Say Anything Blog

Ok, I’ll clear that up:

All of the people at the rally who saw that sign but refused to do something about it.  Their letting that kind of message be displayed at their rally means they condone it.

Words mean things, MI, and sometimes you are judged by those you associate with.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Well, not to put words in MI’s mouth, but I think he’s in agreement that the sign is wrong.  His point is that we shouldn’t be condemning all of the protestors at the rally for it.

Obviously, I disagree with that as per my comments above.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I officially question these people’s patriotism.

Same here. Can you imagine this happening 60 years ago when we were fighting for our very lives and losing thousands of men a day?

Sounds like support for people who kill innocent men, women and children to me. Pretty cut and dry.

Which of “these people” exactly?  The guy giving the finger?  The person holding the “College Not Combat” sign?  Or the one holding the “Iraqis are right to fight” sign?  Or, because you find that one sign objectionable, are you simply lumping in all of the people at the rally?

modern instances,

Hmm, let’s see.

The guy holding the sign that says “Iraqis are right to fight”. If he means the “insurgents” that are killing U.S. troops every day, then he is actively supporting an enemy of the U.S. who is actively engaged in killing U.S. military personnel. How is that NOT treason?

IF he is wanting ordinary Iraqis to take up arms against the U.S., and that would be their right, then that is still treason because he is supporting our enemy who is killing U.S. personnel.

What part of that do you not understand?

MI

Ok, you make some points. So how about I just question that one guy’s patriotism? I do question his and others who support our enemy.

MI: Surely the creator of this site is beyond making such obvious logical fallacies.

Guilt by association can be a real stinker, MI.

For instance, if I were marching in a protest against illegal immigration I would sure as hell go over to some neo-nazi guy holding a sign reading something about “spics” and tell him to leave.  Or, depending on the situation, I would make it clear that he wasn’t part of what I was protesting.  If I couldn’t do either, I’d leave.

Guilt by association can be a bitch, but when people stand around and do nothing about this sort of thing they’re going to be painted by the same brush.

Words mean things.  Plus, it would be a lot harder to make my point if we didn’t see this sort of thing again and again at anti-war rallies.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

All of the people at the rally who saw that sign but refused to do something about it. Their letting that kind of message be displayed at their rally means they condone it.

How can someone who is exercising their right to free speech attempt to stifle the speech of another?  I was in a march before the war, with tens of thousands of participants, some of whom carried signs that I thought were either off point or that I disagreed with.  I couldn’t very well walk up to them, carrying my American flag, and tell them to take their sign down.

And Dave wonders why people are so condescending to him…

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

he’s gonna go back to his parents’ basement to download some porn; he’s not changing his name to Muhammad and hopping on a plane to Fallujah! Let’s get real here!

Ha!

True, BUT. You knew there would be a but didn’t you.

BUT, by protesting (protected speech) and carrying a sign that appears to side with our enemy he is conveying through the media that he supports our enemy. Like Rob said, words mean things. If this were back in the Cold War during the nuclear freeze days and some guy was protesting U.S. nukes, say in Turkey, he could have said most any un-American thing he wanted. The Soviets would have noted the mass protest, but that would have been it. The difference today is that there are men and women dying daily in Iraq. They are being killed by terrorists who’s only hope of winning is hanging on long enough and inflicting enough casualties so that we give up. Seeing mass demonstrations demanding the troops be pulled out now and seeing signs that say they support the terrorists in Iraq, the terrorists are emboldened. Maybe they were going to give up after they expended their last few suicide bombers, but now, having seen the pictures, the may decide to launch one more attack or to recruit more willing assassins.

It is not active support like sending money or material, but it is indirect support. You may be right, it may not be treason, but I do question the patriotism of people who protest with signs that support our enemy.

wunderkraut:

The guy holding the sign that says “Iraqis are right to fight”. If he means the “insurgents” that are killing U.S. troops every day, then he is actively supporting an enemy of the U.S. who is actively engaged in killing U.S. military personnel. How is that NOT treason?

U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

The Supreme Court has consistently held that for treason to apply the “aid” must be of the “material” sort; see Cramer v. United States (1945) for more.

In the history of the United States, only 34 people have ever been prosecuted for it. Neither Julius Rosenberg nor Aaron Burr could meet its high standards.

Treason is the most serious crime in the U.S. (thus justifying its inclusion in the Constitution). When you start applying it to every jackass, wingnut college kid with a Guevara t-shirt and an appreciation for Marx, you’ve abandoned the Founding Fathers’ intentions.

Look, wunderkraut, I’m with you that this guy is a jackass. But guilty of treason? After this loony protest is over, he’s gonna go back to his parents’ basement to download some porn; he’s not changing his name to Muhammad and hopping on a plane to Fallujah! Let’s get real here!

’I couldn’t very well walk up to them, carrying my American flag, and tell them to take their sign down. ‘

Why not?

Rob said, I officially question these people’s patriotism.

Most of those people are Marxists communists socialists “liberals” “progressives”. One can’t be both “progressive” and patriotic to America without fundamentally changing either definition. I officially question both the patriotism and the intelligence of any person who marches in allegiance with those signs.

Apologies for all of the strikes, but it was necessary. Those snakes like to change their ideological name to confuse the public and hide their intentions.

Wunder wrote:

I do question the patriotism of people who protest with signs that support our enemy.

Oh, and so do I. I just don’t like people throwing words like “treason” and “traitor” without really considering the consequences of what they’re saying.

One last point on your post, though:

Seeing mass demonstrations demanding the troops be pulled out now and seeing signs that say they support the terrorists in Iraq, the terrorists are emboldened. Maybe they were going to give up after they expended their last few suicide bombers, but now, having seen the pictures, the may decide to launch one more attack or to recruit more willing assassins.

And since we’re all supporting this blog by posting on it, aren’t we equally guilty of “treason”?

I kid, of course, but I hope you see my point Wunder. The kid with the sign is a jacknut--he’s not a traitor, and he hasn’t committed treason.

WISHES DO COME TRUE!

ROBERT McCLELLAND:

As far as who Bush puts on the SC, my hope is that it’s the craziest fucker American conservatism has to offer. And I hope that this wacko sets about destroying America. That would give Canadians one more reason to never vote Conservative in this country ever again.

Then the Chimperor nominates craziest fucker American conservatism has to offer.

Scalito’s extreme right wing record …ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE…ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION…ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION

Lets hope the Reich Whingers can ram this nomination through the system so that the new Supreme Court of Bush can get to work destroying America before our election next spring.

History will view this as both a failed attempt to control governments and legislation, and a significant step in the downfall of the once powerful Catholic church.--

From the great Stageleft

[...] Yep. It’s true. Leftists aren’t anti-war at all. They’re just for the other side. - courtesy of like uhhhh like a Boston Shoehorn rally. [...]

People who actively root for the side opposite our country’s are traitors Dave.  You can dance around the issue all you want, but that’s the sum of it.

Perhaps they are not traitors in the legal sense, but they’re traitors enough for me.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] and this is what our troops normally get to see This was taken at one of Cindy Sheehans demos.  From here:  http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/10/31/photos-from-a-sheehan-demonstration/#more-7429 Whole story here:  http://www.hubpolitics.com/archives/000089.php_________________Remember the Reason for the Season! [...]