I never said Snowden had anything to do with Bush. Can you answer the question or can’t you?
I never said everything you say is false.
Well, apparently I’m not allowed to prove you wrong, because saying that you’re wrong would be an ad hominem.
Are you going to provide evidence that Bush levied war against the US or adhered to its enemies, providing them aid and comfort, or aren’t you?
Now who’s building strawmen?
That dude with a whiteboard was cool too, he was so illogical it took us days to figure out what he was doing. By the time we figured it out, he changed subjects and all our counterarguments seemed dated and petty. Ah, the good ol days.
Wow I already predicted this would happen and you’ve done it twice. Just let it go. I feel like I’m sparring with a 5 year old.
Ok, another softball:
Irrelevant because of #1.
Irrelevant because of #1.
Irrevelant because of #1.
Irrelevant because of #1.
Irrelevant because of #1.
Missed window:
As you can see, this strategy also works in reverse.
Eat it Rush!
Just for kicks,try 2-6 without #1. I need some entertainment. 
I should also note for posterity that what I predicted just happened for the 3rd time.
So you’re conceding the point that none of these allegations meet the definition of treason, then?
Heh that’s another one, I forget the latin. Nice try, but stay on point: prove me wrong with actual proof rather than accusations that I didn’t prove my point.
Seriously, is Rush recycling the same crap again after 10 years?
What part of Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" are you having trouble with?
I have no idea why you keep mentioning Rush. It’s almost as if you were creating a false claim in order to attack as opposed to challenging the things I’m actually saying. I wonder if there’s a name for that sort of thing.
I’m going to bed now, but my next prediction: your next post will be a rehash of your last 10 posts with different words but the same basic purpose.
Again, prove to me what I said is not treason other than it doesn’t match your definition. A Supreme court decision would be fine. Again, a softball: merely find one example where a court decided that revealing a spy’s identity is not treason, and it would be good enough. It didn’t even occur to you, did it.
I keep mentioning Rush because what you are doing is what he told his followers to do since 2002 or so: attack the person, not the argument. He used to list the very same arguments you are using now back in the day.
Man, where should I send the bill?
You lose.
Took me a second to laugh at that, but my prediction is correct again. As hard as you tried, I didn’t lose…you didn’t try to win. Post after post was merely why I was wrong, not why you were right.
That’s the flaw in Rush’s system imho, he never tells his followers to search for evidence, only to find flaws in their opponent’s. When the tables are turned, they simply repeat what they said before hoping it will work a 2nd time.
It’s not “my definition”. It is the definition of the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land.
Very well.
Exposing the identity of a spy does not constitute levying war against the United States, and it does not constitute aid and comfort to the enemy unless the act is conducted with the specific treasonous intent to cause harm to the United States. Therefore, even if George W. Bush had personally gone on TV and said “Valerie Plame is a spy and how do you like that?”, it wouldn’t be treason.
…Rush was talking about Valerie Plame in 2002?
As you can imagine, Rush is not a reliable source. You might as well put up something from the Drudge Report.
Can’t you find more support for yourself in a basic google search?
I also find it hilarious you keep pushing the constitution as the “LAW OF THE LAND” when bush ignored it in declaring war on Iraq. Is it the law sometimes or all the time?
To wherever you went to school, because you’re obviously entitled to a refund.
Missed window: in the evidence you provided so conveniently, “classified information” is the Plame incident, your job is to prove it was innocently provided.
Haha, saw your last post, again, attack the argument, not the person.
Also what I learned about rhetoric was on the mean streets of the internet, not in school.
It’s pretty tough searching for spurious information on baseless accusations, isn’t it? Rush heads used that strategy for years. I should also warn you that when you spend hours to find something, my easy answer is “pshaw, that’s not good enough, can’t you find something better?”
No, it’s not. The American justice system does not operate on a “Prove you aren’t guilty” system, and “George W. Bush is a traitor” is not the null hypothesis.
I don’t have to prove a negative.
Yes, by the very same evidence you provided, you have to prove that GW bush gave classified information without knowledge, stupidly, innocently, or didn’t give approval to Libby to do so to prove your side. Which would also include not trying to improve the profits of Haliburton in the case of war, where the evidence is overwhelming that they, and only they, profited. I believe Cheney made somewhere in the range of 40 mil on his haliburton stocks.
Softball hint: try to find documents related to the Libby case rather than accusing me of being wrong.
Notice how we’re ignoring the points 2-6 I mentioned earlier? Man, Rush is brilliant.
Nobody asked you to. You are making a series of positive assertions - specifically, “George W. Bush personally exposed Valerie Plame’s identity”, “Bush’s motive for going to war was to make a profit”, “Bush rigged the 2000 election”, etc.
It is not my job or anyone else’s to prove that your claims are false. It is your own job to prove that they’re true.
If you say so.