Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?

[Uncensored2008]

All opinion.
Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?

Constitutional process is not an opinion.

Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.

Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.

 

[regent]

All opinion.
Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?

Constitutional process is not an opinion.

Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.

Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.

So what court found Obama guilty of crimes?

 

[Uncensored2008]

All opinion.
Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?

Constitutional process is not an opinion.

Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.

Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.

So what court found Obama guilty of crimes?

Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.

Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.

There is a process to be followed.

 

[Rogue 9]

If there are people in here who have a SHRED of honesty and objectivity, the OBVIOUS answer to the question is.............

The worst traitor in U.S. history is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

He should be immediately arrested and charged with treason and sedition, along with most of his staff and cabinet.

On what, specific, charges? If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.

"Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."

The kidnapping and extortion statute? I daresay you'd have a fun time with that in court.

 

[regent]

Constitutional process is not an opinion.

Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.

Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.

So what court found Obama guilty of crimes?

Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.

Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.

There is a process to be followed.

No, no that's not the way it works in America, so far all you have is your opinion. Need more than that.

 

[whitehall]

Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.

 

[regent]

Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.

You might have made a case for incompetency on the navy part if you had brought up the marine invasion of the Palau islands. Those islands were not needed after it was decided to invade Leyte. Marine casualties were 6526. Marine decisions were made by the navy, not Truman. Should America have used gas warfare to take Iwo, it had been suggested? The B29's were based in the Marianas in the Central Pacific, not the Philippines. The Japanese air force on Iwo caught the B29's on their way to Japan and then again on their way home. A bonus was the saving of crippled B29's on their way home, and those were not only men but airplanes saved.

 

[whitehall]

Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.

You might have made a case for incompetency on the navy part if you had brought up the marine invasion of the Palau islands. Those islands were not needed after it was decided to invade Leyte. Marine casualties were 6526. Marine decisions were made by the navy, not Truman. Should America have used gas warfare to take Iwo, it had been suggested? The B29's were based in the Marianas in the Central Pacific, not the Philippines. The Japanese air force on Iwo caught the B29's on their way to Japan and then again on their way home. A bonus was the saving of crippled B29's on their way home, and those were not only men but airplanes saved.

I'm up for the argument. Let's discuss the original mission statement. Depress the Japanese fighter raids on the B-29's. American bombers could have reduced the tiny volcanic dot to cinders without an invasion.

 

[regent]

Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.

You might have made a case for incompetency on the navy part if you had brought up the marine invasion of the Palau islands. Those islands were not needed after it was decided to invade Leyte. Marine casualties were 6526. Marine decisions were made by the navy, not Truman. Should America have used gas warfare to take Iwo, it had been suggested? The B29's were based in the Marianas in the Central Pacific, not the Philippines. The Japanese air force on Iwo caught the B29's on their way to Japan and then again on their way home. A bonus was the saving of crippled B29's on their way home, and those were not only men but airplanes saved.

I'm up for the argument. Let's discuss the original mission statement. Depress the Japanese fighter raids on the B-29's. American bombers could have reduced the tiny volcanic dot to cinders without an invasion.

So why weren't all those Japanese islands reduced to dots before an invasion? Why not Okinawa, why not the Japanese homeland? The dot idea is sure better than A-bombs, I wonder why the navy never thought of the dot idea? I'm not going to defend Navy tactics, but it was not Truman that made the decision, it was a navy, show.

 

[Uncensored2008]

On what, specific, charges? If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.

"Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."

The kidnapping and extortion statute? I daresay you'd have a fun time with that in court.

No problem at all, Obama is guilty of interstate extortion through "Operation Choke Point," where the DoJ, under orders of Obama has extorted financial institutions that engage in business with legitimate businesses that are on Obama' enemies list.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So what court found Obama guilty of crimes?

Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.

Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.

There is a process to be followed.

No, no that's not the way it works in America, so far all you have is your opinion. Need more than that.

You've confused America with Cuba, that is exactly how it works in America. Obama has engaged in extortion, with a mountain of evidence proving it. He thought he could put ammunition manufacturers out of business by threatening financial institutions dealing with them.

Obama is a felon - impeach the corrupt fucker.

 

[regent]

Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.

Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.

There is a process to be followed.

No, no that's not the way it works in America, so far all you have is your opinion. Need more than that.

You've confused America with Cuba, that is exactly how it works in America. Obama has engaged in extortion, with a mountain of evidence proving it. He thought he could put ammunition manufacturers out of business by threatening financial institutions dealing with them.

Obama is a felon - impeach the corrupt fucker.

You might try writing to the Speaker of the House with a list of your charges and your mountain of evidence see how the Speaker responds. The Speaker is a Republican and it would be nice to let us on the boards know how he or other House members respond to your evidence and be sure and mention the Cuba thing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You might try writing to the Speaker of the House with a list of your charges and your mountain of evidence see how the Speaker responds. The Speaker is a Republican and it would be nice to let us on the boards know how he or other House members respond to your evidence and be sure and mention the Cuba thing.

Low IQ results in low retention of information.

The house is well aware of Tricky Dicks criminal acts. As I stated before, they will wait until February, when they control house and Senate, prior to moving.

 

[Rogue 9]

"Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."

The kidnapping and extortion statute? I daresay you'd have a fun time with that in court.

No problem at all, Obama is guilty of interstate extortion through "Operation Choke Point," where the DoJ, under orders of Obama has extorted financial institutions that engage in business with legitimate businesses that are on Obama' enemies list.

Okay. Assuming that's so, it's an impeachable offense. But you said treason. 18 U.S. Code § 875 isn't a treason statute. Treason is, very specifically, waging war against the United States or adhering to their enemies. If you took a breach of 18 U.S. Code § 875 to court and tossed a charge of high treason on top just for giggles, it would be laughed out (though conviction on the statutory charges might still happen).

 

[Discombobulated]

All opinion.
Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?

Constitutional process is not an opinion.

Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.

Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.

Golly, if that's true I wonder what could be stopping Republicans from doing something about it. Gee whiz, sounds like the makings of another conspiracy.

 

[Picaro]

It was probably FDR's fault.

 

[gam]

Edward Snowden

 

[Crystalclear]

Edward Snowden

No, the NSA endangers the American freedom.
They are the ones who are the real traitors.

 

[Noomi]

George W Bush

 

[Noomi]

Edward Snowden

Is a hero.