It's like I don't know you any more.

Until this year I was a Active member of our counties Republican Party. I got creamed and had my most basic FREEDOMS stripped by a Judge with whom I actually helped get elected. Since the Republican party doesnt work fo me I will never ever donate 1 penny or pass out 1 flyer for them.

The only vote I now gurantee is my vote fo whomever can beat Obama.

 

He says lots of good things, "Audit (or abolish) the Fed" for one, but it's things like this that make me wonder...

On Top Magazine
December 25, 2011
Ron Paul has hailed accused WikiLeaks source Pvt. Bradley Manning as a “true patriot.”

Paul hailed Manning as a “hero” during a rally held in January.
“If we have an American citizen and he’s willing to take the consequences and practice civil disobedience and say, ‘This is what our government is doing,’ should he locked up and imprisoned?” Paul rhetorically asked to a handful of “nos.” “Or should we, you know, see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot who reveals what is going on in government.”

 

Well, all i know is History will judge Pvt. Manning. I think we are too close to the event to see it for what it may be.

I am also reminded of the phrase:"Who is watching the watchers"

 

A psyched-out queer who whines that peer pressure from normal soldiers drove him to become a traitor ?

I'm only one of 300,000,000 Americans, but I've judged him.

 

I can see your position Espada.

I just wanted to note that there is a really thin line between Traitor and Patriot during troubled times. And sometimes it takes generations to make the call.

Take for instance Robert E. Lee, Patriot to the south, traitor of the nation?
How about John Brown? Traitor or Patriot?

There is still debate on both sides 150 plus years on.

Will there be a courts martial? Well we will know in a couple of weeks if he should face one or not.

If all the information that was leaked prevents the United States from entering an unnecessary war would that make him a traitor or patriot.

I guess all I am saying is that historians typically make some observations that contemporaries miss due to being so close that they couldn't see the forest for the trees.

 

BTPost,

I'm there with you. There are consequences to every action. He may indeed get life in prison. I guess we will never know his motives, was it to support our enemies? Was it to shed light on our newly 'Transparent' government. Or to expose something that he felt was so abhorrent that he was willing to suffer the consequences.

I've no idea.

But there are going to be consequences.

 

First of all, as MM has already pointed out, Dr Paul did not label Manning a "true patriot"...he effectively said what Manning is and did is up to us to decide. As BT pointed out, there will be repercussions that he will suffer and he knew that going in. The information that he released is material that the people should know of what the government does in our name.

I really don't care much what he is personally. The whole situation reminds me of the furor in 1969 surrounding Daniel Ellsberg's release of The Pentagon Papers documenting how the american people were tricked into Vietnam by our government. Many called Ellsberg a traitor, but the light that he shined on the government's activities did much toward getting us out of something we should never have gone into in the first place.

Neither Ellsberg or Manning offended against the people of the USA...they made available to the people information that the government concealed from them that they had the right to know. When I enlisted, I took an oath to defend the constitution...and I believe there is an argument that both Ellsberg and Manning did more to keep that oath than those of us who went along to get along.

 

"...and I believe there is an argument that both Ellsberg and Manning did more to keep that oath than those of us who went along to get along."

Wow. Just wow.

We picked up a rifle 10,000 miles from home just "to get along?"

Wow.

 

So we were defending the constitution against the VC?

I'm sorry (really...not just saying it to be "correct") if I offend you, but I think there is a valid argument to be made that helping to end the killing in an unconstitutional (and just plain bad) war just might be more in line with defending the constitution than letting oneself be sucked into fighting it.

 

Ever heard of the SEATO Treaty ? South East Asia Treaty Organization ?

Same as NATO, just fewer letters, which bound its signatories to come to the aid of any who were attacked. That's what we, Australia, South Korea and several other countries did. And don't give me any of that hippy **** about it was a "civil war."

Yes, you are are patently offensive to me.

Pax. Peace. Like Jane Fonda.

 

Now that you put it that way, I am sorta glad I offend you.

I actually like offending obnoxious dumbasses...I just wasn't aware of what you were until this post.

Since you are too dumb to have a discussion with, I'll just withdraw the apology and tell you to piss off.

 

OK...but I tried to be nice this time.