[IamIan]

A spin off out ... off topic thread started in the climate change thread...

here is a new thread for it to be discussed on it's own.

- - - - - - -

The disagreement started from this post:

there are no such things as progressives they are regressives. they want to go back to a tribal environment where the cheif, or king, owns everything, and only by his grace are you allowed to keep anything. that is the modern day alleged progressive. and for a king he puts in place an alleged government - not unlike the marxists that have failed all over the world.
those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

- - - - - -

I disagree with the suggestion made in the last sentence ...

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

In the U.S. and most places traitors are executed.

To treat them as traitors is asking for for them to be executed.

I personally disagree with labeling someone as a traitor just because they advocated something ... Advocating something can be as simple as discussing it with friends and family ... under this suggestion those people should be labeled traitors and treated as such ( executed )... advocating something can be as simple as writing a book about the pros of it ... under this suggestion the writer would be labeled a traitor and treated as such ( executed ).

I disagree with this position , suggestion.

 

[IamIan]

Still no need to explain. I said you added into the context of his comment (Free Speech). I said his comment was not about (Free Speech). I never said it did not violate Free Speech now did I. You changed the context by adding that in. Lets keep it in context. Unless of course you intended to change the course of the thread by making that comment.

perhaps you should take a closer look yourself.

I never claimed his comment was discussing free speech ... I said, I disagreed to a specific quote I referenced ...

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

I said free speech swings both ways , that to treat them as traitors for voicing their opinions destroys free speech.

The only thing I did to his context ... was to point out ... something I disagree with in his suggestion.

I only stated on the observation of what you did by inserting the term Free Speech into a comment that had nothing to do with the topic of Free Speech.

See now?

If at first you don't see, be patient, you will.

I never changed any quote of his ... I never claimed he used the term Free Speech ... however ... I did point out that his suggestion effects free speech... And that I disagreed with his suggested use of what it means to be a traitor... and how low he was setting that bar.

Unless you think his suggestion would have no effect on free speech ... If so ... please explain?

 

[IamIan]

I do not and did not advocate for charging every idiot who believes in perpetual motion (which is analogous to the belief that Liberalism promotes Prosperity) with the crime of Treason - and to suggest that I did so is both rude and disingenuous.

I'm glad ...

It wasn't disingenuous at all because that is what is seemed like when I read this part, ( underlined )

But, Liberalism isn't just about TALKING about that idea. Liberalism ACTIVELY works to promote the overthrow of the foundation of the Constitution - the inviolability of personal property. As such all activists are actually traitors seeking the overthrow of the Constitution.

Free speech is not unlimited -

never said it was... several times I have stated myself about the limits of free speech.

Publicly talking about killing elected representatives can net you jail time, as can yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

we don't label them traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ... do we?

Abuse the concept of 'free speech' and you can be punished... but doing what what infantry suggested,

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

I am against and I disagree with that extreme suggestion.

You can yammer all you want about the harmlessness of "just talking about" ideas which are fundamentally EVIL - but a Just society does not tolerate ideas that ultimately lead to intolerance and slavery.

but does a 'just' society label them as traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ? ... or does it do as you posted above ... jail time and fines... the 'just' society does not do what infantry suggested.

Did we not make Slavery illegal in our Constitution? If so, why does anyone believe it is a legitimate topic of conversation to discuss, demonstrate, and actively plan for a society in which we are economic slaves of the State?

I have no idea why someone would think that would be good to advocate ... however that does not change ... I do not support the idea of labeling them as traitors and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for peacfully advocating their position ... even if I 100% disagree with their position... which is why I disagree with infrantry's statement.

No, you cannot have it both ways. Hiding behind "Free Speech" as an excuse to advocate for an idea which is hardly one moral step removed from advocating for the actual physical slavery of the bulk of the productive citizens of our country is simply a ploy that is part of a scam to trick the unwitting into relinquishing their God-given Rights. Such fraud is a crime and should result in incarceration.

a crime ... fine ... I agree those who abuse 'free speech' ... should be punished ... but labeling them as traitors, and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for advocating ??? I think that goes too far.... which is what I was disagreeing with infrantry about.

Are some people simply misinformed about the aims of Liberalism? Certainly. Do I advocate that just any old citizen should be jailed for speaking about Liberalism in fond tones? Certainly not - and it was utterly disingenuous of you to suggest I had.

My position is that infrantry's use of 'advocate' sets the bar way too low ... as a means of finding someone as a traitor and treating them as such ( execution ).

Not disingenuous at all...

That was the impression I got from your post ( underlined ) ... I'm glad you clarified it above

But, Liberalism isn't just about TALKING about that idea. Liberalism ACTIVELY works to promote the overthrow of the foundation of the Constitution - the inviolability of personal property. As such all activists are actually traitors seeking the overthrow of the Constitution.

I was clear - those to whom the word "Traitor" should apply are those officials entrusted with the safekeeping of our Constitution and sworn to protect it, yet who are actively working to subvert it. It is for that precise purpose that the crime was specifically included in the Constitution, and it should be exercised - regularly, if necessary.

I am glad you cleared it up in this post ... the previous one it was ... not clear ... at one point you are claiming , "all activists are actually traitors" , which is just as broad as the suggestion infrantry made that I was disagreeing with ... and then you claimed "Personally, I think most Liberals would cease and desist after a few executions - so to try them all would be a waste of time." ... a waste of time? ... that doesn't read like you didn't want to apply the term traitor to them ... or that it would be going to far ... it read like ... you thought it would be a waste of time to execute them all.

So I am glad you cleared it up.

Hoever , that still leaves me with the same position.

I strongly disagree with Infrantry's statement,

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

Which is what I was disagreeing with from the beginning ... before you decided to defend this statement.

 

[Guest]

You did not not change the quote and I never said you did. I did say you changed the context of the topic by inserting in your original comment ( Free Speech). The topic you make this remark about has nothing to do with free speech at all. What you did was swing the topic another direction. It is quite common in the political arena to do things like this to swing the topic to a specific side or argument that only benefits the one making the change. If you are observant you will see this time and time again. One more lesson. Every one who speaks or writes is exercising his or her right of free speech. We have all taken or are taking history and know what free speech is all about. We don't need your input on that subject.

I neither agree or disagree on the comments of the post but can comment on each if you wish me to join in and make some political observations.

100% disagree.

free speech swings both ways.

to treat them as traitors for voicing their opinions destroys free speech ..and that is in conflict with the ideals of The United States.

Who is a traitor?
One who takes action on destroying our rights. Yes, a person can be a traitor for taking a verbal stand but it would be a weak case if one tried to prosecute in court. I am quite sure we could find plenty of traitors in our midsts. Might be hard to fetter out too but they are here and they are actively trying to undermine our country. Don't blind yourself to the truth.

 

[IamIan]

I did say you changed the context of the topic by inserting in your original comment ( Free Speech).

Yes ... I am guilty of making a comment on his statement... it is a forum.

Yes ... I am guilty of pointing out an aspect of his comment that I disagree with... I do disagree with it... and I gave a reason.

Yes ... he did not originally post about free speech directly ... I referenced free speech as an explanation of one reason why I was disagreeing with his statement... not the only reason.

Discussion , statements , and suggestions do not exist in a vacuum ... If someone wants to make on a public forum the statement,

those who advocate this and claim to be Americans are traitors and need to be treated as such.

That person is opening his statement up to the critique of others.

I disagree with it ... and free speech is one reason why I disagree with it.

The topic you make this remark about has nothing to do with free speech at all.

Interesting...

I wonder how many people ( and their loved ones ) who would get labeled as traitors and treated as such ( executed ) ... just for advocating to friends and family about the benefits of having a king, would feel... would they agree with you that this had nothing to do with free speech at all? ... they would not feel any different about speaking freely?

Interesting...

What you did was swing the topic another direction.

What I did was give one of the reasons why I disagree with the statement.

If you think that reason is not justified ... that those labeled and treated as traitors would not have their free speech effected ... please explain... ( as you did a bit bellow. )

We don't need your input on that subject.

Never said you did...

I said I disagreed with the statement ... and offered one of the reasons why I disagree with it.

If you don't like that ... ok ... fine ... don't like me having reasons , or me telling you what they are ???

If you disagree with that specific reason ... please explain? ( as you did a bit bellow )

Who is a traitor?
One who takes action on destroying our rights. Yes, a person can be a traitor for taking a verbal stand but it would be a weak case if one tried to prosecute in court. I am quite sure we could find plenty of traitors in our midsts. Might be hard to fetter out too but they are here and they are actively trying to undermine our country. Don't blind yourself to the truth.

I have no doubt that some actual traitors might speak out publicly or privately one way or the other.

I have no doubt that an actual traitor might be making an intentional effort to subvert from within.

But that does not mean that everyone who advocates those things is a traitor.

A 100% loyal , and faithful U.S. citizen might honestly think that a monarchy would be a good idea ... for him to speak his thoughts does not in itself make him a traitor... even if it is advocating that position... he has not betrayed anyone... he has not sold anyone out ... etc.

Yes ... some types of speech we restrict ... if it does harm ... and as you say a case can be made in a court of law about it ... and we do punish people who abuse speech to harm society itself or members of that society ... but we do not just declare them to be traitors and treat them as such... we declare their activity to be illegal and treat it as a different kind of crime... and even if we did this is public movements toward monarchy ... that would still be a very different crime than being a traitor.

Who is making the subjective determination that someone is advocating something ? ... you wouldn't want to be thought of as being an advocate ... even if you weren't ... because being an perceived as an advocate would be a death sentence... talk about a step in the wrong direction of society and personal freedoms.

Being critical about the government could also be something an actual traitor would do ... should we also round up all those people critical of the government label and treat them as traitors?

I think only actual traitors ( those caught betraying the country ) ... selling military secrets , etc ... should be treated as traitors ... all of the indirect and second hand types of 'potential traitors' is a slippery slope ... and a bad idea.

 

[Duncan]

If I was an American I could

Actively work - raise money - hold rallies to change the constitution

Its a right under the constitution - where do you think the First and Second Amendment (and all of the others came from)
Did the stork bring them?

Even if I have sworn an oath to protect the constitution I could work to change it - so long as I obeyed it until I got it changed

And so long as I worked to change it inside the law - no violent insurrection

 

[Guest]

But that does not mean that everyone who advocates those things is a traitor.

Agreed.

But making a statement about free speech is really kinda moot.

Just like I don't label those who are of different nationalities but live among us. Some I do label but for ACTIONS not Race or Religious background. But words are a form of action and can incite further physical action that is deadly and or treasonous. Mostly though a word is not reason but if action is taken then we will take a stance. If I incite others to action I am just as guilty. In that case yes you can be a traitor and be hanged just by making statements of such. So I guess you see now don't you. It is after all not an issue of free speech is it.


Traitor:
a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc

 

[Guest]

advocate

— vb
1. ( tr; may take a clause as object ) to support or recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of

— n
2. a person who upholds or defends a cause; supporter
3. a person who intercedes on behalf of another
4. barrister solicitor See also counsellor a person who pleads his client's cause in a court of law
5. Scots law the usual word for barrister

[C14: via Old French from Latin advocātus legal witness, advocate, from advocāre to call as witness, from vocāre to call]

 

[david85]

Yes ( kill them all for any support of that vile position )

Ian, I understand what you are trying to do here but I don't think anyone is advocating that position.

 

[PhantomPholly]

I'm glad ...

It wasn't disingenuous at all because that is what is seemed like when I read this part, ( underlined )

An activist is one who goes beyond simply "discussion." Activism involves (as the root of the word implies) action to make a change.

we don't label them traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ... do we?

When one is part of a conspiracy (any group acting together under cover of subterfuge) to break their sworn oath of office - whether through providing aid and succor to our enemies or attempting to pass laws to weaken or break our Constitution, these actions are clearly described as Treason. Were not politicians generally cowards (read your history), this charge would be put forth more often - as it was in ages past. To call such persons "traitors" is simply a description of their acts.

Abuse the concept of 'free speech' and you can be punished... but doing what what infantry suggested,

Ok I won't speak for Infantry - I will simply state that when I read his post there was a clear ambiguity between speaking and "advocacy" - the latter can involve acts, not just expression of an opinion. To fault him for lack of clarity would be fair; to accuse him of being a whack job for that lack of clarity would be to succumb to the same sort of wackiness you are in fact accusing him of. I judge this one a "double-fault."

I am against and I disagree with that extreme suggestion.

Again, this depends upon the "degree of advocacy." I'd call folks who stand outside polling booths with weapons and dressed in garb intended to intimidate "advocates" - the sort who ought to be jailed.

but does a 'just' society label them as traitors and treat them as such ( execution ) ? ... or does it do as you posted above ... jail time and fines... the 'just' society does not do what infantry suggested.

I was explicitly clear in my example - those who are elected officials conspiring to pass laws to circumvent or undermine the Constitution pass the test of Treason. A businessman asking for a special favor from Congress that happens to be Un-Constitutional and one or more Congresspersons who stupidly agree are simply greedy and negligent - the Congresspersons should be impeached (if you aren't smart enough to discern that the request is un-Constitutional, you don't belong in Washington) and the businessperson investigated to see if they were bribing officials.

Our law recognizes that varying circumstances also vary the severity of the crime, or change the Charge to be applied.

I have no idea why someone would think that would be good to advocate ...

Neither do I - so how do you explain the fact that government is now spending over 50% of everything produced in this country today? If they spend 100% of everything produced, that is an effective tax rate of 100% - pure economic slavery. That is what Liberalism advocates, and thus if you are a true Liberal you are advocating for slavery - the only remaining argument is one of degree.

however that does not change ... I do not support the idea of labeling them as traitors and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for peacfully advocating their position ... even if I 100% disagree with their position... which is why I disagree with infrantry's statement.

Individuals, yes - except if they meet the further qualifications of Treason. The idea that because someone is attempting to accomplish the EFFECT of Treason and is not a Traitor simply because they were attempting it by Fraud rather than Force is specious. They know what they are about, for if they did not they would be honest about their aims. No, those who wish to be slave masters by any subterfuge are just as guilty as those who would use stupid brute force - more so, for they understand fully their intent, whereas brutes often do not. They should be made an example of in every generation until such time as they have a cure for that particular mental illness.

In fact, the Constitution ALLOWS us to ditch the principle of individual freedom for government slavery. All you have to do is pass an amendment. That is a debate those of us who believe in freedom would welcome - and one that just as certainly Liberals will avoid at any cost.

a crime ... fine ... I agree those who abuse 'free speech' ... should be punished ... but labeling them as traitors, and treating them as such ( execution ) ... just for advocating ??? I think that goes too far.... which is what I was disagreeing with infrantry about.

See above. I do understand that you might have drawn a different inference from Infantry's post, but not from mine. For the rest of your "explanation," I'll withhold judgment on you personally - my take is that Progressives have made a concerted effort to blur the lines between right and wrong so that, when caught, they can claim "I was ONLY... <insert excuse here>"

 

[Duncan]

"I was explicitly clear in my example - those who are elected officials conspiring to pass laws to circumvent or undermine the Constitution pass the test of Treason."

So if an elected official said that he wanted to and would work to repeal the 17th amendment he would be a traitor and should be hung

Great idea!

 

[Lexus]

Interesting Topic, so here is a questions for you people.


I have left Australia, moved to Japan, plan on taking Japanese Citizenship and I will defend Japan in times of war even against my country of Birth, I am a TRAITOR?

Tell me if someone immigrates to the USA/UK/Australia and becomes a citizen of the country, if a war broke out between the persons country of Birth and their new home country who should they defend ?


I get told a lot on Youtube, Facebook, Yahoo Message Boards I am a TRAITOR because I have left the west to move to the east.

If I defend Japan against Australia I am a TRAITOR, as Japan is my new home country if I defend Australia against Japan I am a TRAITOR, so what would you do?

 

[poprock]

Hey guys; I had the obviously mistaken idea that we were not to discuss politics or religion, only CURRENT issues (pun intended)

 

[PhantomPholly]

So if an elected official said that he wanted to and would work to repeal the 17th amendment he would be a traitor and should be hung

Great idea!

I already addressed this. Working openly to Amend the Constitution is not "working by subterfuge" nor "conspiracy to undermine the Constitution." Such a move is one I would welcome, since the politicians in the States finally realize what they gave up with that albatross.

If we're going to repeal one, though, let's start with the 16th.

 

[Guest]

Interesting Topic, so here is a questions for you people.


I have left Australia, moved to Japan, plan on taking Japanese Citizenship and I will defend Japan in times of war even against my country of Birth, I am a TRAITOR?

Tell me if someone immigrates to the USA/UK/Australia and becomes a citizen of the country, if a war broke out between the persons country of Birth and their new home country who should they defend ?


I get told a lot on Youtube, Facebook, Yahoo Message Boards I am a TRAITOR because I have left the west to move to the east.

If I defend Japan against Australia I am a TRAITOR, as Japan is my new home country if I defend Australia against Japan I am a TRAITOR, so what would you do?

Would you be a traitor? NO
Once a citizen if you defend Japan against Australia you would not be a Traitor. Some may think so but no you would not be a traitor.
If I defend Australia against Japan I am a TRAITOR, so what would you do? If your a Japanese citizen then yes you would be. If you still hold citizenship to Australia then no but you best watch out because some would consider you one. In the case of the later I'd hide till it all blew over. You can be a citizen of more than one country. Most would want you to take one side or another.

If it happened that Japan went to war you'd be in a very hard position. Remember we held American citizens of Japanese decent as hostile. I don't really think it has changed all that much. Too bad.

I'd go to Canada for awhile then go back home. Hopefully it would still be there for you.

 

[david85]

Would you be a traitor? NO
Once a citizen if you defend Japan against Australia you would not be a Traitor. Some may think so but no you would not be a traitor.

Thats what I was thinking too. If you defected during hostilities, that might might be different.

If I defend Australia against Japan I am a TRAITOR, so what would you do? If your a Japanese citizen then yes you would be. If you still hold citizenship to Australia then no but you best watch out because some would consider you one. In the case of the later I'd hide till it all blew over. You can be a citizen of more than one country. Most would want you to take one side or another.

Agree...but he never stuck me as the type to hide or run away

If it happened that Japan went to war you'd be in a very hard position. Remember we held American citizens of Japanese decent as hostile. I don't really think it has changed all that much. Too bad.

Yup. Canada did that too.

I'd go to Canada for awhile then go back home. Hopefully it would still be there for you.

LOL, I guess we still have to be good for something.

 

[Jan]

You guys seem to think ‘Traitor’ has an absolute meaning. It hasn’t, it’s just a curse word, like idiot, fool, liar, or charlatan. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder. Someone uses such a word, when he or she is not able to express him or herself in coherent sentences to describe his or her feelings.

And ‘traitor’ is mostly used in the ‘us against them’ situations, that are hard to explain logically. Or not to explain at all.

The Netherlands tried to get their control back over Indonesia after WW2. It was a pretty bloody war. Some Dutch fighters stepped over to the other side, to help the Indonesians fighting the Dutch. Eventually the USA turned against ‘us’, and ‘we’ gave it up. Indonesia became an independent country. One of the last colonies. Most of the Dutch know by now ‘we’ were wrong. We where the bad guys. Really bad guys. But still those men who choose the right side in those days, never got rehabilitated. They were not welcome home until recent years. They were traitors and what ever happened, that could not be changed. Just stupid feelings.

I have lost all my group feelings over the years. Feelings like nationalism, religion, political base or race, or whatever. I’m just me, wherever I like to live my life. So, it’s meaningless to me. For me, the only thing that counts is ‘Intention’.

Would I defend the country where I accidently live against an invading country? It depends. If the Netherlands get a racist or neo Nazi-like government under Geert Wilders, I will hopefully become a traitor. And help the Germans to overthrow our government. That would be ironical.

 

[PhantomPholly]

Interesting Topic, so here is a questions for you people.


I have left Australia, moved to Japan, plan on taking Japanese Citizenship and I will defend Japan in times of war even against my country of Birth, I am a TRAITOR?

Tell me if someone immigrates to the USA/UK/Australia and becomes a citizen of the country, if a war broke out between the persons country of Birth and their new home country who should they defend ?


I get told a lot on Youtube, Facebook, Yahoo Message Boards I am a TRAITOR because I have left the west to move to the east.

If I defend Japan against Australia I am a TRAITOR, as Japan is my new home country if I defend Australia against Japan I am a TRAITOR, so what would you do?

That scenario does not even approach the legal definition of treason, at least not in the U.S.

If you repudiated your citizenship with a country, then during time of war regained entry under false pretenses and worked covertly to undermine such a war, it MIGHT be Treason, or Espionage. But fighting for your country of Citizenship? Well, if your country loses the war they might persecute you, but it isn't legal under any accepted practices of war.

 

[Duncan]

To Jan's point

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Ovid
(I had thought it was the Bard?)

Working openly to Amend the Constitution is not "working by subterfuge" nor "conspiracy to undermine the Constitution.

Working openly - then those who pay for anonymous political campaign ads are committing treason??

My interpretation is different - as long as you are obeying the laws and not planning sedition or violence you are not committing treason

You may be breaking other laws - we have strict campaign funding laws here as we do not believe that money is speech and is protected

Any campaign for anything will start with conspiracy and subterfuge - it has to - you will always start with a small group talking privately!

To the dual citizenship
I am a British citizen and a New Zealand Citizen - If it came to armed conflict I would have to choose and repudiate one of them

 

[Jan]

To Jan's point

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Ovid
(I had thought it was the Bard?)

Was a bit hard to understand. Doth? But I think it means: America started as traitors. Yep, but which country didn't?