The New Treason

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dsanthony You lost the election and are now trying to circumvent the constitution.

I guess G. Adams is SO upset about losing the election he feels justified in circumventing the Constitution.

G. Adams is British, genius.

Quote by: dsanthony They are not custodians of the constitution.

As for THAT little bit of wisdumb, does it or does it not specifically say "uphold the Constitution" in the oath of office?

You're not really an American, are you?

[Clarence]

Quote by: dsanthony They are not custodians of the constitution. They are the elected representatives of the people... You cannot be loyal to the democracy and disloyal to the government.

1.)You are not capable of debate. You have some questions to answer from other posters, here.

2.)you are the very enemy that America and democracy faces at this time. You do not appreciate that you live on the fruits of dissent and the subsequent freedoms. You will even go as far as to say that our elected representatives are not responsible for upholding our constitution. If I were more like you, I would hope for your prosecution as an enemy of this country. How dare you treat the ideals that made your life so pleasant with such contempt? The freedoms people have fought and died for mean nothing to you, and that puts this patriot in something close to rage. Someone should pull down your diaper and smack your little hiney.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Scribbler1 As for THAT little bit of wisdumb, does it or does it not specifically say "uphold the Constitution" in the oath of office?

*devil's advocate* Since when does what it says on paper mean how it is in reality?

In anything. Not just this debate.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: dsanthony That is more liberal doublespeak. They are not custodians of the constitution. They are the elected representatives of the people. They were elected by a majority of the people. You cannot be loyal to the democracy and disloyal to the government. You lost the election and are now trying to circumvent the constitution.

Upon taking office, they swear to uphold the constitution. If they fail to do so, and undermine or directly attack the constitution, then they are committing treason. Those who allow them to get away with such actions, such as those who defend what they know is an attack on the constitution, are the enemies of liberty.

You are the enemy of everything of America was built upon, and would turn her into nothing better than a wealthy Soviet Union.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 *devil's advocate* Since when does what it says on paper mean how it is in reality? In anything. Not just this debate.

I see your point. However, the "reality" we are talking about is the corruption of the government by those within it and allowed by those too apathetic to DO anything about it. Reality is what it has been allowed to become which doesn't translate to how it SHOULD be. What is on paper, and which is conveniently ignored (or not understood) by people like dsanthony is what the designers meant it SHOULD be.

Anyway, these people in government who profess to be Christians should pay attention to that oath. After swearing to uphold the Constitution they end it all by saying "so help me God" and that sort of makes it a promise.

And on paper vs. in reality regarding anything else simply means there is a difference and one of them is wrong.
But in this case the paper is the Constitution of the United States and those who swear to uphold it and then ignore it are true traitors. It is a simple thing to admit the Constitution is no good and change it if it is is truly an outmoded document. Why then do the politicians still swear to it instead of admit it should go?

[Jack]

Some thoughts on this topic from a true conservative, Andrew Sullivan:

...The lesson is that even in times of war America is run, not by a president, but by a constitution. The president is not an old-style monarch, empowered in wartime to make up rules as he goes along to defend his subjects. He is not the law. He must obey the law, as all citizens must. And in a series of actions and decisions after 9/11, President George W Bush in effect broke the law, violated his oath of office and pushed the limits of his power beyond the permissible. Not for the first time, in other words, a King George has been dethroned in America. This time, though, it wasn’t the British monarch but a president who had almost come to regard himself as a king in a war with no end. The rebels were not a crew of colonial tax-avoiders, but the Supreme Court set up more than two centuries ago by the first independent Americans... America is not in essence a geographical entity. When it was founded, it occupied a fraction of the land it now does. Nor is it defined by an ethnic group or a royal line. Its core is essentially a piece of paper, a written constitution, a formal set of procedures designed, before everything else, to protect individual liberty. At the heart of that liberty is the right to a fair trial and the insistence that nobody — especially not the president — can take that away. That constitution has been tested before. It was tested when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the civil war. It was tested when Franklin D Roosevelt interned thousands of Japanese-American citizens in camps during the second world war. It was tested when Richard Nixon turned the presidency into a criminal conspiracy in Watergate. There was never any doubt that the war launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, would test it too. Wars do that, as Lincoln and Roosevelt demonstrate. No war by foreign enemies has implicated the American homeland as profoundly as this one. But the constitution also insists that any emergency powers be temporary, that Congress alone can declare war and regulate the laws of warfare, and that the president’s first task is to protect the constitution, not violate it. He does not have, as this president argued, one “accountability moment” every four years. He is continually accountable to a constitution applicable to everyone. After 9/11, this president and his closest advisers decided otherwise. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld believed presidential power was overly shackled after Nixon. They saw in 9/11 a golden opportunity to get it back. Yes, they seized emergency powers. But they seized them while claiming they had no need for congressional permission. The president, they claimed, was empowered to be judge, jury and executioner in wartime. Neither Congress nor courts could stop him from his duty to defend Americans. If that meant tearing up the Geneva conventions, violating the constitution, breaking domestic law, setting up ad hoc courts and enforcing torture, so be it. After 9/11, few dissented... The conservative intelligentsia in America have also shifted dramatically from a conservatism that protects the individual from government towards a conservatism that wants to impose democracy abroad and enforce morality at home. These new conservatives are contemptuous of constitutional propriety and limited government. They believe in results, rather than following careful procedures. They will not relent after one court decision. What will ultimately decide this battle for the soul of America will be the people who elect their own representatives to check the president. The court is as evenly balanced as it has ever been. American constitutional democracy is only marginally more secure this Sunday than last. Can democracies fight long — let alone open-ended — wars without ceasing to be democracies? Can we fight barbarians without becoming like them? This has always been an open question, but rarely as open as today. The enemy knows no moral boundaries and no checks on its power. The West is defined by both. What we saw last week was the moment when the most powerful democracy asked itself if it could fight terror and retain its soul. The answer was yes. But the question will come again. Maybe sooner than we think.

Source
In the summer of 2000, Sullivan became one of the first mainstream journalists to experiment with blogging, and soon developed a large online readership with andrewsullivan.com's Daily Dish. In January 2006, Sullivan took his blog to Time.com's home-page where he now writes daily. Sullivan has spoken at many universities and colleges, including Harvard, Yale, Boston University, Boston College, Northwestern, the University of Washington in Seattle, the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Emory, the University of Michigan, the University of Texas at Austin, Oxford University, and Milton Academy. He has appeared on over 100 radio shows across the United States, as well as on Nightline, Face The Nation, Meet The Press, Crossfire, Hardball, The O'Reilly Factor, The Larry King Show, Reliable Sources, Hannity and Colmes, and many others. He remains a senior editor at the New Republic and his forthcoming book, "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How To Get It Back," will be published by Harper Collins in the fall of 2006.

[Osborn F Enready]

This is a joke, right?

The new treason is the Republican/Democrat, "bi-partisan" single party corporatism.

Neither major party acknowledges the Constitutions limitations on their positions, and neither has respect for the document, except as a crutch when they can blur the truth enough to make it "appear" as though they are doing something "legally".

dsanthony, to me, you seem like you are the enemy of the United States, simply by taking the position you do, using the feeble, hole-strewn argument you have laid out.

Do you also think all those people that clap at the televised speeches are "random" people? LOL

[underbear1]

Here's a novel idea for those government officials who swear allegiance to our constitution, if they at some point after being elected go against any principal of the Constitution they will either resign or give up their lives. If they want young men and women to give their lives or resign their military careers to provide the muscle to carry out their directives, then we should expect these government officials take their vow as seriously.

[Clarence]

Gone. This guy is little more than a spammer. THis is why I think we should take this show on the road. There are plenty of forums that could use Voconvo's spectrum of wisdom. Just think, this kind of rhetoric (this thread topic) is common if not dominant in the US. There's nobody hopping the net, like these neo-cons, in teams and defending eachother. Giving alternate views and exposing these cats for what they really are. A coordinated, respectful, and diverse campaign. nothing like what I said to this asshat...until the right moment. I don't know. It could be figured out.

[dsanthony]

Quote by: Clarence Gone. This guy is little more than a spammer. THis is why I think we should take this show on the road. There are plenty of forums that could use Voconvo's spectrum of wisdom. Just think, this kind of rhetoric (this thread topic) is common if not dominant in the US. There's nobody hopping the net, like these neo-cons, in teams and defending eachother. Giving alternate views and exposing these cats for what they really are. A coordinated, respectful, and diverse campaign. nothing like what I said to this asshat...until the right moment. I don't know. It could be figured out.

No, not gone. Waiting for an intelligent post to respond to. The invective and hysteria of the posts I read are nonsensical. Libs have for years said that anyone who disagrees with them is, by (their) definition, automatically a nazi or a racist. I'm not rising to the bait. I laid out specifically the actions which amount to treason. "Dissent" was not among them... though I would say that protesting a war while we have troops on the ground IS anti-american. It doesn't rise to the level of treason though...

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Scribbler I see your point. However, the "reality" we are talking about is the corruption of the government by those within it and allowed by those too apathetic to DO anything about it. Reality is what it has been allowed to become which doesn't translate to how it SHOULD be. What is on paper, and which is conveniently ignored (or not understood) by people like dsanthony is what the designers meant it SHOULD be.

Apathy is kind of a strong term in that it implies you have the ability to do something and choose not to. This is more a realization that the entire system is corrupt and that both sides combat said corruption with other corruption.

It's nice and well to wish for a world without corrupt politicians who lie about everything but it's just about as helpful as wishing for a world where there is no disease or illness.

EDIT: Forgot to add who I was quoting before. My bad.

[Clarence]

Quote by: dsanthony No, not gone. Waiting for an intelligent post to respond to. The invective and hysteria of the posts I read are nonsensical. Libs have for years said that anyone who disagrees with them is, by (their) definition, automatically a nazi or a racist. I'm not rising to the bait. I laid out specifically the actions which amount to treason. "Dissent" was not among them... though I would say that protesting a war while we have troops on the ground IS anti-american. It doesn't rise to the level of treason though...

There's plenty to reply to. For one, I'm not a lib. Maybe you could classify me as a new sort of redneck liberal. I'm a registered republican thankyou. I appreciate that you consider my post intelligent enough to respond to. However; I'm the only one not trying to debate you just belittle you in return for your lack of respect for america's ideals. I have a feeling you got nothing and are a chikenshit to boot. See? unbacked claims don't belong in a debate forum. Don't paint with such large brushes. It really gives a nasty stench and reveals your obvious lack of intelligence/insight.

To straighten things out. I consider you an imperialist not a nazi. The only one baiting here is you and now me. The rest of the responses are bites to your bait. You don't have a sound bite to regurgitate so you avoid the questions. pussy. typical for your kind. It's comforting to know that my enemies are weak souls even if they have us patriots in a spot, currently

I can tell debating is not your speed. I don't like debating either, personally. I just chime in when my services are needed. So go on say something...anything. It's o.k. You don't have to use big words or even links to debate if you try. Don't let these blowhards scare you away. If you believe what you say, you should have a response for each and every one of them. But, right now the ball's in your court. You went and accused me and others of being unamerican. So back it up. I'll start with a question you can answer specifically.

The war on terror is a war which, by definition, could never end. So, in your opinion, when is the appropriate time to protest the handling of said war?

[bishop]

Quote by: dsanthony No, not gone. Waiting for an intelligent post to respond to. The invective and hysteria of the posts I read are nonsensical.

you keep thinking that mindless nonsense buddy... i, unfortunately, voted for bush in 2000, and i've regretted that decision for the past 6 years. he's the shittiest president we ever had, and i have no problem admitting it - and i hardly consider my self a traitor for doing so.. he sucks, period, and our country's going to live with all his fuckups for many years to come. it's unfortunate that you're incapable of getting a good grip on reality.

but go on giving us your idiotic ramblings about how "liberals" are traitors... it's funny in a pathetic kind of way at least.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dsanthony No, not gone. Waiting for an intelligent post to respond to.

Then why not respond to the question of why you said "They are not custodians of the constitution" when they are REQUIRED to swear to defend the Constitution as part of the oath of office?

[bishop]

what is the constitution nowadays but a near-worthless piece of paper, right? bush certainly seems to think so, and has said something to that effect... so by mr. anthony's retarded "logic", you're a traitor as well..

welcome to the club yo.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Apathy is kind of a strong term in that it implies you have the ability to do something and choose not to.

I'm not implying anything. They DON'T do anything although they can. It's funny that most people can't seem to find two people that they know personally who would say the government does a good job yet the same people keep getting elected/reelected. That clearly illustrates a conscious choice. They don't like how the government runs but choose to keep the same people and parties in power when these same people and parties are the cause of their discontent.

This is more a realization that the entire system is corrupt and that both sides combat said corruption with other corruption.

I'm not sure what you meant there but I don't believe advocates of either side think their side battles corruption with a different corruption. As our right wing friends here ably demonstrate they believe THEIR side is good and the other side is everything wrong with the country. But there is a big difference between political partisans and the general population. Half the people don't bother to vote and the other half, as a group, is full of people who readily admit they vote for the "lesser of two evils".

It's nice and well to wish for a world without corrupt politicians who lie about everything but it's just about as helpful as wishing for a world where there is no disease or illness.

I think that is a bad analogy, as we are ACTIVELY fighting disease and illness but our attitude towards politics and government is little more than throwing up our hands and saying "Well, what are you gonna do?"

[Clarence]

Quote by: bishop i, unfortunately, voted for bush in 2000

x2 :confused: I was thinking that I should use my vote to at least shift the power.Besides the republican platform sounds grand IMO. My first election and so forth. My recollection of the 90's and Clinton was uneducated but it seemed like people were happy. I met a lot of them. But that whole thing with Monica was obviously at the forefront so I just thought that someone else should handle the reigns. But the whole 'son of the leader' thing has always been dangerous throughout history. Exept Jesus . on all accounts. I've never seen heard or felt any proof that he was the son of "God" or whatever that means so I definitly can't rule it out. I know the aftermath of his life as a man. I wander.

Hey Ds. Why don't you post a science or misc non debate related topic or something. It helps to know who you're working with. I think sometimes theres common interests an shit...but by no means is this debate over friend.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Clarence There's plenty to reply to. For one, I'm not a lib. Maybe you could classify me as a new sort of redneck liberal. I'm a registered republican thankyou. I appreciate that you consider my post intelligent enough to respond to. However; I'm the only one not trying to debate you just belittle you in return for your lack of respect for america's ideals. I have a feeling you got nothing and are a chikenshit to boot. See? unbacked claims don't belong in a debate forum. Don't paint with such large brushes. It really gives a nasty stench and reveals your obvious lack of intelligence/insight. To straighten things out. I consider you an imperialist not a nazi. The only one baiting here is you and now me. The rest of the responses are bites to your bait. You don't have a sound bite to regurgitate so you avoid the questions. pussy. typical for your kind. It's comforting to know that my enemies are weak souls even if they have us patriots in a spot, currently I can tell debating is not your speed. I don't like debating either, personally. I just chime in when my services are needed. So go on say something...anything. It's o.k. You don't have to use big words or even links to debate if you try. Don't let these blowhards scare you away. If you believe what you say, you should have a response for each and every one of them. But, right now the ball's in your court. You went and accused me and others of being unamerican. So back it up. I'll start with a question you can answer specifically. The war on terror is a war which, by definition, could never end. So, in your opinion, when is the appropriate time to protest the handling of said war?

Damn, now this is a good post!! I wonder if you'll ever get an answer to your question from this doofus.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I'm not implying anything. They DON'T do anything although they can. It's funny that most people can't seem to find two people that they know personally who would say the government does a good job yet the same people keep getting elected/reelected. That clearly illustrates a conscious choice. They don't like how the government runs but choose to keep the same people and parties in power when these same people and parties are the cause of their discontent.

Either you think the system is so corrupt that it's rigged in favor of the winning party or you think it's a choice of evils. That doesn't show a real wide breath of decisions.

I'm not sure what you meant there but I don't believe advocates of either side think their side battles corruption with a different corruption. As our right wing friends here ably demonstrate they believe THEIR side is good and the other side is everything wrong with the country.

And here's my point once again. Just as our "right wing friends" demonstrate they believe THEIR side is good and the other side is everything wrong with this country, our left wing friends do the exact same thing. They do answer corruption with more corruption but do so under the rationalization that they're justified in doing so because the other side is destroying the country. Both sides do it and your focus on our right wing friends demonstrates this further by focusing on one and ignoring the exact same faults of the other in the same context.

But there is a big difference between political partisans and the general population. Half the people don't bother to vote and the other half, as a group, is full of people who readily admit they vote for the "lesser of two evils".

I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, political partisans run both parties in a two party system.

I think that is a bad analogy, as we are ACTIVELY fighting disease and illness but our attitude towards politics and government is little more than throwing up our hands and saying "Well, what are you gonna do?"

I think it's a decent analogy because it shows why fighting an inevitability is pointless. Sure we're fighting desease but as good as we get at it, something new will always come along rendering all of the work prior to that point useless. Hell, if one of the media overblown bi-annual pandemics actually became such, that would make everything, not just in the medical field pointless and for nothing.

Point is, pretending you can actually do anything about corruption, particularly in any system of government that is propagated on lying and covering up (like every system), is just pointless.

[dsanthony]

Quote by: Clarence Quote by: dsanthony No, not gone. Waiting for an intelligent post to respond to. The invective and hysteria of the posts I read are nonsensical. Libs have for years said that anyone who disagrees with them is, by (their) definition, automatically a nazi or a racist. I'm not rising to the bait. I laid out specifically the actions which amount to treason. "Dissent" was not among them... though I would say that protesting a war while we have troops on the ground IS anti-american. It doesn't rise to the level of treason though... There's plenty to reply to. For one, I'm not a lib. Maybe you could classify me as a new sort of redneck liberal. I'm a registered republican thankyou. I appreciate that you consider my post intelligent enough to respond to. However; I'm the only one not trying to debate you just belittle you in return for your lack of respect for america's ideals. I have a feeling you got nothing and are a chikenshit to boot. See? unbacked claims don't belong in a debate forum. Don't paint with such large brushes. It really gives a nasty stench and reveals your obvious lack of intelligence/insight. To straighten things out. I consider you an imperialist not a nazi. The only one baiting here is you and now me. The rest of the responses are bites to your bait. You don't have a sound bite to regurgitate so you avoid the questions. pussy. typical for your kind. It's comforting to know that my enemies are weak souls even if they have us patriots in a spot, currently I can tell debating is not your speed. I don't like debating either, personally. I just chime in when my services are needed. So go on say something...anything. It's o.k. You don't have to use big words or even links to debate if you try. Don't let these blowhards scare you away. If you believe what you say, you should have a response for each and every one of them. But, right now the ball's in your court. You went and accused me and others of being unamerican. So back it up. I'll start with a question you can answer specifically. The war on terror is a war which, by definition, could never end. So, in your opinion, when is the appropriate time to protest the handling of said war?

Your invective is neither witty nor intelligent enough to be bait. Fodder maybe, not bait.

An imperialist? That's funny. There is no American Empire. Actually, Hussein was the imperialist, who murdered the Kurds and Shiites in his country who threatened his realm, then moved against his neighboring country to expand his empire. The war to repel him from Kuwait never ended... only a cease-fire was imposed with the UN Mandate that Hussein comply with weapons inspectors. For 8 years under Clinton he played cat and mouse with the inspectors. Remember the constant violations of the no-fly zone? Remember Clinton's pussy-like realiatory strikes? Fact is, whether it's the Lebanon border or Iraq, the UN imposes paper mandates then sits back and watches while they are regularly violated. They are as impotent as the League of Nations.

The US did not overthrow Hussein to acquire an empire. They overthrew him because he was a dangerous dictator who threatened the peace of the world.

As for the "war on terror"... you are a liberal whether you know it or not. Weakness drips from your words. The first WTC attack, the bombings of two US embassies and the bombing of the USS Cole happened under your prez's watch, and he treated them as "crimes"... Weak. The war on terror is real and was not begun by Bush. You're saying so marks you as either a liar, or anti-American.

For the rest... yawn. You are not a match for anyone above a fifth-grade reading level. I disagree with Bush on many things, vocally. But, regarding national security, the country must speak as one voice. Yes, the NYT and others have gone beyond dissent into criminality and treason.