There's never been a better time for those on the right to stand up and say that the rhetoric coming from their side has become so extreme as to be dangerous to the United States as a free country.

If you will admit the same. Finding the same level of rehetoric in your posts should be ridiculously easy.

Pot, kettle, black...

Finding the same level of rehetoric in your posts should be ridiculously easy.

You go, Kevin!

Brian,

If you are making the point that rhetoric goes too far to the point of being dangerous, then you should not have used as an example flash animation titled "Their Blood is on Bush's Hands."

Let me ask you a question, If stating that one's president is responsible for murder is not treasonous, then what would treason look like?

I think that calling the president a murderer is not moderate rhetoric (look no further, Kevin). And if there is blood on his hands, then there is tenfold the amount on yours and your ilk's.

The foolishness of making such a statement as "their blood is on Bush's hands" disqualifies that person as treasonous because it already qualifies him for an insane asylum. Granted. Somehow, however, I don't think that was your point.

Treason is defined in the Constitution:
Art III, Section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The nutbars who created the Clinton Death list (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm) weren't traitors for accusing the president of murder. They were, like Blumrich, committing acts of sedition.

In 1800, the clearly unconstitutional Sedition Act was a major factor in electing Republican Thomas Jefferson to the White House.

Seditious speech can be despicable, and it can be wrong, but it can never rise to the standard of treason and anyone who thinks it can has some fundamental problems understanding freedom.

"...in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

How does the Constitution define "aid" and "comfort"?

I hope it is more specific than Webster's Dictionary. Otherwise, we have a massive treason problem on our hands.

Damn. My source was cut off. It's Art VIII, Sect 3.

so, here's a description from 'LectLaw:
(http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a173.htm)
AID AND COMFORT - The U.S. Constitution, Article VIII, Section III, declares, that adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, shall be treason. These words, as they are to be understood in the constitution, have not received a full judicial construction. They import, however, help, support, assistance, countenance, encouragement. The word aid is explained by Lord Coke as comprehending all persons counselling, abetting, plotting, assenting, consenting, and encouraging to do the act, (and he adds, though not applicable to treason; who are not present when the act is done).
---
Even with this, it's probably best to defer to case law. Did General George McClelland commit treason by encouraging the enemy by not winning the Civil War in 1862? Did George Bush commit treason when he explicitly encouraged the enemy by saying "bring 'em on"? Did John Kennedy adhere to the enemy when he proclaimed "I am a jelly donut?" Is George Clinton a traitor for (allegedly) buying illegal drugs?

If this clown and his pals manage to really diminish the meaning of 'treason' to be the equivalent of 'dissent', then it will be a blow to the rule of constitutional law. It's hard to blame anyone who defines himself as an 'anti-idiotarian' (http://www.eod.com/devil/anti-idiotarian.html) for his failing, but certainly those who value freedom should reject both his trivialization of real treason and his implied threats of violence.

Well Chase made the case so well, but here from a quick glance at your greatest hits are a few.

There is the summary of your play, promoted here.

The logical conclusion at which Flemming arrives is a brutal and darkly comic story in which the prisoners Fair and Balanced turn the tables on their tormentor, Bill O'Reilly, put him on trial, and then torture, rape and kill him. They then turn to the audience and sing a short song informing the audience that "You can rape and kill O'Reilly, too," at which point the actors toss copies of the play into the audience, so that audience members can go out and keep telling the story of Bill O'Reilly's rape and murder.

"It's technically a happy ending," says Flemming. "The heroes get what they want. But they also become Bill O'Reilly in the process, because he forces them to."

Or this post title:

"We need to blow up the White House with a nuclear bomb"

And that's just for you. If you're going to make sweeping generalizations there is plenty of hateful speech coming from places like Indymedia.

Hmm...I wonder why you didn't include a link to that "We need to blow up the White House with a nuclear bomb" post. Could it be that the post is actually about Pat Robertson and a guest on his show talking about blowing up the State Department?

Nah.

On the Fair & Balanced issue, I plead guilty--I did indeed write a play that took Bill O'Reilly to his logical conclusion.

Following is another in a long line of absurd and moronic assertions by Mr. Fleming:

"Progressives such as myself are often criticized for suggesting the U.S. is headed in a direction that leads to fascism. For critics of such a suggestion, I ask you: If we are not currently making this turn, what would such a turn look like?"

To characterize himself as a "progressive," as distinguished from the total useless idiot that he is, is as moronic as the rest of the quoted excerpt. His posts typically have as much gravitas as the hole in a donut. The subject of his ire pales into insignificance when compared with the disgusting and vile posts that appear daily on his beloved sites, such as Democrat Underground and Indymedia, not to mention the blog that prompted the nasty reaction that triggered this brouhaha, Bushflash, or some such word.

Brian, you may be right that this particular writer on this one website has crossed the line. Calling Bush a "murderer" rates as intellectually disreputable, but clearly not an act of treason or even vaguely any type of crime.

I mostly support the president's foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to twist logic to justify every act by every schmuck who happens to agree with me on the war in Iraq.

I will even go so far as to defend you against the criticisms in this thread equating your Fair and Balanced play with publishing this guy's address. You're not really calling for actual violence against O'Reilly, and you're not putting his address up.

However, it is illegitimate to pick out one obscure jackass who does something wrong, and use that to smear everyone who supports the war. This would be equivalent to saying that the Unabomber represents the true colors of all environmentalists.

And it is just plain silly for you to claim that this incident is proof that we are "sliding into fascism." Please.

If we are not currently making this turn, what would such a turn look like?


Hmm. Well, if newspaper editors started being thrown in jail for criticizing the president, that would be a sign. Some jackass publishing someone's address is bad, but it is not a sign of the end times.

In short, quit being such a drama queen.

If you are on the right and you promote these views, or you sit approvingly or idly while others express them, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are partly to blame for the incident above, and the incidents to come.

Dude, you really have joined the "Christian Coalition of the Left." From Blumrich's site it would appear that he's reveling in the additional attention he's garnered. And spare us the mock indignation, it's not as if you've never posted someone's personal info on this very site. Given, those instances were much less extreme than the example you cite, but the difference of the action is only in degrees.

chiolositbo