A Challenge for Nem - New England Patriots Forums

***QuiGon*** · 07-17-2006, 09:31 AM

Lest I be accused of derailing a thread, I have decided to simply start my own new one..!! I challenge NEM to give a direct yes-or-no answer to the following opinion question. He is more than welcome to expand on his response, but I challenge him to give a direct answer ("I don't know" is not a direct answer).

Nem, in your opinion, is Jane Fonda guilty of the crime of treason against these United States...?

I don't want to know what the government did or didn't do. I know you know what she did and you use the word "treason" all the time on these boards so you can't claim you don't know the meaning behind that word.

Time to cowboy up, Nemmy boy..!!

RoadGrader · 07-17-2006, 09:38 AM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

***shmessy*** · 07-17-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Jane Fonda never took an oath to protect and defend the Constituion of the United States of America.

George Bush did.

While I disagree with what Jane Fonda did, you can't commit treason against something to which you never swore allegiance in the first place.

Everytime I fill up my car with gas, I wonder which group George Bush has a higher allegiance to: The U.S. or the Oil Industry.

Hope that puts things into perspective for ya, Quigon

Pujo · 07-17-2006, 10:32 AM

I think you both need to look up the definition of treason... something could be completely contrary to American interests and not constitute treason (giving comfort and aid to America's enemies, in a material way). For the record, I do think things will come out about the administration's actions (probably after they've left office) that will rise to the level of treasonous behaviour, but I don't think you could pin treason on them for even many of the criminal things they've done.

***Harry Boy*** · 07-17-2006, 10:33 AM

Fonda got exactly what she deserved and she knows it that is why she became a born again christian, she knows the history books will take care of her.
Whenever her name is mentioned in future history classes she will be considered a piece of human waste, a foul smelling piece of *****.

The b!tch will never be able to undo her actions.

F-ck Jane Fonda.

***shmessy*** · 07-17-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

Fonda got exactly what she deserved and she knows it that is why she became a born again christian, she knows the history books will take care of her.
Whenever her name is mentioned in future history classes she will be considered a piece of human waste, a foul smelling piece of *****.

The b!tch will never be able to undo her actions.

F-ck Jane Fonda.

While I don't agree with what she did and condemn her for it, she:

1) Never took an oath to serve the U.S.

2) Her actions didn't amount to 1/100th of the future damage that George Bush has committed in selling our future to Iranian oil interests. (think of that: every time you gas up your car, Ahmed Ahmedinejad gets a little more dough for his nuclear program).

Any reasonable and unbiased observer can easily see that the scale of Jane Fonda's damage is miniscule compared to what George Bush has done.

Whether it is treason is arguable. It all comes down to whether or not George Bush consciously acted to affect this outcome. Honestly, I don't know.

Pujo · 07-17-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

I agree. Once Bush is out of office, he will be investigated for treason and wil be found to have committed it, but no charges will be filed against him, IMO.

However, that could change if the Dems assume control of congress this November, if they subpoena documents and individuals, and finally, finally get to the truth. Ther just might be enough proven evidence then, to try him for treason.

I think there are much more reasonable charges to press against the administration without getting into the spectacle of trying someone under a law that would basically require proof of the administration levying war against the United States.

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
-John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason, 1964

***patsfan13*** · 07-17-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

While I don't agree with what she did and condemn her for it, she:

1) Never took an oath to serve the U.S.

2) Her actions didn't amount to 1/100th of the future damage that George Bush has committed in selling our future to Iranian oil interests. (think of that: every time you gas up your car, Ahmed Ahmedinejad gets a little more dough for his nuclear program).

Any reasonable and unbiased observer can easily see that the scale of Jane Fonda's damage is miniscule compared to what George Bush has done.

Whether it is treason is arguable. It all comes down to whether or not George Bush consciously acted to affect this outcome. Honestly, I don't know.

Copuld you elaborate on "selling our future to Iranian oil interest".

***shmessy*** · 07-17-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Copuld you elaborate on "selling our future to Iranian oil interest".

Actively pursuing an "energy policy" that increases our (and the world's) dependence on Iran's primary source of income. Why won't the White House release even the participant list from VP Dick Cheney's Energy Commission meetings of 2002? Why is that a secret? Isn't it the business of the people of the United States? The White House has gone to great lengths in the courts to block this as a "no need to know" issue for the American voter.

Do you think Iran's income is derived from it's fabulous movie industry?

***patsfan13*** · 07-17-2006, 11:14 AM

A paragraph might be nice.

It seems to me that every effort to develop our oil & natural gas resources to lessen our dependence on foreign oil has been fillibustered in the Senate, from offshore drilling to Anwar to the previous administration placing our largest coal reserves (in Utah) off limits, the Senate has blocked every effort to allievate the situation and offered no alternatives.