Over at the Powerline Comments forum, the “serious” people are debating how soon to execute Rep. Ellison for treason. That’s predictable.

But they are now also discussing whether the people who voted for him should be treated in the same way. As one commenter put it:

“The good folks that vote democrat should know WHO the hell they are electing and what they represent. Some don’t have a clue , many know exactly what rotten filthy liars they are and the rest are too stubborn or ashamed to believe it or even listen to the truth.

Enforcing the penalty for Treason will change all of that instantly.”

So now we’ve reached the point where voting for the Democratic Party is considered a crime, punishable by death. And if we start killing people who vote Democratic that will keep people from voting for them. Another commenter objected:

“Last time I checked the constitution it wasnt treason to disagree with the republicans or vote for a party other then them either.”

Of course, another immediately cited the Constitution in support of executing for treason those who vote for the Democratic Party:

“You may want to check Article 3, Section 3 again.

(treason being the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one’s country or of assisting its enemies in war)

Just a suggestion.”

This is the reasoning:

“When Ellison does the bidding of a news outlet that is used by terrorists to “advance jihad” on America, doesn’t that sound like assistance to you??”

The next line we will cross, and the next debate Powerline will be having is whether or not to ban the Democratic Party as a “terrorist organization.”

It’s coming to a Powerline forum soon.

http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewreply/200810/

When the comment section becomes so unpleasant to me that I want to stop reading it, that, in my view, is a significant loss for the blog, since being able to read and interact with commenters is of great value to me.~GG

After Garry Owen’s first couple of posts, I stopped reading the comments and just left the thread, conceding defeat to Garry, knowing full well the thread would thereafter be primarily about Garry Owens – a subject that bores me intensely.

I was pleasantly surprised when I checked back in hours later to find on-topic posts and couldn’t understand it until I read further to find that Glenn had limited Garry’s posts, which explained it immediately.

That’s where I disagree with RMP. In that respect, there isn’t any difference between sugarman and Garry -- they both are intent in taking over the thread completely and making it about “them.”

We have our your basic “concern” trolls visiting here periodically, but sugerman and Owen (regardless of whatever else they are) are both “ego” trolls or “narcissist” trolls.

If regular readers like me just tune out whenever Garry (or a similar “ego” troll) attempts to take over, then soon these threads will be essentially flame wars and interesting and informative posts will diminish if not vanish.

If Glenn wants to keep his comment threads at all relevant, I don’t see that he has any choice but to limit posts from “ego” trolls.

Sorry for the now off topic post.

Sami al-Haj has written a poem in a book that just outrages the likes of Michelle Malkin and rightwing bloggers.

“When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees/Hot tears covered my face,” Sami al Haj wrote in one poem. The al-Jazeera cameraman has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 on suspicion of aiding Islamic militants. “When the lark chirped, my thoughts composed/A message for my son,” he went on.

But why does this outrage them? The military doesn’t like these poems because it’s aimed at garnering “public sympathy” for them.

But really, when you get to the heart of this matter, the problem is that these poems show them to be human, and that is what is dangerous.

The wingnut bloggers want them to be thought of as “sub-human” and therefore holding them indefinitely on “suspicion” is justified. Once you start thinking of Sami al-Haj as a human, who is thinking about what is happening to his son while he’s imprisoned, it’s harder to justify this treatment.

That’s why the wingnuts must ridicule and make fun of Sami al Haj and to relish his treatment and his humiliation.

Serious thinker and wanna-be poet Jules Crittenden displays this mentality and his juvenility in his poem to Sami and the others held:

Rose are Red

Violets are Blue

In the Hated Crusader Gulag at Guantanamo

It must suck to be you

See, Sami al Haj is to be “hated” simply because he’s there. That’s why he doesn’t need a trial, he’s already been found guilty by the right-wingers.

No evidence is needed. He’s at Gitmo, which is proof of his guilt. If he was innocent, he wouldn’t be there.

“It must suck to be you” line in Jule’s poem perfectly summarizes the abandonment of all our all principles, and the right’s celebration of that abandonment.

Just who is siding with the enemy?

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/gitmo-poetry-contest/