If Romney Wins The Patriotic Vote...

[catzmeow]

Someone can be exceptionally patriotic, and be gullible at the same time. Supporting the country is patriotic. Believing that obama has done a good job as president is being gullible.

^Plotting treason against her country and thinks it's fine and dandy to do so.

;lmao:

I wish I were joking.

 

[bobcollum]

My assumption has always been that most military and their family were at one point in the back-pocket of Republicans, before they started sending them to die all over the middle east.

I think now, as Catz has illustrated, many families want their men and women back home, and are fed up with this conflict that seems to have no end in sight. They know Romney will have them in Iran before long.

 

[del]

^Plotting treason against her country and thinks it's fine and dandy to do so.

;lmao:

I wish I were joking.

it's only treason

what's the big deal?

 

[EriktheRed]

This is a wonderful strategy! Mitt could claim the 47% of Americans he despises, including seniors and military members and the disabled, are not real patriots!

Appealing to patriotism is a common right wing strategy. It worked for Bush. It worked for Hitler.

Kinda reminds one of Gov. Mooseburger's "real America" comment, doesn't it?

 

[catzmeow]

;lmao:

I wish I were joking.

it's only treason

what's the big deal?

It's really no different from jaywalking.

 

[Katzndogz]

Someone can be exceptionally patriotic, and be gullible at the same time. Supporting the country is patriotic. Believing that obama has done a good job as president is being gullible.

^Plotting treason against her country and thinks it's fine and dandy to do so.

One could say the same thing about the French Resistance and its rebellion against the Vichy government! Or the founders against the Crown.

I would never plot treason against the country. I am actually in no position to plot anything. I simply do not see opposition to the presidebt as treason since he is more treasonous than anything else. The presidebt is not the country. The two are not synonymous.

Those who support the person who is the most treasonous of all, simply because he is in the seat of power are collaborators. They imagine themselves to be far more patriotic than anyone else, but they are in the end, merely collaborators.

 

[catzmeow]

And..... Obama is a train wreck. Without his media acolytes supporting him, and running cover for him, he is as useless as a top with no spin. He's got nothing to offer besides recycled food. Watch where you step.

lots of presidents have sucked

did voting for them make someone not a patriot?

We both know that, the argument is absurd. The better question is what exactly about our Country, are We as, Individuals, bearing Allegiance to? Authority without cause, qualification, and consent, should be of concern to all Patriots, no? The question has always been, "Where is the line of distinction drawn?" Constitutionally, there is Intent, Rule of Law, and Due Process. When we resort to Imagination to Divine what clearly is not there in the first place, to impose new powers, we circumvent, don't we. Why not instead, learn to play by the rules?

Do you know what I'm loyal to? I'm loyal to my fellow countrymen and women, who vote their consciences in these elections. I'm loyal to the process of democratic elections, a process that has served us well for the past 250 years. As a result of my loyalties to my countrymen and this country, I don't demean or dismiss people who vote differently than I do, with the intended goal of undermining our democracy. Further, I am loyal to the rule of law and the bill of rights and our elected leaders, regardless of what party they represent.

Clearly, some of you aren't. And, if you intend to engage in a revolution against the people that all of us have chosen to lead this country, and you rise up against them, I want you to know that you are rising up against all of us, and you will be crushed like the cockroaches of the south were the last time people plotted against this country. Your homes will be destroyed, your land will be strewn with salt, and your dead bodies will be given to the dogs.

I would not take such talk lightly, if I were you.

 

[Intense]

We both know that, the argument is absurd. The better question is what exactly about our Country, are We as, Individuals, bearing Allegiance to? Authority without cause, qualification, and consent, should be of concern to all Patriots, no? The question has always been, "Where is the line of distinction drawn?" Constitutionally, there is Intent, Rule of Law, and Due Process. When we resort to Imagination to Divine what clearly is not there in the first place, to impose new powers, we circumvent, don't we. Why not instead, learn to play by the rules?

So, you were a fan of the Patriot Act?

Parts of it. I grew up in a Volunteer Fire Department. I learned young about Emergency Response, Police and Fire Scenes. I also understood that such Authority was based on Circumstance, not Lust for Power, and that, when the situation was resolved, Civil Liberty was restored. Dealing with who has what authority, and to what extent, is as critical, as showing up. The only way to look at the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act, is point by point. Those Coast Guard Helicopters that saved Thousands during Katrina, where do you think they came from? What do you think was responsible for revamping the Coast Guard?

 

[JWBooth]

Someone can be exceptionally patriotic, and be gullible at the same time. Supporting the country is patriotic. Believing that obama has done a good job as president is being gullible.

^Plotting treason against her country and thinks it's fine and dandy to do so.

One could say the same thing about the French Resistance and its rebellion against the Vichy government! Or the founders against the Crown.

I would never plot treason against the country. I am actually in no position to plot anything. I simply do not see opposition to the presidebt as treason since he is more treasonous than anything else. The presidebt is not the country. The two are not synonymous.

Those who support the person who is the most treasonous of all, simply because he is in the seat of power are collaborators. They imagine themselves to be far more patriotic than anyone else, but they are in the end, merely collaborators.

The most treasonous act of all is supporting that which empowers the state.

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney doesn't despise the 47% of the country that would never vote for him. He merely recognizes that 47% of the nation is democrat and are not likely to be persuaded by promises of lower taxes.

He was right.

 

[bobcollum]

Romney doesn't despise the 47% of the country that would never vote for him. He merely recognizes that 47% of the nation is democrat and are not likely to be persuaded by promises of lower taxes.

He was right.

No, he wasn't.

47%-ish may vote Democrat, but it isn't because they don't pay taxes.

Only a moron believes that.

 

[catzmeow]

One could say the same thing about the French Resistance and its rebellion against the Vichy government! Or the founders against the Crown.

I would never plot treason against the country. I am actually in no position to plot anything. I simply do not see opposition to the presidebt as treason since he is more treasonous than anything else. The presidebt is not the country. The two are not synonymous.

Those who support the person who is the most treasonous of all, simply because he is in the seat of power are collaborators. They imagine themselves to be far more patriotic than anyone else, but they are in the end, merely collaborators.

The president was elected by your fellow citizens. Rising up against a democractically elected leader, who your countrymen have selected, is rising up against all of us and our country's democratic traditions. When the far left advocated similar tactics during the Bush administration, I found it equally reprehensible.

I suspect you lack the stones to actually serve in the military or in any other capacity, and that you are as usual talking out of your ass. I hope you're doing so from a mental health facility, where you properly belong.

 

[del]

We both know that, the argument is absurd. The better question is what exactly about our Country, are We as, Individuals, bearing Allegiance to? Authority without cause, qualification, and consent, should be of concern to all Patriots, no? The question has always been, "Where is the line of distinction drawn?" Constitutionally, there is Intent, Rule of Law, and Due Process. When we resort to Imagination to Divine what clearly is not there in the first place, to impose new powers, we circumvent, don't we. Why not instead, learn to play by the rules?

So, you were a fan of the Patriot Act?

Parts of it. I grew up in a Volunteer Fire Department. I learned young about Emergency Response, Police and Fire Scenes. I also understood that such Authority was based on Circumstance, not Lust for Power, and that, when the situation was resolved, Civil Liberty was restored. Dealing with who has what authority, and to what extent, is as critical, as showing up. The only way to look at the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act, is point by point. Those Coast Guard Helicopters that saved Thousands during Katrina, where do you think they came from? What do you think was responsible for revamping the Coast Guard?

so that's the only way the coasties could have gotten more money?

giving away our freedom?

dude, that dog don't hunt

 

[kaz]

My assumption has always been that most military and their family were at one point in the back-pocket of Republicans, before they started sending them to die all over the middle east.

I think now, as Catz has illustrated, many families want their men and women back home, and are fed up with this conflict that seems to have no end in sight. They know Romney will have them in Iran before long.

Coming from a strongly military family, I neither hear that nor do the military in my family hear that. I only hear it from the left who hear what they want to hear. And don't bother saying I'm the one who hears what I want to hear, I argue with them ... against ... the wars and why we are in them.

 

[EriktheRed]

Anyone remember this short-lived stunt by the Limbaugh crowd?

 

[Katzndogz]

My assumption has always been that most military and their family were at one point in the back-pocket of Republicans, before they started sending them to die all over the middle east.

I think now, as Catz has illustrated, many families want their men and women back home, and are fed up with this conflict that seems to have no end in sight. They know Romney will have them in Iran before long.

It took obama to change the rules to increase the casualties. For that purpose. Just like he has reduced troop strength to eliminate the ability of our military to defend themselves.

I agree, obama would not have us in Iran, he believes in surrender being the only appropriate retaliatory act to any attack.

 

[Mr Natural]

He will win the election...just sayin

Patriot..one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests..

Oh BS.

Don't even try wrapping Romney the tax evader, Romney the draft dodger, Romney the I invest offshore to evade paying taxes scion in a US flag, lad.

He's an internationalist through and through.

The only thing he's patriotic to is money.

 

[bobcollum]

My assumption has always been that most military and their family were at one point in the back-pocket of Republicans, before they started sending them to die all over the middle east.

I think now, as Catz has illustrated, many families want their men and women back home, and are fed up with this conflict that seems to have no end in sight. They know Romney will have them in Iran before long.

Coming from a strongly military family, I neither hear that nor do the military in my family hear that. I only hear it from the left who hear what they want to hear. And don't bother saying I'm the one who hears what I want to hear, I argue with them ... against ... the wars and why we are in them.

I didn't just make that up. I thank your family for their dedication to the country, but it's only one family as far as opinions go.

 

[bobcollum]

My assumption has always been that most military and their family were at one point in the back-pocket of Republicans, before they started sending them to die all over the middle east.

I think now, as Catz has illustrated, many families want their men and women back home, and are fed up with this conflict that seems to have no end in sight. They know Romney will have them in Iran before long.

It took obama to change the rules to increase the casualties. For that purpose. Just like he has reduced troop strength to eliminate the ability of our military to defend themselves.

I agree, obama would not have us in Iran, he believes in surrender being the only appropriate retaliatory act to any attack.

Iran won't be attacking us unprovoked.

But when you view the US as forever innocent I'm sure you'll see it as unprovoked.

 

[EriktheRed]

He will win the election...just sayin

Patriot..one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests..

Oh BS.

Don't even try wrapping Romney the tax evader, Romney the draft dodger, Romney the I invest offshore to evade paying taxes scion in a US flag, lad.

He's an internationalist through and through.

The only thing he's patriotic to is money.

Shouldn't be so hard on the guy, though. He's just trying to make this country safe for the poor, put-upon wealthy folks so they don't just to take their balls and go play elsewhere.