Hurting troop morale is a goal worthy of lies.

Huh?

Legitimate criticism is one thing. LIES AND DISTORTIONS that ultimately damage the morale of our troops should be considered at the very least, sedition, and frequently can be considered treasonous. I include (among others) comments of Al Franken, Michael Moore (okay - they're both stupid but that's no excuse) and Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, the ACLU and Cindy Sheehan in that category. And George Soros is purely evil in my view. He should be barred from ever crossing our country's borders and if he is a naturalized citizen, that citizenship should be revoked!

hello? Idiots? this was a poll of adults nationwide, not of the troops. Therefore, it proves NOTHING.

You morons.

The U.S. has been in very few wars where there was no opposition from the populace. During the Civil War there were riots in both the north and the South and Lincoln and Davis both tried to suppress reporting of them. Many of us lived through the wide spread opposition to the Vietnam during the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Americans have never been a country to fight protracted wars whenever it appears to them that there were alternatives to bloodshed.

I'm here to tell that as a Democratic country you are NEVER....REPEAT NEVER!!! going to be able call LYING treason because what is a LIE is often colored by your political opinion and the spin that your own party is giving to an issue. If LYING IS TREASON, then we damn well better round up the President, the Vice President, and most of the members of Congress, lock them and up, and throw the key away. I hate to have to shake you folks out of your naivity, but ALL POLTICIANS ARE LIARS and what one politician thinks is the truth another politician thinks is a lie. Lets hope the no majority party EVER gets the power to define treason as lying. Let me also express my hope that none of you LLPs are ever extended the power of determining what treason is. Put you guys in charge of that decision and America would cease being the land of the free and become the land of the oppressed.

I have a couple of fiends in Iraq right now and they know that I'm oppossed to the war and I also know that my opinion doesn't effect their morale because we talk about it. I would suggest that if there are folks in our military who feel that either an honest (or a dishonest) discussion of our involvement in Iraq is more than their morale can handle maybe they should not have joined the military. It would be IRRESPONSIBLE of me as an American to avoid speaking out against what I know to be a poorly thought out policy of interventionism where it was not necessary simply because one side is threatening us with death. I only hear the fighting keyboarders talk about how opposition to the President if affecting morale. I've neve once heard one of my military friends make such a comment.

As I said in an earlier thread, this website and other conservative websites are getting far to free using the terms TRAITOR and TREASON and the implied threat of DEATH that goes with it. It is also scary to hear a party that is actively defending toruture talking about making TALKING a crime. Of course this is the same party that throws people out of presidential rallies for driving up to the rally in a car with a Kerry/Edwards bumpersticker on it. There is a real fear of opposition speech else you wouldn't have to make all of the accusations of TREASON.

The criticism that is occurring is NOT encouraging insurgents (they were insurging before there was much war protest) and not destroying the morale of our troops. What it is doing by the day, is decreasing the possibility that the GOP is going to maintain its stranglehold on the three branches of government. That is something that you CAN worry about.

TJ

I get so tired of doing your research for you. Please see if you can stay up later or start earlier?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s02-usmi.html

KeithS:

Yawn. Again, you OVERREACH. No one said anything about silencing anyone. In fact, I've said earlier that I wish Cindy Sheehan would run for office.

I am simply defending why I have just as much right to free speech to criticize those who oppose the war.

What liberals want to do is create a shield to criticism (i.e. censorship) that begins with:

1. never being able to criticize a protestor. only liberals are allowed to protest.

2. never being able to criticize a war vet. they can say whatever they want without having to argue the points of fact.

You're lengthy and entire post is nothing but trying to silence those that disagree with you. You claim that by simply voicing disagreement that somehow we are stepping over the line and should be silenced.

It is precisely that view that is a threat to free speech. This is my blog, and I can say whatever I want because of free speech--and that includes calling out people like Cindy Sheehan and Ramsey Clark for what they are.

Has anyone here EVER advocated for shutting people up? NEVER. To suggest so is a dishonest, which is nothing new to the left.

"Let me also express my hope that none of you LLPs are ever extended the power of determining what treason is. Put you guys in charge of that decision and America would cease being the land of the free and become the land of the oppressed."

Helluva rant. But who said you were committing treason? Erecting a strawman for you to boldly defeat? As for determining what treason is, look in the Constitution; it's the only crime spelled out therein.

Dear Aaron

Stick with the thread. Just because you started it, doesn't mean that all the comments relate directly to what you said. There was another little fascist further down the thread frp, upi who called the opposition guilty of "sedition" and "treasonous". I have repeatedly seen the use of these terms in the same way that I see others of this same ilk use the terms Anti-Christian. The use of the terms TREASON and TRAITOR in this and other posts is meant to portray protestors as criminals wothy of the death penalty. If this were not so, then these wingnuts could just argue the facts.

I personally have no desire to silence you. It has always been my positon that your postion is so stupid and untenable that with just a minimum of reasonable examination, all of your arguements fall apart. That is why there are no REAL arguments. Only demeaning decriptions of liberal being TRAITORS or Anti-Christians. That is what I have a big problem with.

You don't have to say that you want to silence people when you acuse them of crimes for exercising their right to speak.

jreid, you frickin' moron- how does that equate to a 70% poll-respondent survey?

Stupid, stupid little neocon idiot.

TJ

I love it when you talk dirty!!!!!1

But when you run out of real thoughts that's all that's left.

The troops are also in agreement that the press coverage is wrong just as the 70%. Re-read it if you can.

"the troops" - how many? Hmm? Show me a troop survey, and I'll be impressed.

Meanwhile, if they don't understand that the mainstream protest is against the war but not against them, that does not mean the protest is either wrong or should be stopped.