[GT40FIED]

While I don't particularly disagree with that, I think we've kind of come to a crossroads. In any normal political climate I think what you're saying has a lot of truth to it. However, it has become increasingly clear in the last couple of years that the majority of Americans do not agree with what Bush is doing and has done so then the responsibility lies with private citizens and public officials to do something about it the current state of things. Nothing has been done when Bush has starred the American people in the eye and lied with a straight face or when he has undertaken actions that benefit his "base" and not the good of the country as a whole (seriously...what the fuck's a guy got to do to get impeached around here?), so why not go against his will? Several years ago Bush laid down an ultimatum...you're either with him, or with the terrorists. I think now more than ever we shouldn't be afraid to say that we're not with you OR the terrorists so there's no confusion once he is out of office that most of us didn't have his back. Otherwise we're looking at a very long war with people we don't really need to be at war with (muslims, not terrorists...and yes, there is a difference).

And maybe I'm missing something, but this act that's being referenced (The Logan Act) provides for criminal sentences for an American to try and influence a government who has "disputes or controversies with the United States". Since when did we have such a huge problem with the Syrian government? I mean I know the current administration kind of sees the world as the middle east and everywhere else, but there hasn't been a ton of shit-talking coming out of Damascus lately. America is like a college student who lives off of their parents for 4 years after they graduate...it needs to sort it's fucking life out.