The US is a great place to be anti-American

I agree with MM on something. Inform the media.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I agree with MM on something. Inform the media.

This doesnt mean that we are gonna take warm showers together, however...LOL

I will still tell you when you are wrong, but in this instance you arent.

CJ is.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I agree with MM on something. Inform the media.

This doesnt mean that we are gonna take warm showers together, however...LOL

I will still tell you when you are wrong, but in this instance you arent.

CJ is.

Notice Bear, that MM hasn't ruled out hot showers. Smile

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I will still tell you when you are wrong, but in this instance you arent.

CJ is.

I think CJ also needs a bit a schoolin' on what constitutes 'treason'. Let's see, who could we get, hmmmmm, somebody sensible, ... , not Tico, not McG, ... hmmm, ... oh well, somebody will happen along.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

I will still tell you when you are wrong, but in this instance you arent.

CJ is.

I think CJ also needs a bit a schoolin' on what constitutes 'treason'. Let's see, who could we get, hmmmmm, somebody sensible, ... , not Tico, not McG, ... hmmm, ... oh well, somebody will happen along.

Anybody that can read can school him on what constitutes treason.
It is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution.
You can find it in Article 3, Section 3.

For your education, here is what it says...

Quote:

Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That is the only legal definition of treason,and anyone that can read the Constitution knows that.

Here is the link to the Constitution that I use...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

JTT wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

I will still tell you when you are wrong, but in this instance you arent.

CJ is.

I think CJ also needs a bit a schoolin' on what constitutes 'treason'. Let's see, who could we get, hmmmmm, somebody sensible, ... , not Tico, not McG, ... hmmm, ... oh well, somebody will happen along.

Anybody that can read can school him on what constitutes treason.
It is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution.
You can find it in Article 3, Section 3.

Gee thanks, MM.

I guess CJ was asleep during that civics class or out blastin' squirrels into oblivion with his Kalashnikov.

But don't just send him there to read it for himself. It'll have to be explained to him; could take months, even years for someone like CJ.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
candidone1 wrote:

Defend our flag to the last man?
Dude, that is some seriously funny ****. You're the guy who has threatened people on this website....American people. You wont' defend their right to free thought and free speech, but you will defend a flag to the last man?

You have some seriously f*cked up values man.

Bullshit. Pick your side. Defend it, or not. If you won't, I cannot defend you. Despite what you might think, our soldiers do not defend your right to denegrate the U.S. flag. In fact, most of them would be happy to kick ass or worse on those that do.

And there is the flaw in your thinking.
I am a retired marine, and when I enlisted the oath I swore included the words "to defend the constitution".
That includes defending the Bill of Rights.
On the BoR is the right to freedom of speech.
As a soldier, I swore to defend the right to free speech, even if I disagree with what is being said.

To say that I wont defend someones right to denigrate the flag shows that you dont know what the military really does, or the oath we take.
To paraphrase my mom..."I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I dont agree with many of the posters on this site, but I will never say they dont have the right to say something

As for "defending to the last man", that goes against all military tactics and against the UCMJ.
When there is no hope of winning and there is no chance of rescue, it is sound policy to surrender, especially if you have wounded.
That gets medical help for your wounded, and allows you to tie down enemy forces to guard you.

You are showing me that you have a serious lack of knowledge about how things are done.

Remember the Alamo....

0 Replies

Oh, by the bye, MM, the following isn't your mom's phrase.

[quote="mysteryman]To paraphrase my mom..."I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". .[/quote]

Here is CJ, Tico, McG and the rest of that lot's version:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the limit of my personal feelings or those of my leaders your right to say it.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Remember the Alamo....

I'm not so sure that you could, CJ, if you hadn't recently seen the movie. But you likely were more than willing to skip squirrel huntin' for that old shoot 'em up civics lesson, eh?

0 Replies

cj,
Check your history.
The Alamo was defended to the last man, thats true, they all died.

But, the Alamo was not at that time US property, nor was it defended by US forces.
Yes, some of the people there had emigrated from the US, but there were no US troops in the Alamo.

Except for a few battles during the Indian wars, I dont know of any battle that involved US troops were they fought to the last man, or where they were all killed.
Even the Little Bighorn, where Custer was wiped out, didnt involve a fight to the last man.
Only one troop of the 7th cav was killed to the last man, not the whole force.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Oh, by the bye, MM, the following isn't your mom's phrase.

[quote="mysteryman]To paraphrase my mom..."I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". .

Here is CJ, Tico, McG and the rest of that lot's version:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the limit of my personal feelings or those of my leaders your right to say it.[/quote]

I didnt say my mom originated it, but she uses it alot.

0 Replies

OK MM.

So, say you're a special forces operative and you are trying to infiltrate a terror cell in Hoboken. The neighbors, who are anti-war, tell the terrorists who you are (maybe they knew you in college or something). Do you consider that freedom of speech? You still defend them?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

OK MM.

So, say you're a special forces operative and you are trying to infiltrate a terror cell in Hoboken. The neighbors, who are anti-war, tell the terrorists who you are (maybe they knew you in college or something). Do you consider that freedom of speech? You still defend them?

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. I bet you seriously think about this stuff all the time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Your cluelessness is showing.

0 Replies

Inadequate response.

It's not even fun to make fun of ya anymore, if you can't do better then this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's the reason I don't fear the Patriot Act but you do.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

It's the reason I don't fear the Patriot Act but you do.

That's a non-sequitur; what's the reason, exactly?

I'm surprised that you are so for the Patriot act; you know they are using it to compile lists of gun-owners, right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Maybe. But how would they know that about me?

heheheh

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

OK MM.

So, say you're a special forces operative and you are trying to infiltrate a terror cell in Hoboken. The neighbors, who are anti-war, tell the terrorists who you are (maybe they knew you in college or something). Do you consider that freedom of speech? You still defend them?

First of all,the military would NOT be used that way.

The FBI or other intelligence assets would be used, and that would be someone not from the area.
The military MIGHT be used, and I stress MIGHT, to eliminate or otherwise intercept that cell.

It is not the job, mission, or task of the military to perform civilian law enforcement duties in the US.
The scenario you described is a civilian matter, not the military.

Your paranoia is showing.

0 Replies

You didn't answer the question.

0 Replies

The US is a great place to be anti-American

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know