the concept of treason, to apply to dissent such as that of McDermott, is anathema to any reasonable ideal of freedom.

Yes! Thank you for posting sense. Even if we do not agree with what McDermott et. al. say or do, we need to recognize that such loyal dissent can slow us down and keep us from making massive errors. Even if we do ultimately go to war with Iraq, we would at least be doing so with a clearer purpose if dissent is listened to and thought about.