CompuServe Messages

> I'm pretty sure that assasination of the President is considered treason > nowadays. "pretty sure' are you? It is SO typical of the left wingers to argue from a position of wishful thinking; of arguing from a viewpoint of what they think something should be. Tell me, Paul, do you have a copy of the Constitution of the United States? If not, I would be glad to send one to you in machine-readable format, so that you will be able to actually look things up. Of course, this would mean that you would henceforth have to argue from a positoon of knowledge and fact, eschewing the wishful thinking and 'should be' arguments. > It may not be explicitly named as such, but I think it is considered so. If it is considered so, whoever is so considering it that way is wrong. Flat out wrong. It is not explicitly named as such, and in fact, treason is specifically defined and stated to be something else entirely. Your argument is the fuctional equivalent of a man with a broken leg saying that his broken leg should be a warm blanket so that it wouldn't hurt. > And conspiracy to commit treason is a pretty major crime. Might well be. In this case, whether it is or not is completely irrelevant. > Furthermore, violating one's oath of office may well be high up on the > list of heinous crimes too. Might well be. Do you have a point to make> Are you claiming that Helms violated his oath of office? If so, please specify how he did that. -larry