"Conservatives" are traitors.

[Cary]

I reached this conclusion a couple of years ago. It's clear that they value their ideology over the welfare of our nation and the general welfare of WE, THE PEOPLE. I don't see how anyone can honestly deny that "conservatives" value their ideology over all else.

At best they can make a convoluted argument about how they are a priori and therefore their ideology is the best thing for the nation and WE, THE PEOPLE. So what's the difference between that ends justifies the means argument and the argument of any other ideologue or traitor?

Nothing. There is no difference and they claim their Ayn Rand ideology is American, as if in fact it was an American ideology.

Their ideology is not the ideology of the founding fathers. It is not Thomas Paine. It is not Thomas Jefferson. What their ideology is, in reality, is a re-branded fascism plain and simple. It is feudalism.

I am glad to see a smattering of mainstream talking heads reaching the conclusion that "conservatives" are traitors. I reached that conclusion reluctantly because it strikes me as extreme, but I found I had no choice. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and all of that. More of us should come to this realization.

We are dealing with traitors.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

1. Yep. Treasonous fucks that should be denied a voice. nt

[RZM]

4. What does that mean, exactly? n/t

[cali]

6. so who should have a voice? People who agree with holy you?

[Cary]

9. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. n/t

[cali]

10. what does that even mean, sweetie?

mindless insinuation that I'm actually a conservative? One who's been here for years and years and has tens of thousands of posts?

brilliant, Sherlock, brilliant.

[Cary]

35. If you have something of substance to say, why not say it?

It's not necessary for you to reach the conclusion that I was insinuating that you were a conservative. You interjected that.

In fact you are displaying some kind of odd defensiveness with your ad hominem responses. That is what I am suggesting.

Why would you be an apologist for "conservatives"? I am serious. What on earth would compel you to defend these people? They don't deserve your sympathy any more than I deserve your abuse.

[Tushon]

122. I don't want to speak for her, but

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" comes to mind. (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)

Just because we disagree with Republicans/conservatives/whatever you don't agree with does not equate denying them speech (in general). If you are not trained as a surgeon, I would not listen to your opinion on heart surgery techniques; however, if you are talking about local politics, most people have an ability to see at least what is currently happening and can form an opinion on it. You may disagree with it, but that does not make it "treasonous fucks that should be denied a voice". Plenty of republicons paint themselves into a corner with that voice.

[Cary]

130. But I never said "treasonous fucks that should be denied a voice."

What does the fact that people here so readily expand on and distort my posts? What is this need to tell me that I favor executing people when I didn't even come close to saying anything even close to that?

I don't want to deny "conservatives" a voice. I want to subject them to ridicule and widespread condemnation as purveyors of a perverse and dysfunctional ideology. I want to shine a light on what they're advocating and ultimately I want them thoroughly defeated at the polls.

I don't really understand the need here for you and the others to saddle me down with this garbage that you're trying to attribute to me and I really don't understand your need to defend "conservatives". They really aren't worthy of your efforts.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

136. but treason is a crime...

you seem to miss that bit. labeling someone as a traitor makes them a criminal...so in effect, yes, you did say they should be denied a voice...but once again...you won't get it. no one is defending conservatives...not one person. they are simply defending their right to speak and not be called traitors...

people with such a huge blind spot are loads of fun.

sP

[ProdigalJunkMail]

150. once again...you can find no instance of my supporting conservatives

i guess you can no more be bothered with actually backing up your statement with examples than you can be bothered to use terminology correctly...

sP

[Cary]

172. Pfeh. n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

179. excellent response...it's all you have. nt

[Cary]

180. That's all I have for you.

Glad to see you approve.

[dionysus]

189. tut tut, you burst their bubble...

[RZM]

13. These are simple questions

When somebody throws a vague statement out there, peoople are going to ask what they meant by it. Pretty standard stuff, I think.

[Zalatix]

29. +100!

[cali]

32. lol.

I can't stop laughing at you.

[Zalatix]

34. You look silly sitting there laughing.

Republicans should be allowed free speech in another country. Preferably one that we're trying to destroy.

[cali]

37. not as silly as you look, sweetums

consistently.

[Cary]

39. Translation:

Cali hates Zalitex.

[cali]

46. uh no, dear. You might note that Zalitex (that does sound like some new anti-depressant)

is the one that posted first, regarding me.

[Cary]

52. I have asked you serious questions.

You have responded with very little substance. I am not the least bit interested in your opinion of Zalitix or the efficacy of his or her user name. Nor does it make any difference whatsoever, to me at least, whether you hate this poster because of some provocation or not.

Nor am I interested in bare assertions. I have given you my thoughts and some justification for those thoughts. I am interested in your substantive thoughts and your reasons and justifications.

I have observed you over the years to have a good mind. Your posts are much better when you use it instead of reverting to ad hominem.

[cali]

61. uh, you've asked me not a single question, dear. not one.

why make shit up that's so obviously not true? Anyone reading this thread can see you didn't ask me a single question. Ask me a question and I'll answer it.

[Cary]

64. Now that you've accused me of lying, look at post #35.

The title is a question. In the body of the post I asked you two more and even added the words "I am serious" in case you failed to understand that I am asking you questions. To wit:

"Why would you be an apologist for "conservatives"? I am serious. What on earth would compel you to defend these people? They don't deserve your sympathy any more than I deserve your abuse."

So maybe you will apologize for calling me a liar? Or maybe you won't?

[Cary]

73. "Disgusting, misleading, offensive and dim. Pathetic, really."

"poorly veiled insults."

I am actually a lot better at insults than you are. If I was insulting you I wouldn't veil the insult, poorly or otherwise.

No, the way I see your posts you strike me as apologist. Perhaps you think I am misusing the term somehow in order to insinuate that you are a "conservative"? No, I am using the term correctly to convey my opinion that you are speaking in defense of "conservatives". How? I don't really know exactly, which is why I asked you to nicely to explain.

I have always wondered what the difference is between "intellectually dishonest" and "dishonest" and I tend to favor the latter. So you have gone from apologizing to me for falsely accusing me of lying, to again accusing me of being a liar.

The irony of the juxtaposition here of the word "apology" and variants is not lost on me.

But stripping away your emotional babble, you do offer a glimmer of substance. So I correctly surmised that your only "argument" is that I should not call them traitors because they called us traitors.

I have made a distinction here and I accuse you of a false equivalence. They do not have a real argument that liberals are traitors. I, by contrast, am citing the fact that they have put their ideology ahead of the interests of our nation and of WE, THE PEOPLE. I have cited examples, one of which is their austerity argument. There are many such examples and "conservatives" flat out refuse to consider any empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology. Worse yet, they lie. They flat out lie. I'll go so far as to say that "conservatives," like National Socialists, are purveyors of The Big Lie. We have many, many examples. Hell, they lied us into a war of all things.

I am open to a real counter-argument. I am asking you your opinion in good faith. I have not attacked your person the way you insist on attacking mine, and I will not do that. I have attacked your argument here, and that is all. In fact I have complimented you by telling you that you have a good mind, and I meant that.

So is this the best you have? You won't call a traitor a traitor because "conservatives" falsely accused us of being traitors?

What if I do call traitors traitors? What's going to happen? Is a big boxing glove going to come out of the screen and punch me?

Actually it kind of seems to me like you may agree but you're just afraid to call "conservatives" what they really are. Perhaps you're suggesting here that somehow we are going to lose the argument to "conservatives" by calling them traitors?

I really am seeing more people coming out and saying that the Republican conspiracy against President Obama, thwarting anything that he might do and then turning around and blaming him for not getting things done, is treason. There's a new book out, and the author escapes me. It was one of the MSNBC regular commentators who has a new book, and he somewhat reluctantly called it treason.

And I'm sorry if I find your defensive attitude here to be rather odd, but it's odd. You could disagree without being so obnoxious about it. Yes, you could.

[underseasurveyor]

118. Excellent!

[Zalatix]

77. And anyone who disagrees with her.

[Cary]

79. Her attitude is unfortunate.

And unnecessary. There's absolutely no reason to make any of this personal.

[Zalatix]

81. I'm not your sweetums, thanks very much.

[Cary]

38. Let's pick one of their arguments--austerity

Do "conservatives" have a single argument that austerity has ever worked in any advanced economy that's in a liquidity trap? No. Actually there is no conservative model of any sort (the reasonable conservatism or the radical brand of "conservatism&quot that even allows for the possibility of a liquidity trap--a zero bound situation like we're in right now.

But try to explain this to an Eric Canter or a Paul Ryan. Dare them to provide a single example where someone created jobs under these conditions with austerity. Ask them to back up their "arguments" and you will get ad hominem, very much like what you're offering up here.

Go right down the line. Ask them why gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry. Ask them why the top 1% needs tax cuts.

Do you get a reasonable argument from them? Do they actually engage? Will facts affect them in the slightest?

You want to be an apologist for them? Well, let's see it? I'm waiting for a real argument from you in favor of "conservatives" and convincing me that it's a good idea to act as their enablers. So have at it.

[A Simple Game]

88. You were confusing me until I got to this post.

Then I saw the problem. You are using conservative when what you mean is Republican. There isn't always but often there is a difference. Canter and Ryan are not Conservatives they are Republicans, an often subtle but sometimes big difference. In this case there is a big difference.

3000 posts in 30 days, must be a record.

[Cary]

131. I have said a million times that I am referring to "conservatives", not conservatives

I wouldn't use the term Republicans. Canter and Ryan are "conservatives" which is not conservative. I agree. Contemporary American "conservatives" like Canter and Ryan are to the right of conservatives on the classical political spectrum. Well, what is to the right of conservatives on the classical political spectrum?

Fascism--not necessarily of the National Socialist (Nazi) variety. There are more benign variants of fascism.

Anyway my way of disallowing them the noble and respectable tradition that is conservatism, and Edmund Burke and all of that, is to use the quotes. It's like Ayn Rand claiming to be "objectivism." She stole the name from a legitimate school of philosophical thought.

As for the number of posts I have actually been at DU for over 8 years.

[A Simple Game]

139. Well, that clears it all up, doesn't it.

You are referring to "conservatives", not conservatives. And "conservatives" as everyone knows are not the same as conservatives.

So when you were talking about "conservatives" and everybody else was talking about conservatives everyone else was under the false assumption that you were talking about the same group they were talking about but you weren't talking about the same group they were talking about they were talking about a different group than the group you were talking about which was a different group entirely.

No why did your posts confuse me in the first place? It is so easy to understand.

[Cary]

142. You give yourself way too much credit.

It may seem like I care whether you're confused, but here in the real world I really don't.

[A Simple Game]

162. You don't want the company? n/t

[2pooped2pop]

20. treasonous bastards should get the penalty deserved

Yep it's treason and the punishment for treason is correct for them. May there be a God and may all those who work to lower standards and harm the people rot in hell after the penalty is brought.


they want to close our schools so they can make money selling an education to those who can afford it. Fuck those who can't.

They want to privatize our prisons while buying into those prisons and keeping the laws gamed against all but the rich so that they can get richer keeping the cells filled with The People.

They want to deny healthcare to all but the rich. Lack of insurance is said to cause the death of tens of thousands Americans each year.

they don't need social security and medicare so they don't want to pay for it anymore and see it as another place to loot.

They want to do away with regulations that keep our food safe, our products safe,our workplaces safe they want to do away with regulations to keep our air and water clean and safe.

[Zalatix]

28. I suggest this most appropriate death penalty for Conservatives

Give them their own island where they can be as selfish, eco-unfriendly and ignorant of food safety as they want to be.

They'll die in their own filth and infighting in a few generations.

[2pooped2pop]

66. we'll have to decide what island to sacrifice.

You know they will deplete it's resources, destroy it's ecosystem and make in totally wasted and uninhabitable. Then, if they have any ability to do so, they will strike out looking for other islands to pillage, make slaves of it's peoples, and inhabit until it dies like the one before it.

so, we're gonna need a strong deterant to keep them stuck on that first island. Don't suggest sharks as they are quite accustomed to sharks.

[backscatter712]

214. Since they want to be king, I say we give them a crown... like in Game of Thrones.

"You shall be given a golden crown that men shall tremble to behold!"

[Cary]

132. While I agree about the bad things "conservatives" do I have to strongly condemn this idea

I believe in our traditions and our government. What you advocate here is not our traditions and not our government, but rather the French Revolution. Your medicine would kill the patient along with the infection.

We have to destroy them at the polls, within the law. That's not easy but such is life. No shortcuts. We have to figure out the best way to deal with their lies and their corruption.

[2pooped2pop]

174. those bad things have destroyed this country

and were done with the intent to do so. Treason.

[Cary]

175. Treason in the sense that they have betrayed WE, THE PEOPLE, yes...

Criminal treason, no. Sorry.

[Zalatix]

27. I disagree. Free Market, Anti-Woman Conservatives should be allowed a voice.

In a country we're at war with, that is.

[bbgrunt]

2. Maher went there last night: called their actions treason.

[2pooped2pop]

67. good. About time someone calls it what it is. n/t

[Sherman A1]

3. Treason is a very harsh term

while I don't disagree with your thoughts, I wonder if the term might be a bit too harsh. I also wonder if using it in this sense might really dilute the meaning of the term. I understand it is just a word, but words do matter.

[Cary]

7. Yes, words matter.

So what are the consequences of being too harsh?

What are the consequences of being not harsh enough?

Keep in mind that they think we're weak and that they can bulldoze right over us.

[Sherman A1]

56. Well,

First of all this is a discussion board, so the consequences are perhaps minimal in either case at best. I do believe that the use of this term tends to harden positions rather than make any dialogue possible (and eventually there must be dialogue as we all live in this country together). I am a much fonder proponent of the "kill them with kindness" school of thought, certainly disagreeing with points of view, statements and actions as necessary, but trying never to be disagreeable. I just don't think the term fits well, nor do I believe it really is helpful. You are certainly entitled to disagree with me and hold your own opinion, I likewise am entitled to disagree with you and hold my own.

We can charitably agree to disagree and do so in a fashion that is harmonious and maintains civility.

[Cary]

76. I appreciate your point of view and call to civility

Yes, this is a discussion board. Don't you think I invited disagreement in my opening post?

I agree that killing with kindness is preferable but it's not always possible. Sometimes that makes one an enabler and it's actually counter-productive. I believe "conservatives" are addicted to their ideology. They will not recover unless and until they hit the bottom. This means they have to lose elections.

Had they lost in Wisconsin and then in November they might have had enough of the only language they understand, which is defeat at the polls. Addiction is a primary disease. If you can get the addict to hit bottom, they will either die or decide that it's time for them to get better.

This is what we're facing, IMHO.

[oldhippydude]

23. actually

the right wingers were the first to denigrate the term.. one of the first "books" of the 1960's was a gem called "none dare call it treason".. a winger lent me a copy in 1964, liberals were blamed for the international communist conspiracy, and Edsels

[2pooped2pop]

68. treason is a harsh word. It's exactly correct too.

Put everything those mother fuckers have done to the people of this country, the country itself, as well as the people and other counties around the world. And it's way past treason.

The only thing that is going to dilute the meaning of this word will be the republicans jumping on it as soon as we use it, probably in some referance to Obama. Then after they yell louder than we "treason, treason, treason, they will give the ol "see both sides do it" one liner that their flock can understand . Then the word will lose meaning.

[Sherman A1]

71. "Then the word will lose meaning."

I am afraid that they have long ago beaten you to the punch on this one and I agree the word has lost it's meaning.

[Cary]

80. Except there is no one here who misunderstands

There are only baby splitters who are under the misguided (IMHO) impression that they can position themselves as moderates or centrists by mincing their words.

Hey, if one sells out their country and their countrymen to an ideology, then they're traitors and nothing good is going to come from coddling this particular lot.

[Sherman A1]

126. You are entitled to your opinion

I disagree with your use of the term, treason and think it waters down the term as we have seen with other terms (nazi comes to mind). I just don't think it's use to be helpful.

I fully understand your argument and in fact agree with most of what you say, excluding the use of the term treason. Using such terms only serves to harden already hard positions as we have seen this done by "The Esteemed Mr. Limbaugh" on a continuous basis for 30 odd years, it does not serve to bring people together and frankly we desperately need to come together.

[Cary]

134. I understand but I think the disagreement here is a little different than you suggest

You seem to hold out hope for the radical right. I don't have any hope for their redemption.

There is no upside in mincing words.

[Sherman A1]

145. The disagreement is over the use of the terminology

I assure you that I am not at all naive. I have seen what the Glen Beck's, the Ann Coulter's and Rush Limbaugh's have done through the years, but somewhere, somehow there will be a point where people have to talk & work with one another for the greater good. Hardening the words used does not help to further things. Do I have hope, Yes. Am I pragmatic, Yes.

Calling someone or some group a traitor(s), based upon a point of view (and frankly that is all you have offered, your opinion of "X" actions = Traitors, on the use of the term) doesn't make for a good place to start a conversation. By all means continue to do as you please, but understand there are those who are not at all naive who disagree with you.

[Cary]

149. Sherman you have made your point and unlike some others here you are not trolling

But really Sherman, only a point of view?

They lied us into a war. They took a surplus and turned it into a deficit during a recovery. They deregulated the financial industry and created a Great Republican Depression II.

Did you know that the Great Depression was once known as the Republican Depression?

They have systematically divested the middle class. They engage in a war on women. They obstruct our President for no reason other than to grab power again, so that they can bust up unions.

And on and on. That's not opinion Sherman. Those are the facts. That is what you're dealing with.

They are a cancer Sherman. Do you fight cancer by wringing your hands over the name cancer? Fuck that.

[Rittermeister]

160. When they raise an army in rebellion against the government, then I'll call them traitors

Although. . .it doesn't seem so far-fetched a possibility any more.

[Zoeisright]

115. Oh bullshit.

Why are you being an apologist for them?

[Sherman A1]

125. I find your response

to be lacking civility. I am not an apologist, in fact I find those that claim to be conservatives something very much different than what they claim to be as I don't think they understand the meaning of the word conservative. I am however discussing the use of the word treason and I don't think it to be an appropriate use in this sense. There appear to be others here as well that disagree with the use the OP has suggested, so perhaps it is your viewpoint that is as you seem to claim, bull droppings.

[Zoeisright]

114. What they are doing is harsh.

The term is soft compared to the havoc and death those asshole repukes have wrought.

[cali]

5. I'm so tired of this overuse of the word traitor.

your post is so meaningless.

[Cary]

8. I would not claim that my post rises to the level of a graduate thesis.

However my post is more than a grandiose proclamation based solely on my own feelings combined with a broad sweeping, baseless dismissal.

[cali]

11. actually, it falls rather neatly into the purview of "grandiose proclamation".

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. you post is exactly

a grandiose proclamation based solely on your feelings...and complete misunderstanding and misuse of the word treason.

sP

[Cary]

36. Except that I gave reasons.

Where are yours?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

58. except the crap you posted is not treason

anywhere... my reason is simple : you are wrong or don't know the definition of treason but most likely both.

sP

[Cary]

60. So you're saying that declaring my reasons to be "crap" is an argument?

I'm wrong just because you say so?

That's the best you've got? Really?

If you have a real defense for "conservatives" I'd like to see it. Maybe you're right? Maybe they're not evil?

I'm open to a real argument. Show me.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

62. facts are easy

and what you mention is simply NOT treason...but you keep believing it is an making DU look like a bunch of kooks with this kind of shit.

i guess there is no point in arguing with someone like you...or even trying to make a simple point.

sP

[cherokeeprogressive]

94. Your "reasons" do not square with the classic definition of treason.

But I'm thinking you might know that already.

[Cary]

97. Look up the definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Nice try though.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

100. i found this to be quite apropos...

from you link...

'At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action.'

You know, take your OP, replace the word conservative with liberal (a couple of other words might need replacing, but not many) and it would make a great post over on FR. The fact that the exact same arguments could be made against YOU might make you leery of the charge...but probably not...you're convinced you're right.

sP

[Cary]

101. Except, once again, I posted my reasons

And not one of you has objected to my reasons. You're just skittish about using strong language.

I have been cited for treason on FR, in fact. I would be concerned if their reasoning was as good as mine, but it's not. It might be a tad better than yours though.

FTR I wouldn't even dream of trying to throw you under the bus in order to defend them. Your skittish about using strong language against radical, extreme "conservatives" but you have no qualms about dissing good liberals merely because they express a negative theory about "conservatives?"

That ought to give you pause, but "you're convinced you're right."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

103. i object to your language and the inappropriate use of the term

and I KNEW the insults would not be far off...you don't understand what treason is...let's see if your arguments hold up after a quick edit as proposed:

"Liberals" are traitors.

I reached this conclusion a couple of years ago. It's clear that they value their ideology over the welfare of our nation and the general welfare of WE, THE PEOPLE. I don't see how anyone can honestly deny that "liberals" value their ideology over all else.

At best they can make a convoluted argument about how they are a priori and therefore their ideology is the best thing for the nation and WE, THE PEOPLE. So what's the difference between that ends justifies the means argument and the argument of any other ideologue or traitor?

Nothing. There is no difference and they claim their Marxist ideology is American, as if in fact it was an American ideology.

Their ideology is not the ideology of the founding fathers. It is not Thomas Paine. It is not Thomas Jefferson. What their ideology is, in reality, is a re-branded communism plain and simple. It is socialism.

I am glad to see a smattering of mainstream talking heads reaching the conclusion that "liberals" are traitors. I reached that conclusion reluctantly because it strikes me as extreme, but I found I had no choice. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and all of that. More of us should come to this realization.

We are dealing with traitors.

It looks to me like you copied something from a speech by Ann Coulter and just changed a couple of words. Does this make you a traitor? If the other side made these arguments...hell, I guess they'd be no better than you.

sP

[Cary]

106. Oh yeah, exactly the same...

Quote: "Liberals" are traitors.

Reply: Okay, that's the thesis. Usually one starts there.

Quote: I reached this conclusion a couple of years ago. It's clear that they value their ideology over the welfare of our nation and the general welfare of WE, THE PEOPLE. I don't see how anyone can honestly deny that "liberals" value their ideology over all else.

Reply: I would refer you to the excellent BBC series, "The Power of Nightmares." I would refer you to the Atlas society--go try to have a discussion with them and then tell me that they don't value their ideology above everything else. I would refer you to Jude Wanniski and the Two Santa Claus theory, which is the blueprint. I would refer you to the latest revelation about the secret meeting of Republicans on inauguration day. I would refer you to Mitch McConnell saying that it was his goal to take down President Obama regardless of the cost. I would refer you to Republican obstructionism. I would refer you to teabaggers, and birthers, and all other manner of hatred amongst "conservatives".

There's a lot more. I have a damning case against them, while they have only bare assertions. I would have thought that would be obvious to you.

Quote: At best they can make a convoluted argument about how they are a priori and therefore their ideology is the best thing for the nation and WE, THE PEOPLE. So what's the difference between that ends justifies the means argument and the argument of any other ideologue or traitor?

Reply: I don't regard myself as ideological or a priori. If you can make a real argument I'm willing to be swayed. Claiming that I valued ideology over all else, with absolutely no evidence, isn't a real argument and I'm not impressed.

Quote: Nothing. There is no difference and they claim their Marxist ideology is American, as if in fact it was an American ideology.

Reply: Calling me a Marxist is even more egregious. I am not a Marxist in any way, shape, or form. Not that their grievances against Marx hold any merit, mind you. They don't. But I'm not a Marxist.

Quote: Their ideology is not the ideology of the founding fathers. It is not Thomas Paine. It is not Thomas Jefferson. What their ideology is, in reality, is a re-branded communism plain and simple. It is socialism.

Reply: Actually I am a big fan of Paine and Jefferson. In fact there is not a single president who hasn't enacted legislation for the general welfare. Their definition of "socialism" is as fucked up as their understanding of Marx. I could go on and on about that too.

In the meantime their claims are demonstrably false.

Quote: I am glad to see a smattering of mainstream talking heads reaching the conclusion that "liberals" are traitors. I reached that conclusion reluctantly because it strikes me as extreme, but I found I had no choice. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and all of that. More of us should come to this realization.

Quote: We are dealing with traitors.

Reply: I really wish I remembered who the MSNBC commentator was, who wrote the new book on this. You're engaging here in a false equivalence.

Quote: It looks to me like you copied something from a speech by Ann Coulter and just changed a couple of words. Does this make you a traitor? If the other side made these arguments...hell, I guess they'd be no better than you.

Reply: As I said, a false equivalence. It's unfortunate that you can't make this distinction and that you insist upon being a "conservative" apologist. But do what you think you've got to do. If that floats your boat, so be it.

Maybe you ought to have this discussion with Ann?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

108. it is only false because you believe it is

if you had read this on FR or heard it from Shawn Hannity you would be railing against it...and the sad part is that you KNOW that but still persist. you seem to think i am speaking about YOU when this has nothing to do with you...i simply turned your own words around and you act as if i am calling YOU a Marxist. just goes to show you are completely willing to miss (or pretend) to miss a point so that you can make it about YOU. I never called YOU a Marxist...

nicely done insult as well...really bolsters your argument.

sP

[Cary]

111. You did not turn my words.

You made a shitty argument.

I still don't understand why you're so eager to apologize for the pukes and to make this false equivalence. If you think that's an insult, so be it. I call it as I see it.

No, I am saying that you are calling me a Marxist. You're mangling the obvious here. I am telling you, again, that you are making a false equivalence. I am not a Marxist. If they called me a Marxist on FR, as you suggested in your hypothetical, then that would be a reflection of their ignorance.

By contrast my characterization of their Ayn Rand ideology is objective, fair, and accurate. You're going to argue that it isn't? You don't think they're hurting Americans?

As said earlier no less than Bernie Sanders was saying yesterday that the "conservatives" know exactly what they're doing and they don't care. They don't care who they hurt. You would think that millionaires and billionaires with more money than they can ever use would be a little beyond greed, but they aren't. They want more, regardless of the fact that they're harming our economy.

And you're claiming that I'm exactly like them?

Get a grip Prodigal. These people, "conservatives", are infected with a thought virus. They are dysfunctional. Their ideology is perverse.

I should not have to explain any of that to you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

128. i didn't need to turn your words

changing a couple as sufficient. it would appear that YOU are infected with the same virus.

sP

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. That's rich.

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.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action.

The last six words describe your use of the word treason to a "T".

Thanks for the link though.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

129. Cary makes a point well

too bad it is not very supportive of the OP. the last quote in your post i also found to be fun.

sP

[Cary]

133. Let's put this in perspective...

I posted an anti-"conservative" perspective at Democratic Underground.

If I had posted this at Free Republic I would have expected to be stirring up a controversy with the "conservatives" I offended. Now I am not above such a thing, but I am not at Free Republic. I am at Democratic Underground where I am supposed to be exchanging thoughts with fellow liberals.

I can understand your disagreement. Okay, so you think the use of the word "traitor" has to be in the criminal law context despite the fact that this is not a court or any kind of law enforcement. In fact it's not even close to being anything of any real consequence, but you still insist that the definitions in a real context are the only appropriate definitions. I can understand your point in spite of the absurdity you bring to bear.

What I can't understand is your apparently rabid need to act as an apologist for "conservatives" while at the same time demonstrating an equal need to not be accused of acting as an apologist for "conservatives".

I'm not going to back down on my condemnation of "conservatism" here at DU.

[gulliver]

30. Betrayers, Judases, saboteurs, backstabbers, Iagos...

"Traitors" is possibly a stretch, even when discussing Republican leaders/SuperPACs and the "Job Exporters" they serve. We don't want to overcharge the perps and have them walk on a technicality. Unmistakably, Republicans have aided and abetted American rivals and enemies, but it is mostly unintentional, the product of incompetence and a half-witted core ideology. The typical "Kansas Republican" stooge who actually pulls the voting lever isn't trying to attack America. They are (at this sad point in their ethical spiral) trying to recover from the humiliation of their support for George W. Bush and the failure Republicans brought to the country. Their feelings are so strong that they are actually grateful for the outright lies of Mitt Romney and American Crossroads. Your typical working and middle class Republican doesn't want to stop and think about the past. They want someone to lie to them about that to make them feel ok again.

[Cary]

45. Okay but I wasn't trying to be technical or legalistic

I don't advocate prosecution.

I am making the argument that they value their Ayn Rand ideology over our nation and over WE, THE PEOPLE, and I am saying that this is pernicious and evil. And yes, traitorous.

I have flat out asked one of these Ayn Rand types whether they would persist in one of their ideological conclusions (forget which one) if it could be demonstrated conclusively that they were wrong and the the policy based on this conclusion actually hurt most Americans. The answer, without hesitation, was "of course" they would persist.

I have made a statement that they would smear Mother Teresa if she was a Democrat and guess what the response was: a thousand or so smears on Mother Teresa.

I don't see any good reason to mince words. This iteration of "conservatism" is evil. There is nothing to gain by appeasing them in any way, shape or form and it I'm approaching Godwin's Law on that, so be it. I understand Godwin's Law and the reasons behind it and generally I would agree. We are beyond the looking glass when we delve into "conservatism" so Godwin's Law be damned.

[Posteritatis]

70. Yep. (nt)

[libodem]

12. You had me

At the title. Truth.

[gulliver]

14. Republicans are just misguided and emotion-dominated.

It is why they are losing everything they stand for, especially the good things. They should stand back and ask themselves, "Why am I so angry?"

Anger just makes people easy to mislead. The bad guys are Republican politicians and outside groups like American Crossroads. They have fostered an entirely deceptive mental world for the common Republican to inhabit. Mitt Romney is just chuckling inside every time he talks to the low-born rubes whose votes he has sewn up.

[baldguy]

15. I disagree; conservatives are not traitors.

Merely having a different view of the issues of the day is not, in and of itself, proof of treason. And conservatism has a long & proud history - both in America and around the world. The real problem is that the people on the other side, though they may claim the title, aren't conservatives.

Conservatives want to keep the world as it is, or return to the world as it was. The people on the other side want to create a world that never existed.

Conservatives believe that govt should be small, not so it can be weak & ineffectual, but so it can respond to the people's needs quickly and efficiently. The people on the other side want to eliminate any govt they can't own, or that may actually enforce the law equally.

Conservatives - Republicans - want the govt to be a republic, to represent all of the people through periodic elections where everyone votes. The people on the other side want to eliminate elections and voting.

Conservatives are suspicious of all large faceless bureaucratic organizations with power. The people on the other side are only suspicious of such organizations when they exist to help people in some way.

Conservatives will root for America always, no matter who's in charge. The people on the other side only root for America when they're in charge, otherwise they work to destroy it.

Conservatives are not traitors. Unfortunately, the people on the other side are not conservatives.

[bluesbassman]

33. Wish I could rec this post, you nailed it.

I would encourage you to make this an OP. There is a great confusion amongst Liberals and Progessives these days as to the fair distinctions you've pointed out here.

I believe the conservative strain of the Republican party was mortally wounded in 1980 when Reagan was elected and officially died when Bush the Lesser was installed.

The "other side" are the greatest threat to the well being and future of our country, they just disguise themselves as Republicans.

[Cary]

43. Good post but notice I used "conservatives" in quotes

So I'm not referring to real conservatives. I am in fact referring to "conservatives".

That said where are the real conservatives? Even people I would generally regard as real conservatives have jumped the shark. There was a time I would have considered Mitt Romney to perhaps be a real conservative, but how do I do that now?

I mean all of the lies--how is that conservative?

[A Simple Game]

90. Finally a sane voice and one that understands the political realities.

The OP is obviously confused about the names of the various factions in todays politics.

Conservatives are what we used to call the loyal opposition. Unfortunately there are very few now that are true conservatives.

Calling for the death of an "enemy" is no way to behave in a sane world.

Thank you for your post.

[Cary]

104. Except that I have called for no one's death.

Look up the word treason.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

107. look up the penalty for treason against the United States...

nah, I'll do it for ya...

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States

Calling someone a traitor against the United States makes them worthy of death in the eyes of US law...but you knew that before you started throwing the term around, didn't you?

sP

[Cary]

109. Nice straw man

The fact that there is a statute against treason does not mean every use of the term is based on that statute. If I had meant to accuse people of violating the law, I would have said.

BTW, I happen to be a lawyer with 27 years of experience. You?

No, I was using the common usage of the word. Why you can't comprehend the difference is beyond me.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

137. yeah...a lawyer making specious arguments on a discussion board

oh...i want to call them traitors but not really mean it. oh, and i am pro-bowl quarterback...

my GOD but people like you are fun.

sP

[A Simple Game]

140. Now I see, you meant "treason" when you said treason.

A lawyer with 27 years experience that uses quotation marks to change the meaning of words, interesting.

3000 post in a month, interesting.

on edit: what ProdigalJunkMail said.

[LaydeeBug]

152. That pesky little "aid and comfort to the enemy" belies your "it must be calling for death" meme nt

[nanabugg]

92. +++1,000,000

[chervilant]

161. + a gazillion.

Great post, as usual.

As long as We The People continue to swallow the bipartisan red herrings promulgated by the majority of our media and politicians--at the behest of the Corporate Megalomaniacs who define and promote the "conservatism" du jour--we will squander our collective energy on hate and fear, rather than finding solutions to the myriad issues we are facing. Americans from all political persuasions must work together to address our nation's challenges.

It's interesting to read how various DUers perceive 'conservatives,' when, in truth, most of those we label 'conservatives' are our sisters, our brothers, our mothers, our fathers, our neighbors, our family and our friends. Each is as unique as are we, and each has a personalized understanding of the conservatism that is promulgated by the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, and our global economy. They are citizens of this United States, and they will NEVER respond positively to derisive, sarcastic ridicule.

[uponit7771]

176. Then the SELF PROCLAIMED conservatives are commiting treason, there...is that a better way

...of saying the same thing?

Regards

[hughee99]

178. I consider anyone who disagrees with me a traitor.

In America, everyone is free to believe whatever they want, and even free to be wrong... as long as they agree with me. Otherwise, they are traitors and pose a danger to the country. Thankfully for everyone who isn't me, I'm not in charge.

[sorefeet]

16. If you do everything in your power to make America fail

what are you. Just an obstructionist? Or should this be a crime. Is it all just the way they play the game.

[cali]

18. this is absolutely the same steaming heap of dog shit that the wingnuts

play in. Only for them, it's the "all liberals are traitors". This idiot mentality scares me silly- for obvious historical reasons.

Man, I really hate stupid.

[Cary]

47. So that's your only justification here?

Look, I'm not saying this from any ideological perspective so you raise a false equivalence.

"Conservatives" actually value their ideology more than they value the nation or WE, THE PEOPLE. It brings me no joy to reach that conclusion. In fact, I wish you were correct but everything I have observed about these people, and it's a significant sample, suggests otherwise.

They do a lot of projection, by the way. I have seen them project every one of their considerable deficits on liberals so are you suggesting that we liberals should just give up?

I was just listening to a local radio show bemoaning the fact that "conservatives" have managed to demonize unions over the past 30 years, and it's true. And just look at the results. The top 1% have run off with 93% of the growth in GDP over the past 30 years. A call in was talking about how she had a non-union middle manager job at a low salary with no health benefits and 20 hours a week with uncompensated over time.

And you're saying what here? We should appease these "conservatives"?

If you want to convince you have to do better than "don't be like them". If I can demonize Ayn Rand the way they demonize unions, hell yes I'm going to do it. And so should you.

[Odin2005]

17. Back in WW2 we fought the Fascists and we thought we destroyed them.

Now they are destroying us.

[iamthebandfanman]

19. they are quickly becoming the most confused ideology

..
up is down, left is right...
blue is pink ...

they live in some kinda alternative universe where everything is opposite... even if they have proclaimed otherwise shortly before.

they love the constitution, but want to change it by removing amendments.
they love the flag(and think it shouldnt be shamed), and then change the symbols on it to represent the tea party.
they think big government is bad, and there are too many hand outs, but dont you dare take their SS check away.

it makes no sense.

they just want to be everyone elses nanny, but how dare you if you make a suggestion for themselves

tale as old as time. its always someone elses fault they arent happy, they are doing everything perfect.

[Cary]

48. I don't think they're confused.

Dysfunctional, yes. But they're not confused. They know exactly what they're doing and they don't care.

Bernie Sanders was saying this to Thom Hartmann yesterday. Bernie is right, as usual.

[greytdemocrat]

22. I think a lot of people...

Here still haven't gotten past Tuesday night.

[I hate liars]

24. There are two kinds of destructive conservatives...

1. Ideologues who are too dim or stubborn to see the damage caused by their ideas

and

2. Sociopaths who don't care about the damage as long as they benefit personally.

The intent of the perpetrator really doesn't affect the outcome. Both kinds of conservatives have brought this country to its knees, and both are responsible for that result.

The situation is exactly like a parent who whips his child with a belt regularly. How can you tell whether that parent really believes that kind of "discipline" is the right thing to do or instead is just a sadistic asshole?

From the child's perspective, it doesn't matter.

If through some combination of fortitude and good fortune the child grows up to be a caring and successful person, the disciplinarian parent is likely to take credit ("Look at Estonia!" scream the Austerians), ignoring the much better outcome that might have occurred if the child were raised in a nurturing environment.

But it's far more likely that an abused child - or nation - will end up failed, angry, and clueless about raising the next generation in a way that avoids the same result. That's my fear for America.

[Iggo]

25. Can you throw in "ilk", "sociopath", "vile" and maybe an awkward contraction or two?

The vocabulary of outrage amuses me.

[Cary]

49. Iggo, the subject interests me.

I have put in a lot of thought and actually some scholarship. I have a degree in economics and have studied neo-classical synthesis (which you might refer to as Keynesian), monetarists (Milton Friedman), Anarcho-Capitalism ("Maury Rothbard&quot , Rand, Austrian, and even "supply-side economics." I have engaged "conservatives" who, for the most part, are oblivious to real economics.

I am actually amazed at the degree to which Ayn Rand has been accepted, given the fact that she was regarded as a fringe lunatic during her lifetime. This is truly some kind of thought virus and yes the idea that you can't have altruism because it's abusive and that you must pursue your own selfish interests at all times, for the greater good, is sociopathic and vile.

I don't see how a reasonable mind can conclude otherwise. I mean isn't that the very definition of sociopath--a lack of empathy? And how can one possibly regard the institutionalization of that as anything less than vile?

You're amused? Really?

I don't see anything funny about it.

[Iggo]

83. It's the hyperbole, sir.

When you call them traitors I find it just as amusing as when they call you and me traitors, and it carries about as much weight with me, which is not a whole helluva lot.

[Cary]

112. Actually I think you're missing the point.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I am interested in the true nature of "conservatives." I discuss them with the idea of understanding exactly what we're dealing with, not to inflame or insult. If I were to inflame or insult I would address them directly instead of mostly like-minded thinkers at DU.

I have reached the conclusion that it is of no use to even think of engaging these people. That is the point. They are treasonous. They are working against the interests of WE, THE PEOPLE. They are reprobates and if you don't understand that the thought of any compromise with us is anathema to them, then you are sorely mistaken.

And then too I have thought long and hard about what they could do to cure themselves. Of course they would have to moderate and be more like us, meaning they would have to be less ideological and less a priori.

I don't see that happening with this group.

[Iggo]

148. No. You're missing my point.

And my point was this: Words have meaning. When people throw around the words treason and traitor whenever and wherever they feel like it, it weakens their meaning, thereby weakening the argument.

Like I said, when you call them traitors it sounds just as dumb to me as when they call you and me and our "communist fascist Kenyan nazi socialist" President traitors.

[Gregorian]

26. Is censorship a liberal thing? I doubt it.

We tolerate things like the difficulties involved in the 1st Amendment. If I am correct about censorship being a conservative thing, then they essentially took a chunk out of the 1st Amendment.

I feel like this is a silly bit of logic. But somehow in a bigger perspective of war, lack of health care, it seems like part of a scheme that fits what you have said.

[quaker bill]

31. Traitors?

They are chickenhawks that feel empowered to lecture everyone about patriotism.

While lecturing about patriotism, they are anti-social warriors, doing damage to members of the community they are "patriotic" about.

It is a funny thing, patriotism, they seem to hold it as allegiance to an abstract concept, not allegiance to the actual people who embody the country. Unfortunately for them, the country actually is the people who live here now, and nothing else. It is not an idea, it is a reality.

For economics they pledge allegiance to an idea, a long discredited idea from the "age of reason", based in an intellectual construct that presupposes people as "rational" actors, when everything in the world around them tells them this is not true. Instead of adapting or adopting an idea that actually takes reality as it is found, they attempt to change reality to conform to their idea. This always fails because reality is what it is, and it changes if at all, very slowly.

These people walk the earth believing that they can shove the genie back into the bottle. ....If they get rid of birth control, then unwed people will stop having sex.... What they miss is that unwed people were having sex before birth control was invented, and orphanages were filled with the offspring.

They are desperate and certainly acting traitorous of late, but I think they intend well, they just don't know what they are doing, and have no grasp of the subtle and complex world we actually live in. Of course as my ex M-I-L was overly fond of saying, "The road to hell is paved with the best intentions". They are hellbent to take us down this road regardless of who gets hurt in the process.

[xfundy]

40. As has been said many times

they love America but hate Americans.

[Jamaal510]

41. ....

[IMG][/IMG]
-Jamaal

[jonthebru]

42. And "multi-national corporations"

by their definition are not nationalist so therefore are not loyal to any given nation, i.e. ours. That makes them, by definition again, "Un-American."
The Randian cult attracts people with sociopathic personalities. Narcissists, megalomaniacs and the like.

[Cary]

98. Clearly. Can you explain to me why some good liberals are falling all over themselves to defend

the Rand cult?

I think that's a huge mistake.

[SunSeeker]

44. Their ilk were the Tories during the American Revolution.

They always consider themselves patriots, but instead of fighting for the average American, they fight to support rich and powerful oligarchs. And like in the American revolution, they think the people have no right to tell multi-national trading companies what to do.

The original tea parties were progressive revolutionaries protesting against the unfair tactics of the East India Tea Company that was putting local merchants out of business. The conservatives were trying to jail the protesters. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Cary]

50. But why stop there?

By that time the British had engaged in substantial reforms, albeit not all the way.

Why not regard the top 1% as feudal masters in the "conservative" scheme and the rest of us as serfs? The top 1% are warlords of a sort, are they not? And where are the rest of headed under the "conservative" scheme, if not to full blown serfdom?

Is that hyperbole? I don't think so.

[SunSeeker]

54. I agree.

[Cary]

57. But let's try their counter-argument

We are open to the possibilities, right?

They conflate lassaize faire capitalism with freedom. Never mind that this is a complete bastardization of the idea of lassaize faire capitalism, which is more of an academic exercise to use to study economics than it is an actual reflection of any kind of reality outside of the Ferengi. I mean show me a "conservative" who understands the concept of "perfect competition."

None of the great philosophers, like a John Stuart Mill, ever equated property with things like the freedom of speech. I mean if you're censored that's a lot worse than if someone takes a few bucks from you.

Nevertheless "conservatives" have made this intellectual leap, conflating lassaize faire with freedom. So somewhere in their low information minds "conservatives" eschew the possibility of serfdom. Hell, we're not there right now. Right?

The "conservative" view is utopian, at the end of the day. And it's bolstered by sheer denial.

[SunSeeker]

63. It's also bolstered by sheer hate.

The Ayn Rand philosophy is a cover for letting your fellow American die--every man for themselves, and all that.

They hate the poor, brown, etc. This philosophy allows conservatives to exploit the vulnerable then leave them to die--all in the name of morality.

[Cary]

65. Clearly the Ayn Rand philosophy offers the perfect cover for hate.

After all, Rand's role model for her uberman was a serial murderer.

[just1voice]

51. Calling people traitors is a very dangerous thing to do, I know because (R)s said I was one

Back in the 2008 election, Virginia repukes voted to call all Obama supporters traitors as an election talking point. I knew one of the repukes and I can tell you I will hate that person for the rest of my life. There are clear traitors whom conspire against the U.S., such as Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Gonzales, Ridge, Ashcroft and other Bush admin people.

But, there are many other people whom are just freakin idiots, racists, criminals of all kinds and losers. Those people do not conspire against the United States, they just don't care one f-ing bit about anyone but themselves.

The U.S. would be a much better place is we actually tried the real traitors who set up torture camps, lied about WMD and wiretapped and terror-alerted Americans for political gain.

[Cary]

53. I understand, but do you see that you may be contradicting yourself?

As I have said above, I do not reach my conclusion without regret.

[just1voice]

55. Go ahead and argue with yourself

As I clearly stated, a lot of people are just stupid and they are not traitors. Stupidity doesn't equal treason. A lot of people are criminals but those crimes usually do not equal treason.

[Cary]

59. You're skipping at least one step here.

Explain how and why stupidity is a defense to treason? You're letting them off the hook because they're willfully ignorant?

I'm not buying that.

[4th law of robotics]

72. If you truly believe that then you must support using any means to stop them

including violence.

Either that or you're ok with the country being destroyed, which would make you a traitor as well.

So which is it: death camps or treason?

[Cary]

74. Let's examine all of the steps that you skip over for no good reason.

Of course I never suggested any such thing, but let's forget about that rather important detail.

Not to suggest that I am in any way a Lincoln, but didn't he Lincoln resort to violence in order to resist the Confederate States secession ambitions? Was Lincoln a traitor?

Do "conservatives" today equate to secessionists? I am not there quite yet so you're kind of prematurely and unfairly imposing conclusions upon me. However I am deeply troubled by what "conservatives" are doing. I do think they are subverting our democracy in some highly disturbing ways. Certainly if they were to have armed rebellion the police are justified in using violence.

So 4th law I don't really know how to connect your conclusion here to the place where I am. I would certainly hope that this isn't leading up to a civil war but regretfully I can't honestly tell you that it isn't going to end up that way. I doubt it will end up that way, but I am not going to guaranty it.

[4th law of robotics]

75. Your lincoln analogy makes no sense

in fact he was doing what I pointed out you should be doing: using all means to destroy traitors before they could destroy the US.

He didn't blog his concerns. He dragged this country through the bloodiest war in its history and put many traitors to death.

Are you willing to do the same?

Anyway the point was: traitors are people who are out to destroy your nation. You love your nation and don't want it destroyed. Ergo if you believe all that then you are willing to do whatever is necessary to stop them, including the use of violence as nations have always done to put down treason (war or executions depending on the scope). Are you willing to put to death all conservatives to keep them from destroying this country? If not then you really don't mean "treason".

[Cary]

78. Which part of "I am no Lincoln" do you not understand?

The fact is I am a poster on an internet board. I am not the President of the United States of America and have no such aspirations. My opinion on an internet board is just that. It is nothing more and will never be anything more.

That said I am a student of history, especially this period, and I don't see how you accuse Lincoln of "dragging". Are you familiar with things like the Fugitive Slave Act, Bleeding Kansas, fireeaters, the Dred Scott decision, John Brown at Harper's Ferry, Frederick Douglass, the Sumner Brooks affair, ...

Lincoln didn't "drag" anything. Lincoln found himself in certain circumstances and he made certain decisions. I am not in those circumstances. Hell, I don't even have to accept your definition of treason here. In fact I don't.

I do not advocate a pre-emptive war against "conservatives". I'm not a neocon, thank you very much.

[4th law of robotics]

85. Weird. Now you're trying to argue that Lincoln wasn't a powerful leader during the Civil War

he was just a victim of circumstance.

Either way you're deflecting: if you think they are traitors you should have no qualms with killing them. Ok maybe you prefer not to get your own hands bloody. But if someone else were to start rounding them up in to camps or strangling them in their homes you'd be ok with it. As this would be necessary to save this country.

Not so?

/otherwise 'traitor' just means 'someone I disagree with'.

[cherokeeprogressive]

89. Deflecting; perfect word in this circumstance. n/t

[Cary]

93. "But if someone else were to ... you'd be ok with it."

Of course I never said anything even remotely close to this. The definitive answer to your nonsense is no, but of course you knew that already.

If only the slippery slope wasn't actually a logical fallacy, eh? Alas, it is and here you are sliding along on it.

[4th law of robotics]

151. Then you tolerate traitors within your nation

who are working to bring it down?

[4th law of robotics]

153. Consider this: a far rightwing blog

has a poster (with a great many supporters) who declares all liberals to be traitors and enemies of the state.

What would your thoughts on such a person be? Might you be reasonably concerned that he was going to do something drastic?

[treestar]

155. No, IMO OP means that they will use any means to get what they want

And we should be ready to counter that. Sure, they will cloak it in terms of claiming they are the patriots.

They won't need death camps - that's old fashioned. They have more sophisticated tools at their disposal.

The best way to counter them is talk, education, and trying to get as much of the media as possible to go against that (that's an uphill climb, true). Indifference and apathy are what right wingers take advantage of, using their media ownership to encourage that and shape opinion. Counter them by getting people to think for themselves and to care.

[4th law of robotics]

157. It's funny the way you phrased that

They will do these horrible things, therefore we must counter them.

Every genocide in history has been justified in that way. Hitler fervently believed that if it weren't for the holocaust the Jews would have ended up throwing Germans in to ovens. So you see, he wasn't so bad, he was just ready to counter what these evil people wanted to do to him.

That is the kind of mentality present in this OP.

[treestar]

158. I don't think anyone is advocating any death camps

Pure exaggeration. It's a matter of which side really wants to undermine the system. There is a hard left that wants that. But the hard right is more numerous and can take advantage of apathy. The OP suggested no such thing as death camps. You're the one who invoked Godwin's law.

[4th law of robotics]

159. Flip this around

Some conservative blogger declaring all liberals are out to destroy this country and are vile traitors.

Do you think anyone here would have made the connection by now?

/you don't start with the death camps. You start by dehumanizing your opponent. You don't want to kill them, certainly not. They want to kill you. Yes and we need just a few simple laws to protect us, the good people, from them, the villians.

[Quantess]

82. Come on, people. This entire thread is embarrassing.

A bunch of posturing and guffawing from start to finish.
Time for me to "trash thread".

[Herlong]

84. Conservative voters believe they should pay less taxes and start more wars, that's just crazy.

Last edited Sat Jun 9, 2012, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

You can't reason with that. To that end, their brain works in such a way they don't realize that, they are ultimately working against their best interest. We must realize, we don't have to "reconfigure" all those reptilian brains, we just have to get the "rest of us" to vote.

[Special Prosciuto]

86. Constitutional treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to an enemy.

Much as I hate repukes, they are not doing this.

[Cary]

96. But this isn't a court and I am not accusing them of a crime, per se.

I have said nothing about the Constitution.

From Wikipedia:

"Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

So you see, I am not hijacking or misusing the term as some of the more desperate posters seem to want to believe.

[zentrum]

87. I think they would rather the whole ship sink, than

...that they really have to share the ship with minorities and women.

I think racism, especially, drives their every political choice. They veered off after the civil rights movement of the sixties and have been moving to the suburbs and taking over schools and rewriting textbooks and resenting affirmative action, and refusing evolutionary science, and opposing universal health care and real power sharing, ever since.

They are the Old Confederacy--which as you remember--wanted to secede from the Union--rather than give up ownership of other people. Where did they all go? They kept breeding.

[Herlong]

91. Also, Conservatives are not traitors

They are fellow Americans who see the world differently. They fight will for this country the same way we do. We need people on our side. We need to win elections. We need votes. We don't need to demonize people who don't agree with us.

[Cary]

95. So then you're prepared to offer a redeeming quality of their ideology?

I want to hear what it is.

Funny about the fighting for this country bit. It seems Willard is yet another hawk who evaded combat in Vietnam, in the tradition of Bush and Cheney.

And then they have no qualms whatsoever about trashing a real war hero like John Kerry or Max Cleland.

Yep, these are the people I really want watching my six.

[Herlong]

99. On a dare, yes.

n/t

[Cary]

102. I have interacted with radical, extreme "conservatives"

I tried to find redeeming qualities in them. It took extraordinary effort with little to nothing in return, except acquiring the knowledge that "conservatives" are reprobates.

I wouldn't dare you to engage in that exercise. I wouldn't recommend it.

[Herlong]

105. Not to sound too sacrosanct

But I've been in a many foxhole with a conservative or two and I wouldn't miss it a bit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. I am betting I have been in a few places with hard core conservatives

in fact last tuesday to be exact.

Here is the problem, you are missing it, and so is the other side that is doing the same exact crap you are doing. Keep demonizing and making them the other... I hope you will NOT mind what you may very well reap. It involves bullets and killing and dying. Having been in a few situations where those were involves, it is not recommendable. You think I am exaggerating?

Don't worry, told this to a hard core conservative recently.

But that is the path we are walking down. It is not a healthy path.

[Cary]

181. I doubt it.

I have more confidence in our traditions than you have.

We have seen iterations of "conservatives" before. Rightists go collectively over the cliff every other generation or so. This too shall pass for the same reasons that the Soviet Union failed (which wasn't because of Ronald Reagan). The Soviet Union failed exactly for the reasons George F. Kennan gave for containment policy: the Soviet Union would fail from its own internal inconsistencies.

At the end of the day the Soviet Union was broke from its poor economic model, trying to keep its empire intact, and fighting an ill-advised war. It turned out that even the Soviet military wasn't anything near what the fear mongers made it out to be. Maybe Reagan pushed them over the edge with his military spending, but I doubt it. I give way more credit to Lech Walessa and Gorbechev than I would give to Reagan.

The "conservative" model is no more sustainable than the Soviet model. Look at what "conservatives" do when they are in power. Do they cut debt? Hell no they don't. What happens when the top 1% no longer have any taxes to cut?

One can only ride so far on a vehicle fueled by bullshit but that doesn't mean I'm going to be an apologist for them. They are killing the goose the laid the golden egg, which is the American consumer. They are snuffing out our prosperity and without our prosperity, what are we?

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. You doubt it...

well then, tell that to the Americans in 1859...

You doubt it... tell that to a few nation states in the recent past that indeed descend into a civil war.

And the USSR... guess what? Chechnya is still seeing quite a bit of lead flying.

You (and they) keep this demonization game all along. Cold civil wars, and this is one, can easily lead to a hot one.

And nobody said you need to be an apologist, but DEMONIZING other people and making them into the OTHER is a dangerous path you have chosen.

Hey, on the bright side, if we indeed move from this brush fire we are in (with a few moments of going hot for an instant) to a full on situation... I do have a way out... and will avail myself of it. You see here is the problem... if they are not with you, obviously they are against you... hence the enemy. Since I just called you on it, I am the other now.

[Cary]

185. Americans in 1859...

Interesting you should bring that up. As I said, I have more faith in our traditions than you have, and perhaps a better grasp of history.

The Founding Fathers punted on a lot of issues of the day including slavery and federalism. They were, after all, a contentious lot. They decided that they couldn't solve the slavery issue so they basically kicked that can down the road and all kinds of things went on before the issue came to a head.

And as for federalism, it was clear that the Articles of Confederation didn't work but the degree to which the federal government had authority was one of those issues that the Founders bickered over. The solution was to make the Constitution vague and ambiguous and to give it an elastic clause.

Our "strict constructionists" don't like that idea, but they're fringe lunatics.

So arguably we really weren't the nation that we are today until 1865, when these things were decided at a horrific cost. But make no mistake here--these issues were decided.

Can that be ripped apart? Of course, anything is possible but I don't think either that this consensus is as fragile as seem to be making it out to be.

Of course you and some others here don't want to allow me to have my own definition with respect to my own comments so...

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. A better grasp of history

that is hysterical.

You keep telling yourself that.

Oh I forgot, the US is NOT exceptional.

You keep demonizing the other side as well. I know you will... go on... continue.

Me <-------------- proud member of the OTHER.

[Cary]

191. Education is a wonderful thing.

Instead of fretting over the fact that mine is clearly better than yours, why don't you go out and get yourself some?

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. Even MORE hysterical

now dear that falls into the personal attack territory.

For those here who are long standing members, this is all kinds of LOLZ... given what exactly my degrees are in.

[Cary]

194. Ah, but I am a long standing member here.

Your command of the language and your understanding of history is underwhelming.

Perhaps in your case education isn't the answer?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

205. a little over a month is longstanding???

Account status: Active
Member since: Wed May 9, 2012, 09:38 AM
Number of posts: 3,022
last 90 days (3% of total posts)
Last post: Mon Jun 11, 2012, 03:47 PM

hmmmmm...

sP

[Cary]

207. Read post 206 and weep. n/t

[Cary]

195. And Thom Hartmann too has an education, and right now he is doing a whole segment

on exactly what it is that you and your mysterious education find so horrific.

Do you disrespect Thom or what?

[nadinbrzezinski]

199. You must listen to a different show

Thom has yet to do an imitation of Rush, or O'Reilly and actually demonize the other. calling them on it is different than demonizing them, understand?

Suffice it to say that' what you are doing.

And being called on it by several of us, I notice you did not apreciate.

No I do not apreciate objectivism, oh i do notlike it...but you are confounding that with conservatism. On the bright side, many of them do that all the time as well.

Anyhow reason ain't gonna work here...and I find your appeal to authority all kinds of fun as well...for somebody as highly educated as you are, this sophistry was sloppy.

Have a magnificent day...and am amazed you are still talking to me or a few others who dared disagree with you.

[Cary]

200. I am listening to today's show on WCPT

And he's still discussing it.

I and a lot of others are actually amazed at you and yours. You're apologizing for "conservatives".

Amazing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

201. You confuse not falling into the mentality of the other

With apologia... Truly sad.

[Cary]

202. No confusion.

You're defending "conservatives," period, end of story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

208. Well if you are that confused

And continue the personal attacks, time to put you on ignore...

Irrational and all that...bye

[Cary]

210. Promise? n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

203. as much as you and I have disagreed

this is so true. it would appear that Cary just cannot deal with this little tidbit.

Oh, and the 'longstanding' member, Cary :

Account status: Active
Member since: Wed May 9, 2012, 09:38 AM
Number of posts: 3,022
Number of posts, last 90 days: 120
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 110 posts in the last 90 days (92% of total posts)
Favorite group: Barack Obama, 3 posts in the last 90 days (3% of total posts)
Last post: Mon Jun 11, 2012, 03:47 PM

Little over a month under Cary's belt...

sP

[Cary]

206. That is the date of my reinstatement.

Not the date I joined. I joined in 2004.

So you see, you're wrong about this too. Consider your credibility impeached.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

212. wow...had to be reinstated...nice

and because I took the information available on this website my credibility is impeached? yeah, you're a lawyer alright.

sP

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Words have meanings

and while I agree with the sentiment... not in any legal sense of the word... and you should be glad for that.

There was a time that your interpretation of the world was widely used, under King George III... the reason for the highly technical definition of the word in US Law is because of the possible abuses and very real abuses under the King.

[Zoeisright]

113. Yes they are. And apparently they're going to ruin the country and the world

and get away with it.

[SunSeeker]

119. Yup. We're too busy wringing our hands about calling them traitors.

It's not like they lose a second of sleep about calling us communists, nazis, and, yes, traitors.

[Cary]

146. Ah, the irony.

It's so horrible of me to think that their loyalty to a perverse ideology over the nation and the general welfare is treasonous.

And the horror. The horror.

<rolling eyeballs>

[SunSeeker]

156. Agreed.

I can't believe your simple observation generated the consternation that it did. Such a statement on a site like redstate would have gotten a few "hell yes" comments and that's about it. But here, it produced a circular firing squad of vitriolic posts.

The middle class is fighting for its life and we're worried about saying rude things to the perpetrator of the crime. Pathetic.

[The Second Stone]

120. I disagree strongly with calling people traitors

There is way too much of that going on in public discourse and I condemn it whether it comes from Ann Coulter or someone whose views I might agree with more often.

A traitor is someone who has sold out their country to its enemies. Like Hanson or Ames or Walker.

[lynne]

121. Thankfully, that's only your opinion -

- and I've discounted it. Frankly, your argument against them sounds much like what you're doing with regard to making "a convoluted argument about how they are a priori and therefore their ideology is the best thing for the nation and WE, THE PEOPLE."

You are them.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

127. "you are them"

is exactly right...thank you for putting into three words what i have wasted too much time on.

sP

[Cary]

135. Then we agree that your apologetics for "conservatives" are a waste of time

Shame on you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

138. ah...from name calling to 'shaming' me

you are a hoot...you just don't like that you got called on your bullshit. oh, and just once i would love for you to point out where i have supported in any way these 'conservatives' you call traitors...

good luck...

sP

[Cary]

143. You have a lot of issues.

Maybe you ought to consider graduating from internet boards to real psychiatrist?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

154. now I need professional help? your argument seems to have devolved

into nothing but name calling. lawyer with 27 years experience, aye? i would wager 'not' given your inability to make a cogent argument in support of your OP or any of the other spew that has flowed forth since that time.

got any other choice things to say? you seem to be quite good at throwing around names and accusations and not backing them up...by all means, keep it up. the entertainment value is obvious.

sP

[Cary]

177. You aren't worth the effort. n/t

[hfojvt]

164. I appreciate the effort you put into it

although it did sorta make me feel redundant and derivative.

[jeanV]

123. All American citizens are traitors and should be shot on sight

Cary

"Conservatives" are traitors.

I've seen writings by Conservatives saying that Democrats are traitors because they don't support a strong defense, disagree with Afghanistan, because enlisted men lean Republican, etc, etc.

Now that each side calls the other traitors, are we to understand the US is one gigantic swarm of Benedict Arnolds? Should every citizen be court-martialed just on principle?

I suggest a penalty of exile applied to all citizens. Then the US could be repopulated by people from China and India. Then it would be their turn to call each other traitors.

Don't think for a minute I'm being sarcastic. I'm just trying to help with positive, constructive steps to put an end to the generalized treachery and traitorousness that seem to be so endemic in modern US society, by the unanimous admission of its members.

[Iggo]

170. .

[Flatulo]

124. Stupid thread of the week. The OP has crafted a false dilemma.

Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 05:15 AM - Edit history (1)

He repeatedly demands that anyone who disagrees with his branding of Conservatives as traitors nevertheless mount a vigorous defense of the RW belief system, as if explaining a thing equals tacit approval of the thing.

He then proceeds to confuse Conservatism with Objectivism. Sloppy.

If you were my lawyer, I'd fire you for such sophistry.

[LaydeeBug]

144. We are dealing with traitors...WHO THINK THEY'RE PATRIOTIC! nt

[papa3times]

147. Traitors

Cary, I have to agree with you. Their ideology trumps all and for further proof look at the games Boehner and company played with the debt ceiling increase. It was absolutely disgusting how they brought us to the brink and caused a downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, which is something that affects all of us in a negative way. Who does it hurt the most? Of course, those who can least afford it It was all total bs and totally unnecessary but they created chaos and crisis out of something that should have been routine. Boehner is threatening to do it again and said nothing more will be done in this congress. What have the republicans done since they took control of the gavel in the House in January, 2011? The american people need to reward him by sweeping he and his republican thugs out of office this fall.

[hfojvt]

163. "liberals" are morons and hypocrites and hateful

I reach that conclusion reluctantly after seeing a poorly reasoned essay like this get 81 votes.

Of course, as I write that I wonder if that is the best way to begin, but a) it does express the disgust I feel and b) it is meant to be offensive. Your own negative reaction to my title is the same as the average conservatives reaction to your whole piece, and I make the effort because I really believe that most liberals are better than that. That if I try to reason with them (them being the OP and the 81 voters), that they will see reason.

But I also believe that most conservatives are better than that. I believe that if I, or we liberals, reason with conservatives, educate conservatives, that they too, at least many of them, at least enough of them to win a few of those election-thingies, can be brought over to our side.

A foolishly optimistic belief, but I keep trying.

See, I want to win those election-thingies. I want to defeat the Ryan budget, the Bush tax cut, the Bush invasion of Iraq, the Romney tax plan, the Brownback tax plan, the Brownback school finance 'reform', the Brownback KPERS 'reform' and so on. We defeat those things (or at this point undo those things which can be undone, and many unfortunately cannot be undone) by winning majorities to our side, not by gathering in small groups and proclaiming that everybody who disagrees with us is a 'traitor'.

Speaking of hyprocisy. For 8 years there was a lot of noise from the RightWing Noise Machine (RWNM) about how those of us who hated Bush and even those of us who opposed Bush were traitors. And we called BULLSHIT on that in no uncertain terms. But, oh boy, now that our guy is in the White House, we sure do seem to love the arguments that we used to find Unworthy of the First Amendment.

Well, I still call bullshit. Every American absolutely has the right to disagree with me (or even (gasp!) you) on anything and everything and has the right to speak and protest and vote for the things they want to. End of story. They can vote for English only, they can vote for Croatian only. They can push for a Constitutional Amendment making Mithraism the national religion. They can vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or David Duke or any other nutball who legitimately files for office, including me, pretty pretty please. There is nothing treasonous about exercising your voting or first amendment rights - EVER.

Now here's a little thought experiment. Imagine that very same essay as this OP, except replace the word "conservative" with the word "liberal" and replace Ayn Rand with Karl Marx. What would WE think if we saw such an essay on Free Republic getting massive amounts of applause?

[Cary]

211. I wish I could agree with you.

There is some very good recent research on this and it turns out that facts that contradict these people only tend to harden their resolve.

There is only one cure for them: multiple defeat at the polls.

[SunSeeker]

165. Bill Maher uses the t-word in referring to Congressional Republicans.

The discussion starts at about 8:00 when he reads a tweet he wrote calling blocking economic legislation treason.

Cue the outrage.

By the way, his opinion is supported at 8:49, when Michael Brendan Dougherty, a conservative and one of the guests, said he had talked with a Republican senator who told him that Sen. Mitch McConnell told them not make a single move between now and the election.

[Honeycombe8]

166. Ayn Rand was libertarian, not conservative or Rebublican. nt

[Cary]

167. Oh please

Her philosophy was "limited government" and she had this cockamamie idea of "force" and all of that crap. She is on record as saying that whenever you try to help someone you end up hurting them. Hers was a glorification of the absolute worst of human qualities.

And too she was a radical capitalist, borrowing from the Austrians. Interestingly Maury Rothbard, the anarcho-capitalist, despised her. The radical capitalists whom you might refer to as libertarian were not monolithic by any means. However I am not going to just bend over and take their sanctimonious, self-serving rhetoric at face value. At the end of the day it's a steaming pile of crap, like any overly simplistic paint by the number ideology.

At the end of the day it isn't about ideology. It's about what works and what doesn't work and you have to take on a case by case basis. Social Security works, close book, end of story. It doesn't matter that it's "socialist" or anything else. Before Social Security 75% of the elderly lived in poverty. The fact that we eliminated that poverty hurts the elderly?

Rand got that one so wrong that she ended up dependent on Social Security herself. Pfeh.

We have thousands of examples. I, myself, am the product of some excellent public schools. The Federal Land Grant schools, like my alma mater, have returned to our nation many many times over. Or how about the national highway system? We can go on and on. Greed is not always bad but it's not always good and sometimes greed is very, very bad.

And right now the "conservatives'" greed is very, very bad. I don't see the distinction between Rand and any of the other variants of this particular thought virus.

[amerciti001]

168. Feudalism aka American Capitalism

After reading through, at the least, a majority of the post in this forum/discussion, I was amazed at the thought that no one seems to the grist of what Cary really is putting forth here and it's the statement...is a re-branded fascism plain and simple. It is feudalism. That's the key Question!? Is It Feudalism!?!?

Of course, I always do the Research prior to a post. I reviewed a varying amount of links to the ?"feudalism"? First of all, just what was "Feudalism" as it turns out, in essence, a why of life! A way of life that society had thus forth-moved on-, the World had-moved on-...

The thing that struck me most was the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
Then I happened upon these as well: http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/feudalism.htm :
http://www.alternet.org/economy/152010/americans_don%27t_realize_just_how_badly_we%27re_getting_screwed_by_the_top_0.1_percent_hoarding_the_country%27s_wealth/?page=1 :
http://www.mindmined.com/public_library/nonfiction/david_f_feudalism_aka_capitalism.html :
http://www.hillbillyreport.org/diary/3209/the-rise-of-neofeudal-america

Now the last two links above help me change the view point of my thoughts as to an American Feudal System, based on what? Capitialism? The Rise of Neo-Feudal America? Feudal Capitilism?
A quote from the hillbillyreport.org "In the environment created by the elitist raping of the American economy folks are so preoccupied with just making ends meet and holding onto their current status that they simply do not understand how much money is being withheld from the masses" Imagine that! So preoccupied with just making ends meet!
So, aside for the fact that "We are dealing with traitors", we are also dealing with a far more sinister and diabolical plot than imagined. It's the stealing of a whole Country-these here United States Of America.
When all of the Billionaires and Millionaires, those well off[still] and not really hurting, achive their_ol·i·gar·chy/ˈäliˌgärkē/Noun: 1.A small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. 2.A state governed by such a group, I would guess then that we all will understand what a Feudal America will be like.

"Never before have so few with so much promised to take away so much from so many and then laugh their asses off as the so many with so little- Vote -for the so few with so much."
A James Pence Quote
"American Politics, a sport for the rich and enslavement for the rest of us."
A James Pence Quote

[Cary]

171. You get it!

Thank you.

We currently have levels of concentration of wealth that exceed those of the Gilded Age. If the concentration of wealth trend continues, then what do we end up with?

Feudalism.

But how do you have feudalism in a capitalist economy? You can't. You have to enable the American consumer to consume.

I would not say that the concentration of wealth is a sinister or diabolical plot so much as it is a sinister and diabolical stupidity and I go back to the whole "conservative" philosophical underpinning. I am amazed at the extent to which these "conservatives" subscribe to Any Rand, and they're so stealthy about it. You have to peel off the layers of bullshit that they overlay the Rand cult nonsense with and then confront them directly. The never deny the Ayn Rand crap when you confront them with it, but you have to confront them directly.

I would liken this to a thought virus--a disease--more than a conspiracy. The idea that we can't help each other, and the cloaking of this idea in "American values" is just utterly odious and obnoxious. Our Founding Fathers were not of this philosophy. They were learned men of the time and Ayn Rand wasn't even born yet.

[B Calm]

169. Their goal is to make Obama a one

term president.

[Cary]

173. Certainly the politicians had that goal and they were willing to put their interests above

the interests of everyone else. They sold us out.

[librechik]

182. They are the SAME GROUP who were The Tories during the Revolutionary War

SAME GROUP which seceded from the Union

SAME GROUP which defiantly ignored the result of the Civil War and created Jim Crow for 100 years.

SAME GROUP which has fought every torturous step to an integrated modern society with every breath in their illogical bodies.

SAME GROUP which declares God is on their side--Just like Henry the VIII. Only to have their way in their personal drive to glory, fuck the people.

[Cary]

186. Yep.

That's exactly right.

[NYC Liberal]

183. This OP is a prime example of why we need to have unrec back.

[Nye Bevan]

188. What about Conservative Democrats such as Ben Nelson? Are they traitors too ? (nt)

[Cary]

190. What do you think?

Keep in mind that I am referring to the extreme, radical right. I do not regard them as conservative.

I have a problem with Ben Nelson but I don't see him as being extreme. Do you?

[Nye Bevan]

197. So you should have titled your post "The extreme, radical right are traitors"

since that's who you were referring to.

[Cary]

198. Why?

Because some "conservative" apologists have been jumping all over me for no good reason?

I am quite happy with my use of "conservative" versus conservative. If you don't like it, that's not really my problem and if you want to argue with me over it and make yourself a "conservative" apologist then that's fine too. Go for it.

[Nye Bevan]

204. Because when you responded to me you immediately backtracked from "conservatives" to

"the extreme radical right".

[Cary]

209. I have been using the term "conservatives" for at least 5 years.

I am doing no backtracking. In fact I even explained that earlier on in this thread.

When I explained my use of the term, however, I noted that there do not seem to be a whole lot of real conservatives right now. I can think of Buddy Roemer and David Frumm and to a lesser extent Thomas Friedman and Joe Scarborough.

So you see, you're coming in in the middle. I am not backtracking.

Next?

[Cary]

192. Opening words of Thom Hartmann right now...

...as I write.

What to do about Republican treason? Are Republican's committing treason? Mitch McConnell reiterating what he said about President Obama being a one term president.

"Treason is defined by Mirriam Webster as the offense ..."

Go flame Thom.

[Cary]

196. What do you do when a group of Republicans meet in order to conspire ...

to sabotage the government in order to capitalize off of everyone's misery?
As we speak the annual legislation for the renewal of the highway bill, which simply provides matching fund so that the states can repair the roads...Unemployment goes up.

What do you call that? Treason?

Thom is going on and on. Where is the outrage against Thom?

"These guys are becoming the enemies of the nation although that is a bit of an overstatement because they are not becoming the enemies of the top 1%."

[NCTraveler]

213. Unrec. nt

[B Calm]

215. Rec

[ThomasP]

216. semantics

Getting into an argument over phrases is kind of silly. I don't believe any truly liberal person would advocate limiting freedom
of speech based only on the fact that it is either unpopular or immoral. That is exactly why the soviet experiment failed they limited
personal freedoms and dissent.