Disagreement With Liberals Equals Sedition

[BlindBoo]

Ironic that Conservatives would bring this up. When they were trying to ram Fascism down our throats we were all told "If you're not with us, you're against us." Not much room for disagreement there, eh?

Actually that was Bush on terrorism. Do you really think terrorism is OK? Or just if it's committed against the "right" people?

WASHINGTON — "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make," President Bush said in his widely praised speech to a joint session of Congress last month.
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And I thought: Are those really the only possibilities? Can't there be some nation, in some region, that dislikes both terrorism and America — or that is indifferent both to the United States and to those behind the September 11 massacre?

If it were only a rhetorical flourish, I wouldn't be pursuing the matter. But I seem to be hearing a long list of similarly constricted options now that our war on terrorism has begun in earnest. Two on that list are particularly troubling:

If you wonder about the wisdom — military or moral — of the massive assault on Afghanistan's Taliban, then you support Osama bin Laden.

And, if you think much of the Arab resentment of America's foreign policy is justified, then you condone terrorism.

The constricted-options approach didn't begin with the president's speech, of course. It was a staple of civil rights militants of the '60s, who used to inform us that we were either a part of the solution (theirs) or a part of the problem. Politicians and activists of all stripes have made similar distinctions — and so have street gangs. Maybe they all borrowed from Jesus of Nazareth, who said: "He that is not with me is against me."

I'll leave the meaning of that one to the theologians. In secular usage, though, the point seems to be that thought breeds irresolution. Don't tell me you are serious about fighting crime if you're not willing to suspend — just for a while — the Bill of Rights. Don't pretend you really oppose terrorism if you're entertaining second thoughts about the carpet-bombing calculated to render the Taliban vulnerable to its Afghan enemies.

Maybe that's why some of us find it attractive to think of the present campaign against terrorism as war. War allows the suspension of certain bothersome restrictions. No need to prove that any particular Taliban soldier supports terrorism or knows where bin Laden is hiding.

But we won't follow the war idea all the way, either — perhaps because we haven't thought through how to wage real war that doesn't involve territory and where the enemy is scattered over scores of sovereign countries, including some of our valued allies.

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy

 

[eagle7_31]

I remember the good old days when the Libs thought it was fine to Question Authority.

What happened to them?

Nothing.

Not a thing.

It's fine to question authority and disagree.

It's not fine to wreck the government and shut it down.

The govt was not wrecked and the anti war left wanted to shut the govt down during street demostartions in the Vietnam era.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I think there's a liberal on this board, who made a thread and said all conservatives are "Scared white people" and are guilty of sedition, while also revealing his hatred of women:

I will do everything I can to unhinge these Koch-sucking sluts.[/B]

 

[The Rabbi]

Ironic that Conservatives would bring this up. When they were trying to ram Fascism down our throats we were all told "If you're not with us, you're against us." Not much room for disagreement there, eh?

Actually that was Bush on terrorism. Do you really think terrorism is OK? Or just if it's committed against the "right" people?

WASHINGTON — "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make," President Bush said in his widely praised speech to a joint session of Congress last month.
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And I thought: Are those really the only possibilities? Can't there be some nation, in some region, that dislikes both terrorism and America — or that is indifferent both to the United States and to those behind the September 11 massacre?

If it were only a rhetorical flourish, I wouldn't be pursuing the matter. But I seem to be hearing a long list of similarly constricted options now that our war on terrorism has begun in earnest. Two on that list are particularly troubling:

If you wonder about the wisdom — military or moral — of the massive assault on Afghanistan's Taliban, then you support Osama bin Laden.

And, if you think much of the Arab resentment of America's foreign policy is justified, then you condone terrorism.

The constricted-options approach didn't begin with the president's speech, of course. It was a staple of civil rights militants of the '60s, who used to inform us that we were either a part of the solution (theirs) or a part of the problem. Politicians and activists of all stripes have made similar distinctions — and so have street gangs. Maybe they all borrowed from Jesus of Nazareth, who said: "He that is not with me is against me."

I'll leave the meaning of that one to the theologians. In secular usage, though, the point seems to be that thought breeds irresolution. Don't tell me you are serious about fighting crime if you're not willing to suspend — just for a while — the Bill of Rights. Don't pretend you really oppose terrorism if you're entertaining second thoughts about the carpet-bombing calculated to render the Taliban vulnerable to its Afghan enemies.

Maybe that's why some of us find it attractive to think of the present campaign against terrorism as war. War allows the suspension of certain bothersome restrictions. No need to prove that any particular Taliban soldier supports terrorism or knows where bin Laden is hiding.

But we won't follow the war idea all the way, either — perhaps because we haven't thought through how to wage real war that doesn't involve territory and where the enemy is scattered over scores of sovereign countries, including some of our valued allies.

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy

Obama outlawed the phrase "Global war on terror." Of course that was after this article was written so the author can be excused for not toeing the current party line. For now, anyway.

 

[ClosedCaption]

By LD Jackson
10/20/13

We all know how liberals hate it when we disagree with them. That's a give fact, well-documented in its truth. If you doubt that, try debating one of them. More often than not, that debate will descend into name calling and threats. Liberals simply hate it when they are proven to be wrong, or when someone has the audacity to disagree with their progressive point of view. We are finding that to be more true than ever after the government shutdown. I know many conservatives disagreed with Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and how they went about trying to defund Obamacare. I have heard them called foolish and their efforts ill-advised. That question is being asked among conservatives, as it should be. The liberals, however, have taken their criticism of the two men, especially Senator Cruz, to an entirely new, and very low, level. Some liberals are even declaring he should be charged with sedition.
[Excerpt]

Read more:
Disagreement With Liberals Equals Sedition
and
Left demands: Charge Ted Cruz with sedition | WashingtonExaminer.com

The reactions coming from the Progressive Left is predictable. However, the truth really rest with the radical reforms imposed upon Americans by the intractable Left.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually that was Bush on terrorism. Do you really think terrorism is OK? Or just if it's committed against the "right" people?

WASHINGTON — "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make," President Bush said in his widely praised speech to a joint session of Congress last month.
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And I thought: Are those really the only possibilities? Can't there be some nation, in some region, that dislikes both terrorism and America — or that is indifferent both to the United States and to those behind the September 11 massacre?

If it were only a rhetorical flourish, I wouldn't be pursuing the matter. But I seem to be hearing a long list of similarly constricted options now that our war on terrorism has begun in earnest. Two on that list are particularly troubling:

If you wonder about the wisdom — military or moral — of the massive assault on Afghanistan's Taliban, then you support Osama bin Laden.

And, if you think much of the Arab resentment of America's foreign policy is justified, then you condone terrorism.

The constricted-options approach didn't begin with the president's speech, of course. It was a staple of civil rights militants of the '60s, who used to inform us that we were either a part of the solution (theirs) or a part of the problem. Politicians and activists of all stripes have made similar distinctions — and so have street gangs. Maybe they all borrowed from Jesus of Nazareth, who said: "He that is not with me is against me."

I'll leave the meaning of that one to the theologians. In secular usage, though, the point seems to be that thought breeds irresolution. Don't tell me you are serious about fighting crime if you're not willing to suspend — just for a while — the Bill of Rights. Don't pretend you really oppose terrorism if you're entertaining second thoughts about the carpet-bombing calculated to render the Taliban vulnerable to its Afghan enemies.

Maybe that's why some of us find it attractive to think of the present campaign against terrorism as war. War allows the suspension of certain bothersome restrictions. No need to prove that any particular Taliban soldier supports terrorism or knows where bin Laden is hiding.

But we won't follow the war idea all the way, either — perhaps because we haven't thought through how to wage real war that doesn't involve territory and where the enemy is scattered over scores of sovereign countries, including some of our valued allies.

'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy

Obama outlawed the phrase "Global war on terror." Of course that was after this article was written so the author can be excused for not toeing the current party line. For now, anyway.

What are you the Rabbi of Gross Hyperbole?

 

[Katzndogz]

Dissent with a president is necessary and desirable.
Dissent with the king is seditious treason.
We don't have a president. We have a monarch.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Dissent with a president is necessary and desirable.
Dissent with the king is seditious treason.
We don't have a president. We have a monarch.

 

[The Rabbi]

What are you the Rabbi of Gross Hyperbole?

That's your response? Really?

Some tepid article that would be seen as critical of Obama if it were published today.
There is not a third way, btw. You either actively oppose terrorism or you condone it. The author is a ninny. And he is probably regretting his article now as the IRS is investigating him.

 

[Katzndogz]

Republican motto. Country over democratic party.

 

[S.J.]

We may very well see people who oppose this president charged with crimes if Republicans lose control of the House in 2014. This is where we are headed.

 

[ba1614]

Sedition or racism, depending on the disagreement.

 

[BlindBoo]

What are you the Rabbi of Gross Hyperbole?

That's your response? Really?

Some tepid article that would be seen as critical of Obama if it were published today.
There is not a third way, btw. You either actively oppose terrorism or you condone it. The author is a ninny. And he is probably regretting his article now as the IRS is investigating him.

Well you are quite hyperbolic. Outlawed indeed......

 

[The Rabbi]

What are you the Rabbi of Gross Hyperbole?

That's your response? Really?

Some tepid article that would be seen as critical of Obama if it were published today.
There is not a third way, btw. You either actively oppose terrorism or you condone it. The author is a ninny. And he is probably regretting his article now as the IRS is investigating him.

Well you are quite hyperbolic. Outlawed indeed......

As far as the bureaucracy goes, I was correct.
Obama administration to end use of term 'war on terror' | World news | theguardian.com

 

[BlindBoo]

That's your response? Really?

Some tepid article that would be seen as critical of Obama if it were published today.
There is not a third way, btw. You either actively oppose terrorism or you condone it. The author is a ninny. And he is probably regretting his article now as the IRS is investigating him.

Well you are quite hyperbolic. Outlawed indeed......

As far as the bureaucracy goes, I was correct.
Obama administration to end use of term 'war on terror' | World news | theguardian.com

No, you said it was outlawed. Complete hyperbole. The use of the term was not outlawed as that would violate the 1st Amendment and the President has no such power. The President did direct federal agencies under his control to use different terminology. In your link they provide several examples of these directives. Thinks like "prefers to avoid using the term" and "please pass this on to your speechwriters" Hardly draconian.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well you are quite hyperbolic. Outlawed indeed......

As far as the bureaucracy goes, I was correct.
Obama administration to end use of term 'war on terror' | World news | theguardian.com

No, you said it was outlawed. Complete hyperbole. The use of the term was not outlawed as that would violate the 1st Amendment and the President has no such power. The President did direct federal agencies under his control to use different terminology. In your link they provide several examples of these directives. Thinks like "prefers to avoid using the term" and "please pass this on to your speechwriters" Hardly draconian.

Within the bureaucracy the term was outlawed. I am sure any major spokesman using it would receive a reprimand.
Quit splitting hairs.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Did you know it says in the Declaration of Independence that if the Government repeatedly defies the rights and ignores the pleas of the people, the American people should rebel and abolish said corrupt Government?
I just thought it would be nice to post that on a thread about sedition.

 

[ClosedCaption]

As far as the bureaucracy goes, I was correct.
Obama administration to end use of term 'war on terror' | World news | theguardian.com

No, you said it was outlawed. Complete hyperbole. The use of the term was not outlawed as that would violate the 1st Amendment and the President has no such power. The President did direct federal agencies under his control to use different terminology. In your link they provide several examples of these directives. Thinks like "prefers to avoid using the term" and "please pass this on to your speechwriters" Hardly draconian.

Within the bureaucracy the term was outlawed. I am sure any major spokesman using it would receive a reprimand.
Quit splitting hairs.

ironic