Memorial Day (OT)

Bill C wrote:


Why do you talk in such generic terms? What does "crossing the line"
mean? Who drew the line? Where is the line?

You leave all these relevant questions unanswered and then pretend that
everybody is on the same page with you in these answers, when in fact
they are not.

You sound like some moral crusader who says certain types of pornography
"crosses the line."

What ****ing line are you people talking about?

What FDR did to slopes was racist.

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You aren't stupid and my chains not going anywhere. The line in porn
is really simple, children, or non-consenting adults.

Bill C


What about delicious 18 year olds who dress in school girl outfits and
suck on lollipops?

http://www.adultrental.com/images/ne...022_image1.jpg

Thanks,

Magilla

On May 27, 6:49*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On May 25, 3:18 pm, Bill C wrote:

*Anyway, everywhere you look today, it's the "Kommie Left" stepping up
fighting to get the troops better equipment, medical care, benefits,
and decent treatment.
*I hear lots of lip service, and PR spots from the right, but they've
closed ranks behind the military industrial, mercenary, clown complex
at the expense of the folks getting their asses blown off.

You're just figuring this out? It's very simple. The Republicans favor
the wealthy. The vast majority of our troops are not wealthy, quite
the opposite. *Republicans don't want their tax dollars going to a
bunch of poor people, even if they are veterans.

Let's make military service a requirement to receive all tax cuts,
then sit back and listen to the Republicans scream... * Let Romney and
his 5 sons pay if they don't want to serve. No more free rides.
-Paul

Blah, blah, blah, K.I.S.S. because we wouldn't want to actually have
to consider individuals, and complicated situations as being nuanced,
and difficult. Anyone babbling in sound bites should stick to
dittoheading for Rush and morons, or Air America. Insert any of SoTS
sheeple comments here.
Life isn't simple, but they did invent the term simpleton for folks
who think it is.
Bill C

Bill C wrote:

On May 27, 11:28 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:



Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
Rose did.
Bill C

It's called free speech and it's protected by the First Amendment.
Fonda never provided "material support."


Why do you talk in such generic terms? What does "crossing the line"
mean? Who drew the line? Where is the line?

You leave all these relevant questions unanswered and then pretend that
everybody is on the same page with you in these answers, when in fact
they are not.

You sound like some moral crusader who says certain types of pornography
"crosses the line."

What ****ing line are you people talking about?

What FDR did to slopes was racist.

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You aren't stupid and my chains not going anywhere. The line in porn
is really simple, children, or non-consenting adults.
The line in treason is pretty simnple too, and has to be far enough
out, and is, as demonstrated by the lack of people actually charged
with it, let alone convicted. The person has to actively, knowingly,
by their free will, provide tangible support, and/or actions to an
active enemy combatant. This is why the woman most recognized as
"Tokyo Rose" was pardoned by Gerald Ford. Documantation showed that
she had been forced to work for them. That's not treason. Jane Fonda
choosing, of her own free will to go to N. Vietnam, do propaganda for
them there, and then to come back here and continue to do propaganda
work for them here is a clear violation of the law. The dividing line
is that she was working at their direction, by her own choice.
Protestors were working at their own beliefs. That's why there are
pro Al-Qaeda websites and other things up here in the States, because
they are legal, and covered under the first amendment until they are
found to be acting as an agent for an enemy group. Even then the
massive benefit of the doubt goes to the individual, as it should, or
did until Bushy boy started declaring US citizens, in the US, enemy
combatants and taking them out of our legal system.
Bill C


Sounds like Fonda was engaging in free speech to me.

First you define an element of treason as one who provides "tangible
support." But in your initial post, you used the markedly different
phrase "material support."

I hate to tell you but neither include free speech or "propaganda."
Support means monetary support or intelligence or strategic support.

SUPPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE FREE SPEECH.

Thanks,

Magilla

Donald Munro wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

What ****ing line are you people talking about?


The blue line on a velodrome. When it starts to curve you accelerate.



Keep it up and we'll duke it out at the cafe in Sausalito, where I
settle all my scores in here.


Magilla

Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:


The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.


Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
Yorktown sank.



Sounds to me like you think the World Trade Center was a government
implosion too.


Magilla

On May 26, 2:35*pm, Bill C wrote:
On May 26, 2:13*pm, Andrew Price wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

wrote:
What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? *Last time I
checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.

If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."

Thanks,

Magilla

Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
Rose did.

I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
the Vietnam war.

I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
*Bill C

"Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
an actress who later made exercise videos. She isn't,
and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
Hayden. Man up and say _they_ should have been
tried for aid and comfort, etc.

Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
here. As you know, there was never a declaration of war
during the Vietnam "War." Clearly, the US was fighting
North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
homegrown VC insurgency. Given that there was no
official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
treason just for palling around with some country that
we weren't officially at war with? In theory, people can
be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
family, the Rosenbergs). More recently, even John
Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
charges rather than treason.

So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
and Hanoi Jane. However, if you want to give her the
retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. Excepting
Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.

Ben

On May 27, 4:44 pm, Bill C wrote:
On May 27, 6:49 pm, "Paul G." wrote:



On May 25, 3:18 pm, Bill C wrote:

Anyway, everywhere you look today, it's the "Kommie Left" stepping up
fighting to get the troops better equipment, medical care, benefits,
and decent treatment.
I hear lots of lip service, and PR spots from the right, but they've
closed ranks behind the military industrial, mercenary, clown complex
at the expense of the folks getting their asses blown off.

You're just figuring this out? It's very simple. The Republicans favor
the wealthy. The vast majority of our troops are not wealthy, quite
the opposite. Republicans don't want their tax dollars going to a
bunch of poor people, even if they are veterans.

Let's make military service a requirement to receive all tax cuts,
then sit back and listen to the Republicans scream... Let Romney and
his 5 sons pay if they don't want to serve. No more free rides.
-Paul

Blah, blah, blah, K.I.S.S. because we wouldn't want to actually have
to consider individuals, and complicated situations as being nuanced,
and difficult. Anyone babbling in sound bites should stick to
dittoheading for Rush and morons, or Air America. Insert any of SoTS
sheeple comments here.
Life isn't simple, but they did invent the term simpleton for folks
who think it is.
Bill C

Interesting how you didn't respond directly to anything I wrote. Why
not post YOUR explanation for why you hear "lots of lip service, and
PR spots from the right, but they've closed ranks behind the military
industrial, mercenary, clown complex at the expense of the folks
getting their asses blown off"?

Like I said, "Republicans don't want their tax dollars going to a
bunch of poor people, even if they are veterans." BTW, I went to
college on the GI Bill. It helped make up for the low pay I got in the
service and being 4 years behind my peers when I got back into the
private sector.
-Paul

On May 27, 4:59 pm, "
wrote:

"Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
an actress who later made exercise videos.

Right. On the other hand, here's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Or if Saddam was such a great threat, let's execute Bush's father for
not finishing him off in the Gulf War.
-Paul

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:
The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.

Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
Yorktown sank.

Sounds to me like you think the World Trade Center was a government
implosion too.

Ooook.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
" wrote:

On May 26, 2:35*pm, Bill C wrote:
On May 26, 2:13*pm, Andrew Price wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

wrote:
What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason? *Last time I
checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.

If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."

Thanks,

Magilla

Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
Rose did.

I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
the Vietnam war.

I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
*Bill C

"Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
an actress who later made exercise videos. She isn't,
and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
Hayden. Man up and say _they_ should have been
tried for aid and comfort, etc.

Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
here. As you know, there was never a declaration of war
during the Vietnam "War." Clearly, the US was fighting
North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
homegrown VC insurgency. Given that there was no
official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
treason just for palling around with some country that
we weren't officially at war with? In theory, people can
be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
family, the Rosenbergs). More recently, even John
Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
charges rather than treason.

So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
and Hanoi Jane. However, if you want to give her the
retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. Excepting
Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.

http://www.swapsale.com/Barbarella_2.jpg

--
Michael Press