-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Yay! Cindy is running!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
smack Down
Diamond Member
She didn't say afghanistan! wasn't justified, just that she is dedicating her campaign to the people living there.
As for whining about calling the pardon treason, you need a better argument. Treason is the only crime defend in the constitution and nothing states that a pardon can not be considered aid and comfort. So I think you need to make a better argument.
Lemon law
Lifer
We can look at the problem another way---Sheehan hits a nerve and is somewhat right---but will still fail to send the dems lurching so far to the left that they lose touch with reality---or for that matter any further left than they are now.
And the best the repubs can do is run the same tired faces who have proved to be wrong----and then they somewhat seek to derive chuckles and grins from Sheehan?
In other words---Sheehan is more correct and the repubs caused grief by being wrong---and because Sheehan fails to get all her views adopted even though she does cause a
slight leftward drift, the repubs win because Sheehan is not proved totally correct. That sure seems the Republican argument here---the more wrong Republicans are the more Republicans win??? Or is it just gloating---even if republican ideas are wrong, the country is not quite yet ready to really totally reject us yet.---and we still retain enough power to keep screwing up the Country
And the best the repubs can do is run the same tired faces who have proved to be wrong----and then they somewhat seek to derive chuckles and grins from Sheehan?
In other words---Sheehan is more correct and the repubs caused grief by being wrong---and because Sheehan fails to get all her views adopted even though she does cause a
slight leftward drift, the repubs win because Sheehan is not proved totally correct. That sure seems the Republican argument here---the more wrong Republicans are the more Republicans win??? Or is it just gloating---even if republican ideas are wrong, the country is not quite yet ready to really totally reject us yet.---and we still retain enough power to keep screwing up the Country
You should try it, too. She's right when she talks about Bush committing treason, but there are far stronger reasons than commuting Libby's sentence to make the case againts Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. It's also easy to make the case for murder against Bush, Cheney and anyone else in their criminal cabal who pimped their war of LIES in Iraq.
marincounty
Diamond Member
If you really believe that I have a bridge to sell you, real cheap. There is no way in the world Cindy Sheehan could beat Nancy Pelosi, but careful what you wish for. Nancy Pelosi is actually fairly middle of the road, she has not cut off money for the troops, let the surveillance act pass, etc.. You right wingers are very lucky Barbara Boxer is not the speaker of the house, she would have W's balls in a vise.
Text
Pelosi represents one of the safest Democratic districts in the country. Democrats have held the seat since 1949, and Republicans, who currently make up only 13 percent of registered voters in the district, have not made a serious bid for the seat since the early 1960s. Pelosi has kept this tradition going. Since her initial victory in 1987, she has been reelected 10 times, receiving at least 75% of the vote
Blackjack200
Lifer
That's actually a reasonable and rational viewpoint. Right now Great Britain believes Andre Lugovi murdered Alexander Litvinenko. Russia is refusing to turn Lugovi over, but Great Britain is not attacking Russia or trying to overthrow its Government. By your standard, the Government of GB is loony and leftist.
Blackjack200
Lifer
Lugovi orchestrated the murder of one Brit. Murdering a nations citizens could be seen as a tacit declaration of war; and I'm not sure that's a relevant question anyway since Bin Laden had declared war and jihad on America long before 9-11.
It seems to be a question of numbers. How many dead justify an attack? 1? 3? 300? 3,000?
umbrella39
Lifer
Wow, must have took a while to come up with that!!!
Wrong. You can count the far left wingers here on one hand, just like the far right wingers.
Lots of us have taken people to task over calling our soldiers murderers and so forth.
The issue I have with this is just what I said earlier, parents in a grieving period with engage in ridiculous behavior, I have witnessed this firsthand and I think she's an easy target.
(Quoting in part)
If you really believe that I have a bridge to sell you, real cheap. There is no way in the world Cindy Sheehan could beat Nancy Pelosi, but careful what you wish for. Nancy Pelosi is actually fairly middle of the road, she has not cut off money for the troops, let the surveillance act pass, etc.. You right wingers are very lucky Barbara Boxer is not the speaker of the house, she would have W's balls in a vise.
(end quote)
Cindy (as an Independent) doesn't have to beat her, just divert enough votes so the other opponent wins (presumed to be a Republican).
If you really believe that I have a bridge to sell you, real cheap. There is no way in the world Cindy Sheehan could beat Nancy Pelosi, but careful what you wish for. Nancy Pelosi is actually fairly middle of the road, she has not cut off money for the troops, let the surveillance act pass, etc.. You right wingers are very lucky Barbara Boxer is not the speaker of the house, she would have W's balls in a vise.
(end quote)
Cindy (as an Independent) doesn't have to beat her, just divert enough votes so the other opponent wins (presumed to be a Republican).
You know the question is irrelevant, and the answer to has more to do with political strategies and gamesmanship than facts and the law, but I'll be glad to toss the burden back to you.
Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of 8/11/07 11:22 am EDT, your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have murdered 3,684 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq.
All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the five years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 3,684 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense? :shocked:
The lack of action by Congress doesn't change the facts and the law that make George W. Bush and his administration guilty of the murder of all of those American troops who have died in Iraq. If you believe otherwise, you get to show us why. Facts, not opinions, please.
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
Here's another definition:
If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. If you still argue that any excuse the Bushwhackos have offered is anything but lies, either you haven't been paying attention, or you're one of the participants in their conspiracy of lies.
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:
The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
How is that not a violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?
How is that not a violation of allegiance toward one's country or the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies?
Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office.
Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides:
Pat Robertson and other religion nutcases have made no secret of their attempts to invade and take over the government to promote their agenda. We know that the Bushwhackos hired 150 graduates of their junk law school.
I shudder to think what their schools of law and government teach about the separation of church and state, but at least, they taught Monica Goodling enough Constitutional law to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating herself for crimes she may have committed as a top level official in the U.S. Department of Justice. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
And the lies they were telling, they sell in the name of their savior. 🙁
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
