"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
I hope you mean either with a camera or at you. Pretty ignorant to suggest
such violence regardless of your disagreement with someone's views of
behaviour. I thought your country's founding principles included such
freedoms (or perhaps this is a "founding myth").

Expressing your view and committing Treason (Fonda), Terrorism, Murder,
etc., are completely different issues.
Or don't they teach you that in your country?

The poster expressed his view which is allowed under our Constitution.
Do you have a problem with him expressing his view because it is contrary to
your own?
That could be construed as being dictatorial. Is that the founding
principle of your country?

SeeingEyeDog wrote:


"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
I hope you mean either with a camera or at you. Pretty ignorant to
suggest such violence regardless of your disagreement with someone's
views of
behaviour. I thought your country's founding principles included such
freedoms (or perhaps this is a "founding myth").

Expressing your view and committing Treason (Fonda), Terrorism, Murder,
etc., are completely different issues.
Or don't they teach you that in your country?

The poster expressed his view which is allowed under our Constitution.
Do you have a problem with him expressing his view because it is contrary
to your own?
That could be construed as being dictatorial. Is that the founding
principle of your country?

Expressing a view and suggesting shooting another person are different
things. This has nothing to do with viewpoints and everything to do with
advocating violence.

uncle arnie wrote:
SeeingEyeDog wrote:


"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
I hope you mean either with a camera or at you. Pretty ignorant to
suggest such violence regardless of your disagreement with someone's
views of
behaviour. I thought your country's founding principles included such
freedoms (or perhaps this is a "founding myth").

Expressing your view and committing Treason (Fonda), Terrorism, Murder,
etc., are completely different issues.
Or don't they teach you that in your country?

The poster expressed his view which is allowed under our Constitution.
Do you have a problem with him expressing his view because it is contrary
to your own?
That could be construed as being dictatorial. Is that the founding
principle of your country?

Expressing a view and suggesting shooting another person are different
things. This has nothing to do with viewpoints and everything to do with
advocating violence.

I agree with Arnie 100% on this. Threats or suggestions of violence
have NO place on this group.

He wasn't advocating violence. He was advocating Justice!!!
Had you committed treason like Jane Fonda you would have spent
time in prison or have been shot by a firing squad. I advocate the latter.
__________________________________________________ _________

Lawyers Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer seeks to make the case that in
fact, Jane Fonda engaged in acts that make her guilty of the actual legal
grounds for treason, which as laid out in the Constitution, defines the act
as "levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort."

Their conclusion was simply that there was "enough evidence to submit to a
jury, that the jury could have convicted her, and that a conviction probably
would have been upheld on appeal."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1468

"uncle arnie" wrote

Expressing a view and suggesting shooting another person are different
things. This has nothing to do with viewpoints and everything to do with
advocating violence.

What you suggest is justice is actually lynching. It would be interesting
to actually have such a trial BEFORE the execution. Such a trial would
provide a forum where the accused could raise all of the issues, including
the lawfulness of the war.

SeeingEyeDog wrote:

He wasn't advocating violence. He was advocating Justice!!!
Had you committed treason like Jane Fonda you would have spent
time in prison or have been shot by a firing squad. I advocate the
latter. __________________________________________________ _________

Lawyers Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer seeks to make the case that in
fact, Jane Fonda engaged in acts that make her guilty of the actual legal
grounds for treason, which as laid out in the Constitution, defines the
act as "levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort."

Their conclusion was simply that there was "enough evidence to submit to a
jury, that the jury could have convicted her, and that a conviction
probably would have been upheld on appeal."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1468

"uncle arnie" wrote

Expressing a view and suggesting shooting another person are different
things. This has nothing to do with viewpoints and everything to do with
advocating violence.

Yeah!
cuhulin

The death penalty is a possible sentence for Treason. Only a leftist commie
sympathizer would refer to it as a lynching - LOL.

The only issue would be her "Aid and Comfort to the enemy" and would have
nothing to do about the issues of the war itself.
It doesn't matter what her political views are or if the war was justified.
She committed Treason and at the very least put American soldiers in
danger - period. Spy's have been executed during peacetime. She committed
Treason during wartime.
Have you no sense?

A book was written about Hanoi Jane by two lawyers and is noted in this
thread. I suggest you put down the Leftist propaganda newspaper and read a
real book once in a while.

"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
What you suggest is justice is actually lynching. It would be interesting
to actually have such a trial BEFORE the execution. Such a trial would
provide a forum where the accused could raise all of the issues, including
the lawfulness of the war.

Shooting or Hanging for Traitors,is my Vote.I think I prefer stringing
them up in the public square.
cuhulin

"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in message
...
The death penalty is a possible sentence for Treason. Only a leftist
commie
sympathizer would refer to it as a lynching - LOL.

Lynching, so far as I am aware, refers to hanging of a person without
benefit of a trial. The definition could have changed.. YMMV.

However, the killing of any person without benefit of a trial is murder,
irregardless of the crime of which they are accused.

Awwww,cry me a River.Stop your tears and stop blubberin.
www.devilfinder.com Ancient Irish Music
.................................................. .....
www.devilfinder.com Ancient Music Of Ireland
.................................................. ..
Tabhair dom do lamh,scroll down past the picture of the Hungry Dog to
where the auld Lady is beating on that musical instrument.Now,go play
with yourself,I want a clean shot!
cuhulin