Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Jihad Jane???


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Jihad Jane??? Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/10/2007 3:20:24 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Politics end at the waters edge....



This statement seems rather idiotic.

Bob Hope et al went to Vietnam to support an undeclared police action inflicted on an indigenous population by the US political structure.

Jane Fonda went to Vietnam to protest an undeclared police action inflicted on an indigenous population by the US political structure.

In both cases, politics did NOT end at the water's edge, unless the water you are referring to is the Tonkin Gulf.

For a rationalization to work it has to be fairly applied to all situations, not just the one you want to apply it to.

Sinergy

Bob went to entertain and support our troops in the field, not a political act..Bringing pretty girls improves moral..
The USO supports the troops.


Sternhand4,

Are you making the point that the United States military was in Vietnam without the support of the political structure in the United States?

Or is your point that I am incorrect because Bob Hope also entertained those he was supporting, whereas Jane Fonda did not?

Think twice, post once.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 421
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 5:58:48 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

Politics end at the waters edge....
You don't criticise the president when he's abroad... or when your on foreign soil... ask the dixie chicks how it works.



Grammys love Chicks: Record, Song, Album
LOS ANGELES, Feb. 11 (UPI) -- The Dixie Chicks won Song of the Year honor with "Not Ready to Make Nice" at the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles Sunday.

"Thank you for sticking by me" said the trio's outspoken singer Natalie Maines, whose criticism of President George W. Bush during the lead-up to the war in Iraq cost them fans. "We are very, very appreciative and honored."

The Dixie Chicks beat Mary J. Blige's "Be Without You"; Carrie Underwood's "Jesus, Take the Wheel"; Corinne Bailey Rae's "Put Your Records On"; and James Blunt's "You're Beautiful."

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 422
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 6:31:14 AM   
NavyDDG54


Posts: 203
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
the traitoress strikes again

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 423
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 6:39:54 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

the traitoress strikes again


NavyDDG54:
Your name implies that you were in the military.  Did you not swear a solemn oath to uphold the constition?  Is the first ammendment just for those who agree with you?
thompson

(in reply to NavyDDG54)
Profile   Post #: 424
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 6:46:30 AM   
pantera


Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline
jane the traitor fonda!!!

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 425
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 6:50:55 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pantera

jane the traitor fonda!!!


pantera:
You also seem to feel like bush & co that the constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper"
thompson

(in reply to pantera)
Profile   Post #: 426
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 7:20:05 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1899: “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’”—Schurz,

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 427
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 2:23:31 PM   
NavyDDG54


Posts: 203
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
So you are telling me that her going to Hanoi was freedom of speech and not aid and comfort to the enemy? which constitutes treason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

the traitoress strikes again


NavyDDG54:
Your name implies that you were in the military.  Did you not swear a solemn oath to uphold the constition?  Is the first ammendment just for those who agree with you?
thompson

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 428
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 2:40:29 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

So you are telling me that her going to Hanoi was freedom of speech and not aid and comfort to the enemy? which constitutes treason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

the traitoress strikes again


NavyDDG54:
Your name implies that you were in the military. Did you not swear a solemn oath to uphold the constition? Is the first ammendment just for those who agree with you?
thompson



Given that the US was WRONG to support Diem, yes. Once the US decided to back someone who REFUSED TO OBEY UN MANDATES, they are international war criminals, and deserve no support, in accordance with the Declaration of Independence.

Specifically,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Read that carefully, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER **OR ABOLISH IT**, and given that US support for Diem is arguably destructive to the ends of Life Libery and Pursuit of Happiness, then once again, yeah, Jane Fonda was well within her rights, and doing her duty to the Republic, rather than the military-industrial complex.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 2/12/2007 2:44:31 PM >


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to NavyDDG54)
Profile   Post #: 429
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 5:56:13 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
So farg, you put the UN above the US constitution,..... interesting.  I would say according to the DOI we have the right to refuse to obey the UN, as it does not secure life, liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 430
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 5:59:26 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
The Constitution DOES say that Treaties are the highest Law of the Land, right?

That aside, WHERE in the Constitution does it give the Executive the authority to engage in combat to support a dictator?



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 431
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 6:09:13 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
The UN is a charter orginization, not a treaty.  Article I section 8 grants the government the right to wage war.  Article II section 2 gives controll of the millitary to the president.  Nothing about what sorts of governments we are allowed to fightor defend at all.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 432
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 6:19:58 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

The UN is a charter orginization, not a treaty.



Briefly, from wikipedia.

The United Nations Charter is the treaty which forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations. ... It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.

quote:


Article I section 8 grants the government the right to wage war.


You misspelled "CONGRESS".

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
...

quote:


Article II section 2 gives controll of the millitary to the president.


Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

quote:


Nothing about what sorts of governments we are allowed to fightor defend at all.


Actually, since CONGRESS hasn't declared War, The President doesn't have anything to do with the Army, Navy, or militia, does he? If you want to take the Constitution at it's literal face.

Wonder HOW he got any money to conduct planning and operations against Iraq BEFORE going to Congress, as required, for appropriations...

Fraud, anyone?



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 433
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 7:42:05 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
DDG54:
As has been stated several times...there was no war declared only the adventurism of a series of presidents.  No declared war =no treason.
thompson

(in reply to NavyDDG54)
Profile   Post #: 434
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 7:44:27 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
farglebargle:
This is all true...but would you hazard a guess as to whom the president must ask to use the marines?
thompson

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 435
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 7:50:22 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

So you are telling me that her going to Hanoi was freedom of speech and not aid and comfort to the enemy? which constitutes treason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54

the traitoress strikes again


NavyDDG54:
Your name implies that you were in the military.  Did you not swear a solemn oath to uphold the constition?  Is the first ammendment just for those who agree with you?
thompson



From my understanding of the laws against treason, these only apply to people who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

For example, they apply to the President whose father got him into the Texas National Guard over 50,000 other applicants with the lowest possible numerical score on the exam, and who then spent the last year+ AWOL. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt going absent without leave a criminal act in the military?

They dont actually apply to a private citizen who was one of the stars of the movie Monster In Law.

Please clarify, without using the proof that because you think it is true (google "Christopher Columbus") it is true.

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to NavyDDG54)
Profile   Post #: 436
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 8:13:19 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
     Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your question, Sinergy.  The laws against treason would apply to any US citizen.  Adam Gadahn (sp?) would be the most recent example.  It is the only crime actually defined by the Constitution.

   I don't think Ms Fonda was ever actually charged.  I'm getting the feeling, following this conversation, that some think her right to call POW's 'liars' is somehow more valid than the right of others to look at what she did, cry 'traitor,' and hate the bitch until the day she dies and beyond.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 437
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 8:24:10 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

    Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your question, Sinergy.  The laws against treason would apply to any US citizen.  Adam Gadahn (sp?) would be the most recent example.  It is the only crime actually defined by the Constitution.

  I don't think Ms Fonda was ever actually charged.  I'm getting the feeling, following this conversation, that some think her right to call POW's 'liars' is somehow more valid than the right of others to look at what she did, cry 'traitor,' and hate the bitch until the day she dies and beyond.


Wasnt Adam the person who was found guilty of treason because he fired on US Soldiers in Afghanistan?

Article 3, section 3 of the US Constitution

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

(I dont recall Jane Fonda levying war against the US, I am not sure she provided them aid, and "comfort" is a rather vague term.  She definitely did not confess to being a traitor in open court)

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

(I dont recall Jane Fonda ever being charged by Congress with the crime of treason.  You might think she committed treason, but one of the other principles of our government is the concept that one is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.  I would appreciate if you Jane Fonda haters stopped accusing her of a criminal act, as technically this is libel / slander.  For information about the crime you are guilty of when you write about this, please peruse http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm to determine how these laws apply to your own actions.)

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 438
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 8:29:55 PM   
WyrdRich


Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
       You're thinking of John Walker Lindh who wasn't actually charged with treason.  Adam Gadahn is an Orange County, CA native member of Al Queda.  He is also known as Azam the American and does propaganda against the US.

     Jane is welcome to file a suit.  Since she doesn't press charges when veterans spit on her, I won't hold my breath.


     http://www.nbc30.com/news/4401987/detail.html

< Message edited by WyrdRich -- 2/12/2007 8:32:42 PM >

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 439
RE: Jihad Jane??? - 2/12/2007 8:32:23 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
Well the debate about who treason applies to aside, in my opinion one needs to be at war to be offering aid and comfort to the enemy. We were not at war with Vietnam, it was a police action in a legal sense, at least that is what our government called it

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 2/12/2007 8:33:15 PM >


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to WyrdRich)
Profile   Post #: 440
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Jihad Jane??? Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.426