Whereas you choose to ignore the one that contradicts you. I forgive me than a farm unimpressed by that argument.

LOL! Are you serious? Classic nutwing logic. Focus on the one thing that seemingly supports your position while ignorng the multiple things that contradict it. (See Warming, Global; Evolution; Aliens, Area 51.)

At what point are you going to be sending this information over to Paul Krugman who last week leveled the charge of treason against anyone who doesn't believe in the myth of global warming? It's apparently won that AIP never read. You'll forgive me if your application of the word seems selective.

At what point are you going to be sending this information over to Pamela Gellar?:

4:30PM My take? If Palin is anything like I think she is (know she is), Obama's treasonous presidency...

You may have to send the info over to Ann Coulter, too.

But of course you miss the point again. The point was simply that the coarsening of political discourse, whether by the right or left, is a bad thing. Yet you, ironically and apparently oblivously, sit here and seriously try to defend such coarsening as somehow truthful and "facty"--but only as it applies to liberals.

Even in the face of counter-evidence, you inisist on the rightness of your position. But, of course, that's classic wingnut conspiratorial logic.

At what point are you going to be sending this information over to Paul Krugman who last week leveled the charge of treason against anyone who doesn't believe in the myth of global warming? It's apparently won that AIP never read. You'll forgive me if your application of the word seems selective.

So because Paul Krugman makes an inane comment, that entitles you to make an inane comment? Fascinating logic there...

OK. Noted. But also note that two out of the three usages contradict you

Whereas you choose to ignore the one that contradicts you. I forgive me than a farm unimpressed by that argument.

Bitsy, the fact that you are having a hard time even distinguishing actual treason from imagined "treason" i

So, we're back to ignoring the definition that I pointed out?

In any event, my understanding from reading the Federalist papers is that the Framers of the Constitution set the bar very high for accusing someone of treason was because of the abuse of that power by kings. As Anderson pointed out above, actual treason as defined by the Constitution and law is very narrow: making war against the US or aiding and abetting its enemies.

At what point are you going to be sending this information over to Paul Krugman who last week leveled the charge of treason against anyone who doesn't believe in the myth of global warming? It's apparently won that AIP never read. You'll forgive me if your application of the word seems selective.

Mmmph. Note definition three, and recalculate.

trea⋅son
  /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn] –noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

OK. Noted. But also note that two out of the three usages contradict you. Are you really going to simply disregard the first two--even though they are clearly more appropriate to this discussion--because they don't support your position and expect us to take you seriously? (BTW, this is a classic amateur debate tactic. Look in the dictionary for a colloquial usage of word to "prove" your point, even though that definition is neither within context, definitive, or the most germane to the discussion at hand.)

In any event, my understanding from reading the Federalist papers is that the Framers of the Constitution set the bar very high for accusing someone of treason was because of the abuse of that power by kings. As Anderson pointed out above, actual treason as defined by the Constitution and law is very narrow: making war against the US or aiding and abetting its enemies.

Bitsy, the fact that you are having a hard time even distinguishing actual treason from imagined "treason" is simply one more indicator or how deep in the woods you are. Interested Party was right:

In a post about respectful political debate, we have someone actually straining to make the silly argument that the Waxman-Markey bill is somehow "treasonous"...I'm sure the irony is lost on some...

Next up: Bitsy uses the term "Three-Fifths Compromise" in defending Michelle Bachmann's crazy census conspiracies.

Meanwhile, it is undeniable that they are some in power who take exception to the concept of American Exceptionalism and want to give up some of America's sovereignty to accomplish their transnational progressive goals.

Charles, I think the problem is that our political discourse has become Manichean, with the forces of goodness and light arrayed against those of darkness and evil. (Choose your side.) I sometimes wonder if it's not possible to fashion some version of Ramsey's Principle for American politics. Frank Ramsey was an English philosopher and mathematician in the early part of the 20th century. His principle went something like this: In any dispute between two philosophically diametrically opposed parties (say, realists and nominalists), you can find some foundational proposition that they both give agree on that is, in fact, false. (J.L. Austin put this in a very pithy way: realists and nominalists subsist by taking in each others' dirty laundry). Is there something that the more perfervid exponents of left and right in our country agree on that is false, and that underlies all the vitriol?

I will do my best James. My apologies for responding to posters here in flamethrower mode far too often.

NO.
No apologies needed for my part. A teacher of mine once told me if you can't write with a certain amount of fire, put the pen down. It's not worth it.

Treason is making war against the United States, or aiding its enemies to do so.

Mmmph. Note definition three, and recalculate.

trea⋅son
  /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn] –noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

If you believe it, then prove it. Give us data. I read many blogs on the right and left, mostly econ and foreign policy. I seldom see much use of data. Manzi has been doing yeoman work on cap and trade, but his math still does not quite work out for me. Even assuming his numbers are correct, it does not break the economy. It may have a small negative effect if you assume the worst case. A small positive one if you assume the best. It may have some signaling effect. BTW, if you have a better source from the right than Manzi, please cite.

You do realize, if you care, that calling someone a traitor over something like this really nullifies your voice, except with those who already agree with you. If your writing is just therapeutic, ie, a way to make yourself feel better, then continue. If the intent is to convince, James approach is much better. Traitors are spies and saboteurs, not people with different economic views.

Steve

Treason is making war against the United States, or aiding its enemies to do so.

"Breaking the economy" is not war. If it were, then Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke might be traitors. But they're not.

Meanwhile, it is undeniable that they are some in power who take exception to the concept of American Exceptionalism and want to give up some of America's sovereignty to accomplish their transnational progressive goals. Some seemingly don't mind seeing America taken down a notch in when it comes to military or economic power or its citizens' standard of living. That isn't treason per se, but does lead to some of the accusations hurled at them. Further, if judged by results rather than intent, the track record of the utopian statists is poor and causes others to question why we want to tread down those same paths which have failed so miserably elsewhere, unless there is some ideological goal that is more important. Again though, that's not treason. Finally, most people are emotional mirrors and give back what they receive whether it be kindness or hostility. A few sociopaths can get the ball rolling and then sit back as the cycle of incivility takes its toll.

Sigh.

Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

But that's the problem, nobody is convinced that it will destroy the economy and most importantly who outside of the most rabid partisans believes that's the goal?

Apparently, you get your news from different sources.

Possibly, the WaPo?