I can't recall reading that Thomas Payne or Patrick Henry ever used there speech to make personal attacks on the King, even though he was an ocean away.
Is slandering your President a decent way to use your free speech?
What will you say if they find those WMDs hidden in Syria?
2007-10-03
13:35:25
·
29 answers
·
asked by
big j
5
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
(Sp.) their----sorry
2007-10-03
13:36:54 ·
update #1
Inventing anti-Bush propaganda is not simply "criticizing the President".
Many of these remarks are personal attacks on him and even on his family.
This propaganda is taking place in times of war. To many people, that is treason.
2007-10-03
13:50:57 ·
update #2
NATHAN:---You're right, " as long as it doesn't hurt anybody".
2007-10-03
13:53:32 ·
update #3
These patriots were criticizing a ruler they were revolting against.
Bush's popularity was higher than any president in history until the WMDs were not found, and you "patriots" started jumping ship.
2007-10-03
14:07:46 ·
update #4
CANTCU:---You're talking about a civil suit for slander; I'm talking about treason.
I would like to see some of you face a trial to see what a jury would decide.
There was no war going on when Clinton was in office.
2007-10-03
14:15:01 ·
update #5
John Stolworthy:---Thanks for the definition of treason. It fits liberals like a well tailored suit.
You should read what you write.
2007-10-03
14:26:27 ·
update #6
I doubt that any traitor has ever seen himself as a traitor. Many of these people, answering here, are judging themselves.
It doesn't work that way. I would like to see them face a jury in a courtroom.
2007-10-03
14:32:29 ·
update #7
There is no doubt in my mind that they have been aiding and abetting the enemy.
2007-10-03
14:37:47 ·
update #8
I would codemn any one who aided and abetted the enemy; even if Clinton was the Commander-in Chief.
Patriot is the last word anybody should use to describe someone who gives comfort to the enemy. You can hide behind your right to free speech, but we see you trembling under that cover.
And you know in your heart that your motives are not as pure as you claim.
2007-10-03
16:28:08 ·
update #9
As a 3 tour Marine, and a Vietnam vet, let me make it PERFECTLY clear to libs that when our troops are in the field, protesting them fighting IS treason ! You give aid and support to the enemy, cause our enemies to see us as weak, and stab our efforts in the back ! You had your chance to write your elected oficials, as you do now, to express your views. But public protesting while our troops are in harm's way is treason..no matter how much you wish it wasn't so. And the treason clause is NOT reserved for politicians !
Because of your vocal opposition to us killing off terrorists who would off you in a second with NO regard to your free speech rights, I charge that you are responsible for dragging out the fight we are now in ! A curse on you for helping our enemies at our military's expense !
2007-10-03 13:58:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by commanderbuck383 5
·
2⤊
3⤋
I would imagine free speech ends and treason begins when a right wing republican wally like George Bush hi-jacks the election in Florida and the voice of the people and the World are not heard. Jules, Australia.
2016-04-07 02:38:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, Patrick Henry was accused of treason(during a speech criticizing King George after which he said "If this be treason. make the most of it"
http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_35_91.html
Paine returned to Great Britain in 1787, and in 1791–92 he published The Rights of Man, in two parts. Written as a response to the attack on the French Revolution, Reflections Upon the French Revolution, by Edmund Burke. It was a radical and inflammatory work, calling as it did for representative democracy, and it was also an analysis of the weaknesses of European society, proposing republican government and progressive income taxes. A million and a half copies were sold in England alone. The British government indicted Paine for treason for his anti-monarchy views, and he fled to France.
2007-10-03 13:46:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
You need to expand your reading there were many assaults on the King verbally from many of the founders and like some posters have said what you guys said about Clinton well before your little 7 year $70 million investigation turned up nothing more than a sexual lie well who's really to blame for lack of respect to the office and WMD in Syria keep wishing and drinking the kool aid
2007-10-03 13:43:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Freedom of speech has no limits except for things that can cause direct harm to a large number of people (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is a good example)
Treason is:
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.
I have always been more of a fan of Thomas Jefferson than Patrick Henry.
“The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries” - Thomas Jefferson
Those who fight against tyranny are often ridiculed as treasonous and traitors by those trying to silence them.
My allegiance is to the principles this nation was founded on, not it's temporary leaders who frequently betray those principles.
edit:
We cannot be "at war" without a formal declaration of war from Congress. An "authorization for use of military force" isn't the same thing.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” - Theodore Roosevelt
Let the thumbs down commence...
2007-10-03 13:56:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by john_stolworthy 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
WMD's??? it was a lie. they only found a couple old rifles and 2 or 3 hand held rockets, maybe a knife or two, AND 4.7 TONS OF YELLOW CAKE URANIUM READY FOR ENRICHMENT PROCESS. Oh yea, and a massive magnetic induction centrifuge with over 300 tons of silver wire coil. Duh, I took physics for 4 years, didn't get my masters but could see this trail when i was a freshman. We were warned by the Soviets, not to disrupt the removal process or bomb a certain area for 72 hours. After soviet transport vehicles removed the material to a safer location (Syria) we were informed where to concentrate our efforts removing any surface contamination caused by radiation. We were told and actually believed this barren hole in the desert was a high concentration of civilian population, NOT. Ok i admit, it wasn't an ICBM warhead pointing at Washington so I guess it wasn't a weapon. No weapon found just a visible radiation trail our satellites almost burnt out their sensors looking at. And a big white spot on film at the exact location we were warned to stay away from. Bush Lied, i wanted to see the weapon. Not just the parts.
2007-10-03 14:01:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
.
To answer the first question:
Freedom of speech never ends in a free country.
Society has placed two little no no’s which do not hamper the average person; you can’t sponsor the overthrow of a freely elected government by force of arms and you can’t use gratuitous vulgar language for shock value.
We are obligated to criticize anyone, yes the President if necessary, who violates our Constitution.
Any asshole who compares himself to patriotism probably doesn’t have a clue what real patriotism actually is.
2007-10-04 04:20:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Under the law the President, as a public political figure cannot be slandered -- and are you seriously suggesting that the right did not and does not make thousands of personal attacks on President Clinton, Al Gore etc etc. Give me a break.
2007-10-03 13:45:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Sorry, the president is a public figure. New York Times vs Sullivan ( 1964 ) . I don't think even actual malice applies to Bush or Bush's war. I can libel and slander and defame Bush all day. and nobody is going to care much less find anyting actionable here. Let me turn this around, Conservatives where does your desire to suppress the rights of others expressing their opinions end and FASCISM begins?
2007-10-03 13:48:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
they made plenty of jokes and personal attacks were the songs of the day....the president lack of credibility has given rise to the attacks and I doubt you had any problem with attacks on Clinton or some other politician you dislike. if that is true then the question is not Treason but your hypocrisy that should be at issue.
2007-10-03 13:43:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋