"Babs" needs to shut up~!

Starscream · #31 3rd October 2002, 10:49 AM

Hypocrite

 

Having taken some time to mull things over I do think these words are taking things a bit too far.  My apologies.

I still think making fun of a person's appearance is rude and uncalled for, but I should of choosen a more polite way to share my view on this matter.

Starscream · #32 3rd October 2002, 11:03 AM

Uninformed...yeah; that's a better word....and you can apply that to all liberals! How about uneducated? There's another....perhaps un-American wasn't the right word...

By all means Cammie, please school us.  We're listening...

 

Starscream · #33 3rd October 2002, 11:11 AM

 dunno, I think those two democratic senators that went over to Iraq to badmouth the President and show Saddam how divided we are is pretty unAmerican.

I wonder if Republican senators have ever vehemently disagreed with a Democratic president?

We're talking about the Prez's willy-nilly attitude about going to war with "someone" (might as well be Iraq, huh?).

I'm sure you realize that even some *Republicans* are divided on this issue.  Are they "unAmerican" as well?

In fact, if I were in power, they would be charged with treason upon returning to the USA.

That's the great thing about this country though, s0uljah.  Unlike the therocracies of the past, you can actaully *disagree* with "The Man" and not have to fear your life.

How do therocracies deal with dissidents?  I wonder how many people were burned at the stake or beheaded under Christian rule?  Do you suspect that is better plan?

waterwizard · #34 3rd October 2002, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Starscream

I wonder if Republican senators have ever vehemently disagreed with a Democratic president?

We're talking about the Prez's willy-nilly attitude about going to war with "someone" (might as well be Iraq, huh?).

I'm sure you realize that even some *Republicans* are divided on this issue.  Are they "unAmerican" as well?

That's the great thing about this country though, s0uljah.  Unlike the therocracies of the past, you can actaully *disagree* with "The Man" and not have to fear your life.

How do therocracies deal with dissidents?  I wonder how many people were burned at the stake or beheaded under Christian rule?  Do you suspect that is better plan? [/b]

Looks like we're veering away from the subject at hand.

Perhaps this subject should go on another thread. 

Morat · #35 3rd October 2002, 12:44 PM

  I guess "Treason" in Souljah's world is "Not doing what the President tells you too".

   Which makes "democracy" a "Dictoratorship" as well....

 

Chris†opher Paul · #36 3rd October 2002, 12:55 PM

I wonder if Republican senators have ever vehemently disagreed with a Democratic president?

I assure you I would be saying the same if these were two republicans, or two libertarians, or two whatevers.

I am not into politics, but I can see the obvious treason in the actions of those two.

I'm sure you realize that even some *Republicans* are divided on this issue.  Are they "unAmerican" as well?

Of course not, people arent unAmerican if they disagree with the President.  What IS unAmerican is going into enemy territory and siding with a dictator, and thus, showing Saddam that he can get away with whatever he wants, cause the leader's of the country are so divided.

Morat · #37 3rd October 2002, 01:57 PM

  How was it treason, Souljah? Are we at war with Saddam? I don't remember a declaration of war.

   Further, even if we were: Many wars were ended because of diplomatic efforts. Were those diplomats traitors?

   The only problem I see here, Souljah, is you blasting Congressmen for doing their duty. Which is to make informed decisions for the people.

 

Chris†opher Paul · #38 3rd October 2002, 02:00 PM

We might as well be at war. We have no-fly zones and punishments inflicted on Iraq. We were at war not long ago, and are about to be again. Iraq is our enemy, isnt it?

Is Iraq our enemy?

trea·son Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Morat · #39 3rd October 2002, 02:12 PM

We might as well be at war. We have no-fly zones and punishments inflicted on Iraq. We were at war not long ago, and are about to be again. Iraq is our enemy, isnt it?

   So the answer is "No, we are not at war". Therefore, since we are not at war, Congressmen going to Iraq (on visas granted by the US government, no less), speaking to Iraqi leaders (especially about things we have an interest in), and gathering data for use in an upcoming vote is not 'treason' in either the legal sense, or the quote you used below.

  Or rather, if it is, any attempt to end or avert a war by diplomatic means is 'treason'.

  You don't get it, do you? Congress declares war. They alone have the right to determine who are enemies are. The actions of these Congressmen wouldn't be treasonous even if there was a formal declaration of war, because attempting to end one isn't treason.

  So we're agreed. They did not commit treason, and it was quite libelous of you to say so. Good to know.

Starscream · #40 3rd October 2002, 02:20 PM

They did not commit treason, and it was quite libelous of you to say so.

Indeed, I was thinking the same thing.