I take patriotism very seriously

[bluestateguy]

To go against the president in a time of war, when we have troops in the field, is nothing short of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

It is Unamerican. It is disloyal.

Obama won.

Romney lost.

McCain lost.

[calimary]

1. I know it's technically not accurate but I'd be happy to sling the "T-word" around at 'em.

And I'd pose the question again - accurate or no (since when have these assholes cared about accuracy anyway? I just want them confronted with something really uncomfortable) - isn't this level of criticism of our Commander-in-Chief, during wartime, tantamount to TREASON???

Let's sling some mud back at them. Remember the old LBJ anecdote wherein he was campaigning for some Texas office, early in his career, and accused his opponent of having sex with pigs. It wasn't true and he knew it. But he said it anyway, explaining: who cares if it's not true? That's not the point. The point is - MAKE 'EM DENY IT.

I'd throw "sedition" and "treason" around like they were juggle balls. As often as possible. Put those bastards on defense. And make them deny it.

[bigwillq]

2. Right..because we've never went "against" a president

in a time of war before. Sure.

[Man from Pickens]

3. When is it not a time of war?

We are in perpetual war. If one can't oppose a President in time of war, and we are always at war, then one can never oppose a President - even less so one that takes us to war. That creed would actually be a strong incentive for any President to start a war, if only to gain the benefit of neutralizing domestic opposition. This path leads down a very very dark road - I suggest taking the next exit.

[sibelian]

4. I don't. I think it's a very silly idea.

Civic nationalism! That's where it's at, baby!