"I want him to fail" = TREASON

[tuvor]

Niche entertainer rush limbaugh deserves interrogation.

[scrinmaster]

1. How is that treason?

Treason is pretty damn specific, according to the constitution.

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.

[Chulanowa]

3. I think it's meant to be ironic

Y'know, what with Rush insisting everyone who wasn't palming Bush's nuts was guilty of treason.

[complain jane]

8. LOL

[tuvor]

6. My humble Canadian perspective.

The concept of treason isn't limited to the USA, so I'm going by the dictionary definition.

trea·son: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

I don't see how limbaugh doesn't fit the description, given the influence he knows he has over his audience of "dittoheads".

[Political Heretic]

14. This is exactly what I've been waiting to get away from for eight years.

You're either with us or your with the terrorists...

Love it or leave it...

You're giving comfort to our enemies by having a different point of view...

Etc.

I've endured eight years of this crap, and the last thing I want is to turn around and start doing it all over again. It is enough for me to state my opinion that Rush Limbaugh is a douchebag. When I start acting like he should be banned from speaking or punished for uttering an opinion I disagree with - then I've crossed a line.

But then again, I really do believe in the ideals of freedom - not just freedom when its people I like and fascism when its people I don't.

[NeedleCast]

31. Well Said

[dysfunctional press]

28. "i want him to fail" is NOT an "overt act to overthrow the government"...

sheesh...:eyes:

i thought that canadians were supposed to be brighter than that.

[tuvor]

36. INCITING treason. In all sincerity, is that better?

And what's with the stereotyping of Canadians? Have you seen who WE'VE elected twice?

:rofl:

Not to mention how many of my countrymen assume that we directly elect our prime minister, and that the recent attempt to form a coalition government, written into our constitution, was a coup attempt.

Canada's no smarter than the USA. Too many of us just think we are.

[dysfunctional press]

37. it still doesn't qualify even as inciting treason.

it's someone stating their opinion. we're all allowed to do that here.

[tuvor]

41. If he didn't have the misguided adoration of millions, I'd probably agree with you. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

43. it doesn't matter how many people hear someone else's opinion...

it's still just that.

[tuvor]

44. "I hope he fails" is not an opinion.

"I think he will fail" or "I think he should fail" is an opinion.

"I hope he fails" is a factual statement.

[dysfunctional press]

47. a factual statement of an OPINION.

sheesh...

:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

51. It's a statement of aspiration - aspirations are opinions.

[Political Heretic]

50. There's no law against (or even a legal definition of) "iniciting" treason

[Triana]

2. they need to yank this mush-brained, drug-addled, potty-mouth moron OFF the public airwaves. n/t

[Political Heretic]

15. No, but he should be off Armed Forces Radio.

He has every right to be on the airwaves or at least as much right as anyone else, but Armed Forces Radio is another matter. I don't think that AFR should be used to broadcast such one sided politicized trite to our troops. Frankly I'm not sure that I would think it any better if Air America had shows on AFR either. But having Rush on AFR is disturbingly like propaganda radio for our troops.

[malaise]

23. Why?

Both the elections and the celebrations demonstrate that only their lunatic fringe listen to them.
In fact the more they spew hate, the more people vote for Dems.

Let them bray. Eventually advertisers will abandon them.

[Political Heretic]

4. Give me a fucking break. So the first amendment only applies to us "librerals" then ?

For fuck sake... get over it.

Rush Limbaugh is a moron. But that's not treason.

[shintao]

5. Ahhh, 1st Amendment? Yep! That belongs to Liberals.

Learn to keep your enemies near you, let them speak.

[tuvor]

7. "Get over it"? For fuck sake, yourself, give me a break.

I didn't know about it until I saw it on TDS about an hour-and-a-half ago.

[Political Heretic]

13. Great. So now you know about it. It's not "treason."

[tuvor]

25. Okay, then, INCITING treason.

No practical difference, as far as I'm concerned. Especially given his influence on millions.

[NeedleCast]

33. There's a huge difference

between saying you wish something to fail and you wish something to be overthrown/destroyed.

I wish to see the Steelers fail to win the superbowl. That does not mean I wish for their plane to crash on the way there.

[tuvor]

40. You don't have the undivided attention of millions.

He's using his influence irresponsibly.

[NeedleCast]

42. That's not illegal, nor is it the definition of treason

By the definitions you seem to be using, rock stars and rappers would be guilty of treason.

One of the fundamental principals of free speech is being able to criticize your government.

[tucsonlib]

9. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, etc. etc.

..should all be tried for treason. Why? Same reason we tried Tokyo Rose. Same reason we would have tried Joseph Goebbels. Treasonous spewing of lies and propaganda to provoke hate, war and violence. Add Coulter to the list. Scum of the earth - each and every one.

[struggle4progress]

11. Uh ... " Iva Toguri d'Aquino and 'Tokyo Rose' "

... Army analysis suggested that the program had no negative effect on troop morale and that it might even have raised it a bit. The Army’s sole concern about the broadcasts was that “Annie” appeared to have good intelligence on U.S. ship and troop movements ...

In September 1945, after the press had reported that Aquino was “Tokyo Rose,” U.S. Army authorities arrested her. The FBI and the Army’s Counterintelligence Corps conducted an extensive investigation to determine whether Aquino had committed crimes against the U.S. By the following October, authorities decided that the evidence then known did not merit prosecution, and she was released ...

Aquino's trial began on July 5, 1949, one day after her 33rd birthday. On September 29, 1949, the jury found her guilty on one count in the indictment ...

On January 28, 1956, she was released from the Federal Reformatory for Women at Alderson, West Virginia, where she had served six years and two months of her sentence. She successfully fought government efforts to deport her and returned to Chicago, where she worked in her father’s shop until his death. President Gerald Ford pardoned her on January 19, 1977 ...

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/rose/rose.htm


In short, the 1949 prosecution of 'Tokyo Rose' seems to have resulted from political pressure, and her conviction seems later to have been regarded as a miscarriage of justice

[tucsonlib]

16. Okay, My Apologies To Ms. Aquino

Doesn't alter my belief that the right-wing hate mongers should be in prison. For the same reason a KKK leader who encourages his followers to commit violent acts is a criminal. At the very least, they should be sued in civil court for their documented libelous and slanderous diatribes. And don't give me the 1st Amendment argument. Remember in the lead-up to the war when O'Reilly told opponents to "shut up"? Accused those whom he considered "anti-Bush" of being traitors? These treasonous, amoral assholes exist only to promote racism, bigotry and intolerance.
Hopefully, their time is nearly over. They belong on the trash heap of history.

[NeedleCast]

35. So I'll put you in for a no on the question "do you support the constitution"

[faith_in_democracy]

10. Suppression of speech = communism

That’s not treason; he has the right to say whatever he wants. We live in a free country. You have the right not to let it upset you.

[Political Heretic]

12. No that would be fascism, not "communism"

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hobbit709]

22. How about the right to yell "Theater" at a crowded fire?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Welcome. I hope you enjoy your visit.

[sfpcjock]

18. OH yeah. 'cause we don't get another chance, Rushie

tiny problem

[oldnslo]

20. I wouldn't be surprised if Rush's name weren't added to the list containing Alan Berg,

And other talk-show hosts and DJ's greased over the years. He's inflamed a lot of folks out there.

[Angleae]

24. So, just how many times have you committed treason in the past 8 years.

Or is it somehow different now that Obama is in office?

[Raskolnik]

26. Your post is ridiculously dumb, and I suspect you just wanted attention. n/t

[MadHound]

27. Gee, how many liberal commentators said the very same thing about Bush over the years?

Hell, how many DUer's also said the same thing. Sorry, but the First Amendment applies to everybody and to all speech, even that which you disagree with.

Be careful that you don't become that which you hate.

[tuvor]

30. I guess we're looking at it from different perspectives.

To me "I want (my country's leader) to fail" means "I want my country to fail."

I don't recall seeing any such sentiment from any commentators on the left, nor on DU. Mind you, the previous president was such a fuck-up for the USA, that there was never a reason to "want the USA to fail". It was happening regardless.

[MadHound]

39. I guess you're dealing in an exercise of semantic equivalency that simply isn't there

Frankly how the hell do you get from "I want my country's leader to fail" to "I want my country to fail"? That's the sort of semantic games that right wing idiots have engaged in for decades now (remember when wanting the US to fail in 'Nam meant that you were traitor according to the rabid right).

And if you don't recall DUer's or liberal commentators stating the very same sentiment about Bush, then frankly you weren't paying attention.

We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm looking at it through the lenses of the First Amendment while you're looking at it through the lenses of partisan politics. Sorry, but the Constitution trumps partisan politics, or at least it does in a country that respects the rule of law.

[theboss]

49. I wanted Bush to fail

So...good times.

[stuntcat]

29. the only chance Limbaugh has of not looking 100% WRONG is if the Democrat president fails totally

This talk is just his ego's last pathetic struggle!

[Atman]

32. I'd suggest electrodes on his balls and an anal probe

But he'd probably enjoy that. Especially if administered by an teenage island boy.

.

[Zywiec]

34. So you wanted Bush to succeed with his policies?

or were you guilty of treason?

Please turn yourself in to the nearest FBI office.

:eyes:

[tuvor]

38. Please see post #30.

[madinmaryland]

45. He is an entertainer/comedienne!! He's allowed to say whatever he wants.

We're allowed to laugh at everything he says!!

[fishwax]

46. this is a joke, right?

:shrug:

[robcon]

48. I wanted Ted Stevens to fail for years... I'm not a traitor.

n/t

[Karenina]

52. Maybe not treason but surely a steady stream of POISON. n/t

[onenote]

53. Notion of what constitutes treason = WRONG

I think limbaugh is worthless windbag. But if you think that expressing a desire for a president's policies to fail is treason, then you think that most people here at DU have been guilty of repeated acts of treason over the past eight years. And I won't even bother directing you to the very narrow definition of what constitutes treason under the constitution since, if you haven't bothered to understand the First Amendment, its unlikely you'll appreciate what constitutes treason.

We're not. And neither is limbaugh. The difference is that we were right in wanting chimpy's policies to fail and he is wrong. But that doesn't make either view treasonous.

[dana_b]

54. I disagree however it certainly prove that he's an ass!!

if people would stop giving this buffoon so much attention, maybe his rmblings would be ignored and less hurtful?