Posted on 10/19/2007 10:08:06 AM PDT by george76
Thanks :
“Are there any brave men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?” —Ahmad Shah Massoud
People are starting to say it. They are traitors.
I’m not questioning their patriotism.
I’m flat out accusing them of treason.
IF and that is a BIG IF, IF people have the right to act like traitors, then we should dang sure have the free speech to call them a traitor.
God Bless America. If we were any other country, our citizens, if they weren’t flag-waiving patriots, would wet their pants in the presence of a soldier. But here in the U.S., anti-American citizens can openly mock and even destroy our nation’s credibility without the threat of violence.
Let the treacherous actions be outed,and let them be voted out of office.
HEAR HEAR
great post
Everybody is hiding behind the best insurance protection plan in the world, i.e., The First Amendment. We should use the same basis to expose them by calling them traitors, in public. I mean in press conferences and the like. That will be live on TV and the American people will know the difference between treason and "expressing an opinion."
This Administration is guilty of perpetuating the "no penalty for treason" mode! By not prosecuting Sandy Bergular, by letting the DUmbos get away with the ChiComs' spying, buying our secrets and committing campaign finance fraud, by not getting to the bottom of DUmbos CIA/FBI/NYT leaks of classified material. All this is supposedly because of the First Amendment.
Calling the traitors by what they really are, traitors, should be also protected by the First Amendment. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Here is a common example that happens on TV everyday and my proposed answer to it:
DUmbo: I, of course, support the troops BUT, they are killing civilians in cold blood and raping women, blah blah blah.
GOP: Do you have any evidence of this? If you don't, you don't support the troops and you are a liar. Since we're at war, you're also a traitor for aiding and abetting the enemy by spewing enemy propaganda, IMO.
If DUmbo wants to sue, there is always the First Amendment to protect the GOP last three words above, "IMO".
Yea, can you imagine that? The cowardly traitor would have been bayoneted, shot and served to the fish.
Everybody is hiding behind the best insurance protection plan in the world, i.e., The First Amendment. We should use the same basis to expose them by calling them traitors, in public. I mean in press conferences and the like. That will be live on TV and the American people will know the difference between treason and "expressing an opinion."
This Administration is guilty of perpetuating the "no penalty for treason" mode! By not prosecuting Sandy Bergular, by letting the DUmbos get away with the ChiComs' spying, buying our secrets and committing campaign finance fraud, by not getting to the bottom of DUmbos CIA/FBI/NYT leaks of classified material. All this is supposedly because of the First Amendment.
Calling the traitors by what they really are, traitors, should be also protected by the First Amendment. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Here is a common example that happens on TV everyday and my proposed answer to it:
DUmbo: I, of course, support the troops BUT, they are killing civilians in cold blood and raping women, blah blah blah.
GOP: Do you have any evidence of this? If you don't, you don't support the troops and you are a liar. Since we're at war, you're also a traitor for aiding and abetting the enemy by spewing enemy propaganda, IMO.
If DUmbo wants to sue, there is always the First Amendment to protect the GOP last three words above, "IMO".
HEAR HEAR
and another great post on this thread!
Thanks, Dhue!
I wish the real Dhue on FNC could turn the tables on the DUmbos unless liberal Geraldo rubbed off on her, so to speak of course! LOL
bttt
I beg to differ:
The Rats had a victory but they threw it away. Remember how they were on Rumsfeld for a long time to increase Troop levels? Rumsfeld stood his ground and went with the 'small footprint' so we would look more like liberators rather then occupiers. Well, the rhetoric was loud enough and things were bad enough, Bush removed Rumsfled and increased Troop levels.
The Rats had a Victory, but they listened to their crazy extreme far left loony base and went with the pull out now slogan. They could have came out and said, we pushed Rumsfeld out and got the Troop levels to appropriate levels to handle the insurgency. They would have looked smart to the middle ground. But almost immediately, the entire party took on the far lefts pull out now stance. They even convinced a few RINOs of the same.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The Saudis were the main financiers of terrorism on 9/11; much more culpable than Iraq. Why didn't we take them out first?
OTOH, it has been reported often here on FR that Iran's govt is in some trouble at home because of many pro-American young people, and in fact Iran was quietly helping us during the early days of the WOT, until they were declared part of the Axis of Evil and began to fear that if we were successful in Iraq they would be next. They then had a very good reason to destablize our efforts in Iraq.
Whoever it was upthread that said the Dems weren't the only stupid party was correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZZhxW5ym68 Outlaw Josey Wales
:-)
FOLKS!
Everything about Pelosi and the Democrats is correct.
HOWEVER the reason the Armenians are pushing this is not.
We have a situation where THIS Turkish government is literally trying to erase history. It would be as if the current governemnt would erase the Holocost. Or if Moslems say 9/11 was four airplane malfunctions.
It is the “never again” which requires remembering.
That is why this is important to the Armenians TODAY.
That said, everything else is correct. I think this is not a 90 year ago issue, it is a current propaganda issue.
I think we can be aware of the why this is important to armenian citizens and still prove the democrats wrong.
I believe it is because we were legally at war with Iraq. We signed a cease fire and not a peace treaty after Iraq invaded Kuwait. At the time there were 13, 14 Resolution passed by the UN. Remember, Resolution means final.
We upheld International Law and removed a threat. Hussein could have complied, but he wanted to be the big man who defied International Law. By upholding International Law, Khadaffy got the message and gave us the WMDs we knew he had. He received a message too.
I think this too:
Saudi is a problem, but if you remove the head, the people will try to put a wahabist in charge. These are not nice people. I am sorry to say, but I believe Ghengis Khan or an ICBM would be best suited for them. I almost think that osama put a lot of Saudis on the plane in hopes that we would have done to Saudi what we did to Afghanistan. So, we did it to the place that harbored him and had more people who were willing to work against the types like the taliban and al qeada. This is going to be a long war. We need to show these people that a hope and a future is with the Coalition and death is the life of a terrorist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.