Americans must have the freedom to disagree with the Government, or one man could control American without taking any notice of the people.
2007-07-27 21:00:18 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Who has said that?
2007-07-27 21:01:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I too am scratching my head. I don't know of anyone who thinks that disagreeing with the president is treason. If that were true then I would have been hung a long time ago. Although I like some of what Bush is doing I have issues with him on other things like immigration and have written and faxes him several times on that matter. So far no FBI have come to take me away.
2007-07-28 04:07:02 · answer #2 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most don't. In fact, very few do.
Treason has a very specific meaning, and we do have traitors. A good example is the person who recently leaked the classified document contents. It doesn't matter what it said. They are still traitors. They worked against their own government in a way that helped our enemies.
Sedition, though no longer illegal, is still contemptible, and surprisingly common. People fell free to call their representatives names, spread unfounded rumors, treat them as "guilty until proved innocent" in ways that a private citizen would spin you into court for as fast as they could say, "liar". Yet we tolerate having our representatives treated this way. Not exactly patriotic. Far from it.
Patriotic protest doesn't involve any of that. It is respectful, deals in facts, not rhetoric and political bigotry, legal, and loud and frequently repeated.
Some people don't know the difference any more. I hope you do.
mckenziecalhoun’s Rules of Political Acumen
Rule number 25: It is expected by those seeking power that you, as a voter, will react automatically and without thought to certain key words, which include, but are not limited to: “patriot”, “seditious”, “socialist”, “neocon”, “lib”. If these are used, you are expected to immediately distance yourself from the object associated with them.
The corollary of this rule is that when you see someone “victimized” by being called these things, or having had their actions associated with these things, you are to ignore the fact that these words have real meanings and assume the innocence of the “victim” and distance yourself from the person using said words, even if logically applicable to the situation. This minimizes the effort of those seeking power.
2007-07-28 04:17:12 · answer #3 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where did you get an idiotic idea like that? Many Republicans disagree with the President especially over immigration but we're not worried about being arrested. The only people arrested lately for disagreeing with the President were Mr. and Mrs. Menendez up in Chicago. They were face to face with the President and Mrs M. said that he was responsible for killing young boys. Mr. M tried to defend his wife when the President pointed to Mrs. M and told his protection detail to "get her". Oh, the President? Why Bill Clinton. This was about 1995. I did say lately.
2007-07-28 04:13:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only people who don't understand what treason is would think that simply disagreeing with the president is treason. It is possible to be completely patriotic and yet not vote Republican.
2007-07-28 04:03:12 · answer #5 · answered by tahunajcw 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its not treason to disagree with the President.
It is treason if those differences with the President, involve collaborating, aiding, or providing comfort and or shelter to enemies of this country. ex.(sending money to the Taliban, etc.)
2007-07-28 04:07:21 · answer #6 · answered by uhwarriorfan 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is not treason for disagreeing with the President.
2007-07-28 04:05:24 · answer #7 · answered by bee bee boo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We don't think it's treason if you disagree with the President WITH CLASS. But the whole "Bush is Hitler, Bush is a war criminal who should be impeached and hanged, Bush was behind 9/11" crowd are saying some ridiculously stupid and anti-American things.
2007-07-28 04:13:48 · answer #8 · answered by SW1 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I have not heard any America say this. Yes, or one woman could control it, without taking any notice of the people.
2007-07-28 04:07:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people think that because he is commander and chief.
But in the end isn't the president supposed to be the voice of the people.
2007-07-28 04:03:59 · answer #10 · answered by jimjamborie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, that's kind of tough b/c we have always disagreed with presidents. But, when we have had direct threats we tend to agree with our leaders, as does the rest of the world too.
2007-07-28 04:03:36 · answer #11 · answered by jrie67 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋