Liberty & treason as defined by a neocon.

[muh_roads]

We took over our local Senate District and as such we have to put up with sour grape e-mails like this once in a while. Funny stuff so I thought I'd post for you guys to read.

And if you come up with rebuttals, feel free to post. I just get a laugh out of some of these people and I thought you guys might too.


...

Anyways, I have a problem with the liberty slogan because words and labels can be used as weapons. You could probably wander around and ask a hundred people if they "love liberty," and they'd probably all say yes. They probably also would say that people should love everyone and that violence is bad. But non of those these concepts really mean anything specific. You and I probably both love liberty, but do we really love the same things?

I have no idea what liberty means to you, but I'm going to make up a little example that I hope helps describe what I am going to say. Voter A believe that liberty means smoking bans are bad and should be repealed. Voter B believes that liberty means being free to enjoy dinner out, see a ball game, enjoy parks and outdoor spaces without breathing second hand smoke. Voter A might rebut Voter A by saying that liberty means you should be not be able to tell someone else what to do or not to, or where to or where not to do it. But then Voter A doesn't experience of living in a house with a little asthmatic child who sleeps in a bedroom with a window next to a balcony where a smoker hangs out constantly. So who loves liberty more? The one who wants to do what they want where they want to or the one who wants to think of others affected by those decisions.

That's the problem. Once words become a weapon, which unfortunately happens frequently, I no longer love liberty because I don't accept your idea of liberty. You don't accept my idea of liberty and I become the enemy. A liberty hater. We both accepted the idea, but the idea tore us apart .When I see little meaningless slogans like that, that is what goes through my mind. Am I the only one who thinks that way? I don't think so. Maybe I am. But I prefer to stop and say "what does liberty mean to you? Is that something I agree with? Are our ideas of liberty compatible?" That's why I'm not really thrilled with a magnet with that slogan.

On to treason.

If you were to ask a random sample of Americans for an example of a treasonous activity, they might give one of the following examples. Selling national secrets to the Chinese. Assassinating the president. Joining the Taliban. They are very unlikely to identify an act to try to stabilize the US economic system as a act of treason. Furthermore as the definition of treason is narrowly defined by the constitution, bailouts are not likely to be found treasonous.

To me, the phrase "bailouts are treason," are no less ridiculous and more effective then the kooks protesting a few years ago with posters loudly proclaiming "Bush is a war criminal." It's just this time, the people with the banners seem to be the ones on my side.

Another example would be Pat Buchanan's ideas of US isolationism. They may be ideas that have some merit, that should be debated and considered, but if someone who supported Buchanan's policies came around with an idea of getting me to accept them and started out by saying "First of all, Bush is a war criminal" would inevitably result in me not being willing to consider any ideas this person might think are worthwhile.

Now, of course, we can have a long and fruitful debate on whether bailouts are working or not or if there is a better way to stabilize the economy. But for the first statement people see about the bailouts to be "bailouts are treason" seems to get a response from me saying, "you are to far out there to even consider your ideas."
I'm not sure if that helped you understand my perspective, or if I was just rambling senselessly.

[TheConstitutionLives]

I have no idea what liberty means to you, but I'm going to make up a little example that I hope helps describe what I am going to say. Voter A believe that liberty means smoking bans are bad and should be repealed. Voter B believes that liberty means being free to enjoy dinner out, see a ball game, enjoy parks and outdoor spaces without breathing second hand smoke. Voter A might rebut Voter A by saying that liberty means you should be not be able to tell someone else what to do or not to, or where to or where not to do it. But then Voter A doesn't experience of living in a house with a little asthmatic child who sleeps in a bedroom with a window next to a balcony where a smoker hangs out constantly. So who loves liberty more? The one who wants to do what they want where they want to or the one who wants to think of others affected by those decisions.


- Clearly the person who wrote this email does NOT understand liberty. I don't have the RIGHT to enter a private establishment and demand "no smoking" b/c my kid has asthma. Demanding a private establishment I voluntarily enter do things MY WAY with THEIR property is a person who does not understand and respect personal liberty. Simple as that. The guy or gal is ignorant, like most Americans, unfortunately, on what liberty actually is.

[TheConstitutionLives]

On to treason.

If you were to ask a random sample of Americans for an example of a treasonous activity, they might give one of the following examples. Selling national secrets to the Chinese. Assassinating the president. Joining the Taliban. They are very unlikely to identify an act to try to stabilize the US economic system as a act of treason. Furthermore as the definition of treason is narrowly defined by the constitution, bailouts are not likely to be found treasonous.

To me, the phrase "bailouts are treason," are no less ridiculous and more effective then the kooks protesting a few years ago with posters loudly proclaiming "Bush is a war criminal." It's just this time, the people with the banners seem to be the ones on my side.

Another example would be Pat Buchanan's ideas of US isolationism. They may be ideas that have some merit, that should be debated and considered, but if someone who supported Buchanan's policies came around with an idea of getting me to accept them and started out by saying "First of all, Bush is a war criminal" would inevitably result in me not being willing to consider any ideas this person might think are worthwhile.

Now, of course, we can have a long and fruitful debate on whether bailouts are working or not or if there is a better way to stabilize the economy. But for the first statement people see about the bailouts to be "bailouts are treason" seems to get a response from me saying, "you are to far out there to even consider your ideas."
I'm not sure if that helped you understand my perspective, or if I was just rambling senselessly."

- I DO agree with what he's saying here. Bailouts aren't "treason" and to say they are treasonous DOES make that person appear far out there. From a political strategy perspective it's not a good idea to trumpet far out slogans if the point is to attract people to your movement. The average people whom you want to join you will immediately put up a wall b/c first impressions mean so much. I would take his advice on this point. The whole liberty rant of his is different though. He doesn't appear to understand liberty if he subscribes to the point of view that you have the right to tell others how they can use their personal property.

[pinkmandy]

Voter B needs to shut his window so his child can breathe. With asthma, it isn't just cig smoke. He's exposing the child to car fumes, pollution and even perfumes from folks that might be near the window. Or he might want to move somewhere else so he doesn't have to worry about people hanging out outside his child's bedroom window. :p

[muh_roads]

- I DO agree with what he's saying here. Bailouts aren't "treason" and to say they are treasonous DOES make that person appear far out there. From a political strategy perspective it's not a good idea to trumpet far out slogans if the point is to attract people to your movement. The average people whom you want to join you will immediately put up a wall b/c first impressions mean so much. I would take his advice on this point.

But if a country is founded on capitalism and an action has been performed that does the exact polar opposite, can't that be construed as treason? Governments shouldn't be bailing out companies in a true free market and capitalist society at the cost of the taxpayer. True capitalism allows for people to keep the fruits of their labor when they succeed, but it should also allow people to fail on their own accord for their bad decisions.

Goldman-Sachs is looking forward to the biggest bonus payouts in the firm's 140-year history. I mean it's not exactly difficult to make a sizable profit when the government is shoveling money at you and taking responsibility for your losses off the books at the cost of the taxpayer.

[klamath]

Nothing was terrible about that letter. As far as the smoking debate it comes down to your liberty ends where anothers begins. Environmental encroachment onto someones elses property is always a hard one because the standards of acceptable environmental encroachment are always being redefined. The real problem is who and how acceptable encroachment is defined. Is is cig smoke vs cynide gas, a kid screaming, vs a battery of cannons going off?

He point on treason is valid. Calling a bailout treason isn't going to win many arguements. If you are on the same page with the guy as far as believing in the basic free enterprise system you really need to be talking about the nuts and bolts of why the bailouts are wrong for the free enterprise system. If the guy is a socialist or a communist you really have your work cut and you will probably be wasting your breath.

[muh_roads]

would someone like to address what he said about Buchanan?

[erowe1]

Paladin, why did you refer to that message as neoconservative? I definitely don't agree with the sentiment. But I couldn't see any trace of neoconservatism in it.

[muh_roads]

Paladin, why did you refer to that message as neoconservative? I definitely don't agree with the sentiment. But I couldn't see any trace of neoconservatism in it.

we know who he is and he's said neocon things before. he's also very anti ron paul.

Sorry bailouts are treason. Nothing anyone has said in here has convinced me otherwise. If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention.

[erowe1]

I'm angry about the bailouts. They are definitely immoral. But isn't treason rather tightly defined by the Constitution as giving aid to the enemy in the time of a declared war?

[Imperial]

Paladin, it isn't treason to do this policy. We have a culture of government intervention. There is a clear precedent for bailout programs. You would never be able to win it is treason unless there is a goal to actually betray or harm the United States. And there is a clear argument that bailouts would float the US economy. OF course, I would argue it isn't worth it. But treason? I don't think so.


He actually made a good point about Buchanan. Of course I wouldn't call it isolationism, but that wasn't the point of his statement. He was pointing out the presentation.

And that is the problem he was pointing out. If you want to win over the local Republicans, you can't talk about treason. Argue the policies, not the people behind them. If you oppose bailouts thats good. But the whole point in spreading our ideas is to get people to consider them, not close their mind outright.

[pcosmar]

we know who he is and he's said neocon things before. he's also very anti ron paul.

Sorry bailouts are treason. Nothing anyone has said in here has convinced me otherwise. If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention.

I have to agree with you here, but also agree with those that say it could not be prosecuted as such.
By definition.

noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

However the offense of Treason is tightly defined by the Constitution. So tightly that it is not prosecuted in times when the offense is obvious to most.

Selling out our National sovereignty, and devaluing the dollar, and turning control of the country over to foreign investors is certainly treasonous.

[Epic]

Initiating force against me is treason to my government of one.

[TGGRV]

He should shut up. Bush used the word patriotism. Democrats use the word fairness. Neither of them know what those words mean and they should shut up.

[muh_roads]

Initiating force against me is treason to my government of one.

I like that. :D

anywho

- Bailouts are paid with fed reserve...
- fed reserve interest is funded with fed income tax payer money
- fed income tax payer money collected is done by misconstruing how the 16th amendment is defined...aka treason.

anyway, so ppl agree here with what he said about Buchanan?