I beg to differ. If you do not believe there is alot of Bush hate and American hate slurs, you need to take more time to READ some of the posts in this message boards. Its not simply criticism of the admistration policies, but rather personal attacks on our President and Our Country.

Most Bush supporters automatically assume that any attack on the president's policies or qualifications is a personal attack and hate mongering. See the saliva fly when they try to defend his pointless and poorly thought out actions. Point is he is a terrible president, highly unpopular in his own country, reviled around the world, and it's all his fault. Not part of some liberal plot to strip him of the highest level of international and political goodwill granted to any president in the wake of 9/11. He squandered all by his little lonesome.

Actually most Bush supporter's don't, Lumpy, but that is what the anti-bushies want people to think.

Then what rationalization do you have for all the froth and spittle and jingoistic support for failed policies, corrput government and vacuous propsals, and the sensible condemnation of same?

Do not believe everything you read. If you did then you'd believe all liberals are actually communistic or socialistic in nature and all Muslims want to cut the heads off christian and jewish babies.

LOL but that's what you believe! You madge, dc, etc. etc.

Let he has no sin cast the first stone. Like you've never criticized Clinton. *You underminded America when you did that* Comments between *'s imply sarcasm

Sure I criticized Clinton, but I always recognized him as the US President while he was in office and even though I would debate his actions and policies there was only one case where I supported Impeachment, and that was for Clinton lying to Congress and the American People. The rest of the time it was a case where he was president and calling the shots. Nope I never undermined an American President in my life, thank you very much. Clinton was proven to lie to congress and was impeached for it by the house. That was fact. As far as wag the dog and all the other crapola, I didn't stand against him on what he did for he acted with in the legal powers of the US President.

debate his actions and policies Therefore questioning Bush's foreign policy isn't treason. It's democracy. BTW, my comments were directed at madgician, not you outlookie.

Rule #1 of message forums: No post is only for 1 person. When you post comments everyone who is a part of the forum may answer. lol Questioning Bush's policy is not treason, undermining the man is. I keep telling you and everyone else, there is a right and wrong way to criticize. That's why we have treason and sedition laws.

You gonna argue semantics again? My comments were directed at madge when I said Like you've never criticized Clinton See that "you". It means Madge, not outlooker. Unless you(outlooker) are going to tell me (zerosaurus) that "you" is a reference to every poster. Therefore, you (outlooker) are wrong. I borrowed your favorite quote. Which statement is treasanous or seditious. A) Bush looks like a monkey. B) Bush sounds like an idiot when he rambles about liberties and democracy. C) Bush has no plan in Iraq. D) Bush lied about Iraq. E) Bush was duped into believing Iraq was a threat. F) Bush is responsible for murdering our troops. These are statements I've heard thrown out every now and then. I only hold A and B as statements I fully support, and to a degree E.

It's not semantics at all, it's fact. These boards are not private messages. When anyone posts on them then anyone can answer. You can specify Madge all you want, however it's still an open message on an open board. In case you haven't noticed, Zero, multiple people can answer any message. I never gave non-constructive criticism of Bill Clinton while he was the standing president. Everything I criticized him over was fact. Not once did I call him a pot smoking fiend, nor did I say he was inbred or his mom didn't know who his father was. I've said he lied, but only after he admitted to the public he lied. The man was the President of the United States of America and whether I voted for him or not he demanded the respect of the office... period. All of them are for they undermine the man who is the standing president of the US, ergo it lessens the man. When it lessens the man it undermines what he attempts to do... why? Because it breeds disrespect.

Breeding disrespect is not grounds for sedition (I won't even get into treason because nothing on these boards can remotely be considered as such). Statements A through E are in no way seditious. Statement F is ambiguous because it makes an accusation which can be argued, calls for an action, as a result of the accusation. If statement F had mandated action against Dubya that can be considered realistic and detrimental, then yes, it is somewhat seditious, but difficult to prove. When anyone posts on them then anyone can answer. Right, but when I point my finger at someone, there is no need for you to get defensive when it wasn't directed at you.

May I suggest you find out what Treason and Sedition is? It will save face. lol I'm not being defensive, I am telling you how the real world is... not that fantasy world many liberals live in. lol

May I suggest you find out what Treason and Sedition is? It will save face. Treason and Sedition are punishable crimes, and if your distorted interpretation of those terms hold, then you are accusing ABC of fostering these criminals on that War-in-Iraq board you detest so much. Gimme a break. Calling Bush a monkey is not sedition, and movies about his assassination aren't either, obscene possibly, seditious no. I like how you twist terms to suit your needs. Game Over inlooker. If liberals live in fantasy worlds then conservatives live in closet worlds with little air circulation, possibly explaining why their brains limit capacity.

There is nto one thing wrong with my definitions of Treason or Sedition, in fact they are very close to the proper legal definitions. Many of the comments on the Iraqi Board are treasonous. There is a big difference between saying "I disagree with the war and will protest it" and saying "My country is always wrong and so are the leaders that the citizens of my country freely elect.". I never said calling Bush a monkey is sedition. lol You make a lot of leaps of logic that are illogica.. What I said is that it undermines the President because it's disrespectful and lessens him by making personal attacks against the man. What Bush looks like has no merit on his ability to lead and the mere fact that people press such things is in an attempt to undermine his authority by making a joke out of the man. Movies about his assassination are not seditiionist, but they are treasonous. The fact is that showing Bush, or any president, assassinated helps to breed ideas that Assassination is a possibility. It's also in bad taste. I twist nothing, I inquire as to what people mean by what they say. Perhaps if a person is so worried about having their words twisted then maybe they ought to be more careful in what they say. lol You are right, Game over... you lose. lol LOL You are really into Logical Fallacies. It's true that Liberals, most especially the far left ones or the bleeding hearts, live in a fantasy world. The very nature of Liberalism since the late 60s attract these types. The conservatives are more down to earth and practical, as a general rule but it is true that many live in a more cloistered world, not in a closet as you preach. That's why I am a moderate with strong populist leanings. I agree with the conservative viewpoint in many cases, but I still have some liberal views I cling too. Mostly I am moderate on my views. I've found that both the right and left suffer from brain damage from lack of oxygen, however I've found it less with conservatives than liberals.

All of them are for they undermine the man who is the standing president of the US, ergo it lessens the man. Them referring to A-F, and are referring to seditious. I never said calling Bush a monkey is sedition Hi outlooker, do you know how to play, remember-saying-that? Stupid question but if that movie (the assassination one) is treason, then why isn't the movie producer, director, distributor under investigation? Because it is not. Hello McFly. Fantasy world? Or world that could be if closet folks didn't refer to it as such. I bet cell phones were once regarded as fantasy.

LOL Why isn't Jane Fondle in Jail for treason, same answer.... no one pushes it. Just because someone is not in Jail, Zero, does not mean they did not break the law. lol The streets are filled with criminals walking free who should be either in Jail or dead.

Maybe Jane Fonda isn't in jail because she hasn't committed treason. Seriously!

LOL Come off it, she gave aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. She's as guilty as the day is long.