Presidential treason?

[2ndAmendment]

... but on the other hand Roosevelt killed 2,000 navy personnel at Pearl just as much if not more than Sheehan or Fonda did. He, as we now know, ran an incredibly extra constitutional government and it ain;t hard to argue he dragged us, a la Wilson, into war in Europe.
...

I think Roosevelt learned more from Stalin and Churchill than he taught much to the detriment of the United States - socialism starts in the U.S. for real. Since FDR didn't give any regard to the Constitutional limits on power what were a few more statutes made up out of thin air or limits ignored?

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm having one of those days...

That person in my life that corresponds to Vrai in yours. You know, the person that trys to keep you minding your ways that you wouldn't want to do without.

...what I meant was...

'Sharon, question mark, are you going to answer the question, shrug, yes or no?'

Not "Sharon, who is that?"

I was relying on the idea that you knew that I knew who she is.

One of those days...

 

[Larry Gude]

He was...

I think Roosevelt learned more from Stalin and Churchill than he taught much to the detriment of the United States - socialism starts in the U.S. for real. Since FDR didn't give any regard to the Constitutional limits on power what were a few more statutes made up out of thin air or limits ignored?

...the closest thing we had to a king since George III.

If there is one single person who can be said to have done the most damage to the Constitution, it's him, by miles.

Lincoln was at least trying to preserve the nation. FDR was trying to blow it up. The really sad part is his fans don't recognize just how he viewed the American people as a whole; sheep, far more than any other President.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...what I meant was...

'Sharon, question mark, are you going to answer the question, shrug, yes or no?'

Not "Sharon, who is that?"

I was relying on the idea that you knew that I knew who she is.

One of those days...

Ah. I guess I'm having one of my contrarian days.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...the closest thing we had to a king since George III.

If there is one single person who can be said to have done the most damage to the Constitution, it's him, by miles.

Lincoln was at least trying to preserve the nation. FDR was trying to blow it up. The really sad part is his fans don't recognize just how he viewed the American people as a whole; sheep, far more than any other President.

I heard/read that he said, "We can tell the people the Constitution says anything. They don't know." Sad that he was/is right. Most of the citizens of the United States have never read the Constitution and have no idea what their rights are. They accept that the Congress, President, or Supreme Court can "just do it" and don't know that most of what the do is beyond their authority given in the Constitution.

The citizens are supposed to reign supreme under the Constitution. The founders were the original "Power to the people" people.

 

[Bustem' Down]

All the talk about the dead in WWII you also have to remember that your living with the "Me" generation. Unfortunatly I'm part of it, but I don't succumb to it. The battlefield deaths now a days pale in comparison to past wars, and because of the type of opponents we've dealt with in the time between Vietnam and now people have become used to low numbers. A lot of people no longer have the stomach to do what it takes. If we had to fight a real opponent like we did with Germany, the numbers would skyrocket and Cindy Sheehan's voice would be drowned out.

 

[Bruzilla]

Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan ain't hurting anyone. Kerry might be. Kennedy might be and there are laws that, if they break them, their ass should be new mown.

My point stands; the President of the United States has in his power the ability to make a much more thorough case than he is to marginalize and neuter people like Sheehan and Moore and so on and he is not doing a very good job.

You need a serious reality check Larry! I'm speaking as someone who has spent quite a bit of time in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and most of Europe and the Far East, and the reality is that there is no "fair and balanced" reporting of news out there. I've seen you write many times about how off-balance reporting on CNN is, yet CNN International and Sky News are the only non-state controlled news sources in most countries.

If you've got Direct TV or cable that provides access to these channels, I would suggest spending a few days watching nothing but those channels. As a result you will be getting the exact same daily intel briefing on US intentions that Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are getting. I know it sounds rediculous to us more "with it" Americans that this could be happening, but that's the truth.

You can watch CNN and see Sheehan and her supporters holding a rally, and infer that this is the way most Americans feel, but then you can also check out FNC and see that this was a highly staged protest march with a relatively few people. But that other view isn't presented out there, which amplifies the impact that their actions and statements have. When CNN runs stories about Murtha, Durbin, or Kennedy calling for troop withdrawls all day, without running the other side of the story with equal vigor, what message do you think the insurgents are getting? The message is that the US is close to calling it quits, so they should keep fighting.

If you honestly think that all of the anti-war statements, be they based on a hatred of war or politically motivated against Bush, aren't having a direct impact on casualty figures, you're living in denial.

 

[Bruzilla]

All the talk about the dead in WWII you also have to remember that your living with the "Me" generation. Unfortunatly I'm part of it, but I don't succumb to it. The battlefield deaths now a days pale in comparison to past wars, and because of the type of opponents we've dealt with in the time between Vietnam and now people have become used to low numbers. A lot of people no longer have the stomach to do what it takes. If we had to fight a real opponent like we did with Germany, the numbers would skyrocket and Cindy Sheehan's voice would be drowned out.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. The government's tight restrictions on the flow of information during WWII ensured that people were able to judge the progress of the war using a broader view than if they used a day-to-day approach. War, like everything else, is marked by daily successes and failures, and morale and support can be trashed (as it is today) by day-to-day assessments. It's like day traders who see their stock dip one day and decide to sell, only to find out the next week that the stock had greatly increased in price. Success in war is always measured in the long-term.

I doubt that there would have been much support for continued fighting against Japan had the American people really known how bad things were on Guadalcanal. Had they seen our troops starving, riddled with disease, and falling from exhaustion; while the Japanese continued to attack the island from sea and air at will; there probably would have been plenty of calls for a negotiated peace despite the ramifications from the Pearl Harbor attack. What if as a result of the short-term success of the German Ardennes, with 81,000 killed, drove some Congressmen to call for Roosevelt to stop the fighting because "we can't win", and that news was rebroadcast over and over to the German people and the Nazi leadership? Does Donitz and other high-ranking Nazis start pursuing peace efforts? Probably not. But the US government overcame that problem by heavilly censoring all news and arresting the Sheehans of the day. Granted, rights were sacrified, but the war was won.

 

[Larry Gude]

This isn't arguable...

If you honestly think that all of the anti-war statements, be they based on a hatred of war or politically motivated against Bush, aren't having a direct impact on casualty figures, you're living in denial.

Cindy Sheehan is not pulling a trigger. She is not shooting US troops on the battlefield. If she was, that would be a direct impact.

She has an indirect effect. She affects our enemies, which I've already covered. She is delusional and hurting US moral. I've already covered that. But thsoe are indirect impacts.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a English lesson, but, lets go over this one more time;

An insurgent who has been sent out by his boss to shoot a Marine in the head or set off an IED to kill troopers that might be Cindy Sheehans son in order to make Americans think we are losing because it will cause someone like Cindy to do what she is doing, that guy is having a direct impact. His boss and his tactical plans are having a direct impact.

Cindy half way around the world is not having a direct impact. The news is influencing people here. That is an indirect impact. Peopls reaction to the news is an indirect impact. How I react in writing my Congressman to get him to support increasing the violence against our enemies is an indirect impact.
Cindy and Jane motivating people to protest is an indirect impact. The protestors have an indirect impact. The President and how he responds to critisism has an indirect impact.

You can argue all day long to have Cindy shot or locked up, newspapers shut down or silenced and even have me sent off to get my reality check and THAT will have an indirect impact on a battlefield casualty.

It will not, however, change the meaning of words and you're not going to willingly get me to live in a police state. You'll have to force me and the only way that is going to happen is if we have weak leaders and people willing to give over every and all of their rights.

And if that happens, oh well. I am willing to be engaged and fight civically for our rights AND accept the responsibilities for those rights but I am not willing to destroy it in order to save it.