Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/19/2009 6:21:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 6:24:07 AM EST by Schadenfreuda]
How the hell do I do a poll? I thought I could do a poll if I bought a membership, but I don't see the option...wtf.

Never Mind...found the Poll Button!

At any rate...

Is he guilty of treason? Pure, simple treason.

If you think that he and his friends are trying to undermine the true will of the Constitution and the people of the country, you KNOW what the answer is.

Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:22:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 6:24:33 AM EST by GNRNR]
Go into edit and there is a button to add a poll

and No not yet.

do I think he is treasonous? Yes,
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:24:13 AM EST
Not treason, but definitely a Subversive.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:24:31 AM EST
No........and stupidity is not a chargeable offense else bush and mccain would have been convicted.



5sub
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:26:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By resq2106:

......a Subversive.


Yes



5sub
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:27:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 6:31:05 AM EST by Schadenfreuda]
Originally Posted By GNRNR:
Go into edit and there is a button to add a poll

and No not yet.

do I think he is treasonous? Yes,


Good way to look at it.

You need to remember that Bill Ayers and others are part of that family...crazy cousins or not...and is/was DEFINITELY guilty of treason.

Do you think Obama REALLY wants to uphold and protect the Constitution?
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:30:36 AM EST
Not yet.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:31:56 AM EST

How can he 'Protect and Defend' the Constitution when he's using it as toilet paper?
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:42:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 6:43:21 AM EST by Ohio]
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

We pretty much have to be at war for someone to be guilty of Treason in the USA. A real war, with a defined enemy.
You'll have to catch him selling arms to the Taliban to use specifically against US troops for that to happen.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:48:18 AM EST


GD continues it's downward spiral to absolute dumbfuckery.


Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:50:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By DontShootMyDog:


GD continues it's downward spiral to absolute dumbfuckery.





You mean me or the OP's concept?
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:52:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By DontShootMyDog:


GD continues it's downward spiral to absolute dumbfuckery.




Yep sure has

Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:52:54 AM EST
No more so than most of the house & senate.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:53:59 AM EST
Originally Posted By learath:
No more so than most of the house & senate.


Truest statement of this thread.


Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:55:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ohio:
Originally Posted By DontShootMyDog:


GD continues it's downward spiral to absolute dumbfuckery.





You mean me or the OP's concept?


The actual idea for the question came from this video...which is absolutely counter-productive to the way our country works...

This would equal NOTHING but a standing army, working for the Executive Branch...Which I do believe is against the Constitution...why would this NOT be treasonous?

Civilian National Security Force
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 6:59:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 7:00:33 AM EST by Texkaw]
If conservatives and moderates do not impeach this puppet soon, and regain control control of congress, this nation will not be recognizable in 4 years.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 7:02:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By mongo001:
Originally Posted By learath:
No more so than most of the house & senate.


Truest statement of this thread.




While this is true, don't forget that it takes a radical to sign bills into law, as well as radicals to ram them though congress like a dry suppository.

Link Posted: 9/19/2009 7:18:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ohio:
Originally Posted By DontShootMyDog:


GD continues it's downward spiral to absolute dumbfuckery.





You mean me or the OP's concept?


Sorry- the OP.

ARFCOM has lost its collective mind in the last year.

Link Posted: 9/19/2009 7:42:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 7:45:37 AM EST
At the minimum, he's guilty of being a dumbass and a zero.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 7:47:53 AM EST
Not yet
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 7:58:36 AM EST
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor



Why yes he is ! but he is not alone.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:03:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 8:03:34 AM EST by Max_Mike]
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:15:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


Sorry man, but luke-warm politics no longer make the cut....that's how we ended-up with RiNOs

People are either fired-up about what is going on, or they are slaves to the system....on both sides.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:18:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Schadenfreuda:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


Sorry man, but luke-warm politics no longer make the cut....that's how we ended-up with RiNOs

People are either fired-up about what is going on, or they are slaves to the system....on both sides.


The man doesn't meet the fucking legal definition.

This has nothing to do with luke warm politics.

The law applies to everyone, including the communist fucksticks in charge that we hate so much.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:21:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Schadenfreuda:
Originally Posted By Ohio:
Originally Posted By DontShootMyDog:


GD continues it's downward spiral to absolute dumbfuckery.





You mean me or the OP's concept?


The actual idea for the question came from this video...which is absolutely counter-productive to the way our country works...

This would equal NOTHING but a standing army, working for the Executive Branch...Which I do believe is against the Constitution...why would this NOT be treasonous?

Civilian National Security Force

Because it doesn't meet the definition of treason. Just because it's against the Constitution doesn't make it treason.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:21:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
No........and stupidity is not a chargeable offense else bush and mccain would have been convicted.



5sub




Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:39:31 AM EST
I don't know about treason, but he's definitely guilty of being an arrogant prick.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:47:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor



Why yes he is ! but he is not alone.



I posted the only relevant definition of "treason".
He does not meet that definition.

And a "civilian army", while questionable at best, doesn't come close to it either. In no way is that treason. The question "How is this not treason?" is nonsensical; it isn't because it doesn't met the definition. I ask "How is that treason?"
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:49:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By JoshAston:

Originally Posted By Schadenfreuda:
Originally Posted By Ohio:
Originally Posted By DontShootMyDog:


GD continues it's downward spiral to absolute dumbfuckery.





You mean me or the OP's concept?


The actual idea for the question came from this video...which is absolutely counter-productive to the way our country works...

This would equal NOTHING but a standing army, working for the Executive Branch...Which I do believe is against the Constitution...why would this NOT be treasonous?

Civilian National Security Force

Because it doesn't meet the definition of treason. Just because it's against the Constitution doesn't make it treason.




Do you guys realize that there already is a standing army working for the executive branch?

We like to call it "The United States Army".
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:49:46 AM EST
"Protect and defend the Constitution"........

Well he is violating the Constitution, call it what ever you want. He is not only violating it, he is taking government to the next level of dictatorial status. Fuck him!
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:51:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
"Protect and defend the Constitution"........

Well he is violating the Constitution, call it what ever you want. He is not only violating it, he is taking government to the next level of dictatorial status. Fuck him!




I agree.
But that's not "treason".

To insist that it is shows the same total disregard for the Constitution, so I guess that makes the accuser a traitor as well, yes?
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 8:59:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:08:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 9:11:25 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Schadenfreuda:
How the hell do I do a poll? I thought I could do a poll if I bought a membership, but I don't see the option...wtf.

Never Mind...found the Poll Button!

At any rate...

Is he guilty of treason? Pure, simple treason.

If you think that he and his friends are trying to undermine the true will of the Constitution and the people of the country, you KNOW what the answer is.


Absolutely Not.

He has neither 'Levied War upon the United States' nor has he 'given aid & comfort to the enemies thereof'

There is a REASON why the Founders limited 'Treason' to those 2 specific activities. Experience with the British royal model, and 'Treason' being anything the King wanted it to be....

Being a liberal is NOT treason - it's stupid, and it doesn't work... But it's not Constitutional Treason...

As much as some of you wish for South American style 'Politics & war are distinguishable only by who's doing the shooting'... That is a very, very bad thing...

For examples of actual acts of treason:

The South Carolinians firing on Sumter
The Rosenbergs giving 'aid and comfort' to the Soviets (nuclear material)
Most other Cold-War era espionage
Any future rebellion/revolution against the US Government

Of course, the rest of the Treason clause prevents most espionage cases from being chargeable as such, since it requires testimony from 2 or more witnesses to the same overt act...
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:09:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Schadenfreuda:
How the hell do I do a poll? I thought I could do a poll if I bought a membership, but I don't see the option...wtf.

Never Mind...found the Poll Button!

At any rate...

Is he guilty of treason? Pure, simple treason.

If you think that he and his friends are trying to undermine the true will of the Constitution and the people of the country, you KNOW what the answer is.


Absolutely Not.

He has neither 'Levied War upon the United States' nor has he 'given aid & comfort to the enemies thereof'

There is a REASON why the Founders limited 'Treason' to those 2 specific activities. Experience with the British royal model, and 'Treason' being anything the King wanted it to be....

Being a liberal is NOT treason - it's stupid, and it doesn't work... But it's not Constitutional Treason...

As much as some of you wish for South American style 'Politics & war are distinguishable only by who's doing the shooting'... That is a very, very bad thing...




Wrong.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:12:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fearlessleader01:

Originally Posted By Schadenfreuda:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


Sorry man, but luke-warm politics no longer make the cut....that's how we ended-up with RiNOs

People are either fired-up about what is going on, or they are slaves to the system....on both sides.


The man doesn't meet the fucking legal definition.

This has nothing to do with luke warm politics.

The law applies to everyone, including the communist fucksticks in charge that we hate so much.

EXACTLY.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:13:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor



Why yes he is ! but he is not alone.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law includes a 'world-wide' definition...

The US definition is codified in the Constitution.

Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:15:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Texkaw:
If conservatives and moderates do not impeach this puppet soon, and regain control control of congress, this nation will not be recognizable in 4 years.

He has not committed any impeachable offenses...

Just like Bush never committed any...

Clinton did, but the Senate had too many Democrats in it to convict him....
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:18:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 9:19:01 AM EST by Chairborne]
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


No shit, I guarantee if DU's format wasn't such a clusterfuck you could search their archive and find an exact mirror thread from soon after GWB's election. The idea is to be better than those buffoons, not to lower ourselves to their level. Attack the ideas, not the man.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:22:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 9:28:02 AM EST by Max_Mike]
Originally Posted By Schadenfreuda:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


Sorry man, but luke-warm politics no longer make the cut....that's how we ended-up with RiNOs

People are either fired-up about what is going on, or they are slaves to the system....on both sides.




Childish and stupid are not politics and it is childish and stupid to propose charging the President with treason and exactly like the bat shit crazy moronic drivel the has come out of the DU over the last several years.

Treason like any crime has a legal definition, those definitions allow for prosecution under that definition not because some offended political enemy does not like current policy. AND those definitions protect people from being wrongfully prosecuted because some bat shit crazy nutter becomes offended.

Now unless you want to find the politicians you support or maybe yourself at some future date charged in front of a kangaroo court with treason because you offend the wrong person I suggest you actually apply real legal definitions to real crimes and not play out your own petty version of the French Revolution. You had better be damn careful about what you wish for.

In a republic only a damn fool proposes criminalizing what are political differences, and anyone who does is a enemy of the republic and a enemy of freedom no matter their intent.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:32:15 AM EST
I put probably...

seeking to dismantle the Constitution, nullify the Bill of Rights, whatever's possible.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:33:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


I appreciate this sentiment, but haven't you been part of the problem for quite a while now?

Either way, we are an absolute mirror of the crazy talk on the fringe of the other side. People on here regularly compare Obama to Hitler and it's accepted as reasonable. Downward spiral, indeed.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:42:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 9:44:32 AM EST by Max_Mike]
Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


I appreciate this sentiment, but haven't you been part of the problem for quite a while now?

Either way, we are an absolute mirror of the crazy talk on the fringe of the other side. People on here regularly compare Obama to Hitler and it's accepted as reasonable. Downward spiral, indeed.





Pretty typical of your tiresome horseshit. You are not we. I do not need or want appreciate from you.

They want to charge politicians with treason and you want to smear anyone who says anything you do not want to hear.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:45:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


I appreciate this sentiment, but haven't you been part of the problem for quite a while now?

Either way, we are an absolute mirror of the crazy talk on the fringe of the other side. People on here regularly compare Obama to Hitler and it's accepted as reasonable. Downward spiral, indeed.





Pretty typical of your tiresome horseshit. You are not we. I do not need or want appreciate from you.


Of course not. This is siimply the first time I've heard you say anything that is reasonably thoughtful or accurately reflecting a complex issue. It's not admiration, though, so don't worry!

Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:48:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2009 9:50:36 AM EST by Max_Mike]
Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No

Lets try and not echo the DU and its Bush crazy hate so much.


I appreciate this sentiment, but haven't you been part of the problem for quite a while now?

Either way, we are an absolute mirror of the crazy talk on the fringe of the other side. People on here regularly compare Obama to Hitler and it's accepted as reasonable. Downward spiral, indeed.





Pretty typical of your tiresome horseshit. You are not we. I do not need or want appreciate from you.


Of course not. This is siimply the first time I've heard you say anything that is reasonably thoughtful or accurately reflecting a complex issue. It's not admiration, though, so don't worry!



Well I have never heard you say anything that is reasonably thoughtful or accurately reflecting on any issue... still haven't.

ETA: Go pick a fight elsewhere from your record here I do not respect you enough to care.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:49:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor



Why yes he is ! but he is not alone.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law includes a 'world-wide' definition...

The US definition is codified in the Constitution.



Even better as we all know everything in the Constitution is open to interpetation and can be redifined to meet current political issues.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 9:50:24 AM EST
Willfully breaking the laws of the Constitution and doing what the majority of Americans do not want done is treason by definition...
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 10:16:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ridge_Runner_5:
Willfully breaking the laws of the Constitution and doing what the majority of Americans do not want done is treason by definition...




No, it's not.
RIF, dude.

Damn, it's not that hard.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 10:30:50 AM EST


the official definition of treason? no

my definition of treason? yes




Link Posted: 9/19/2009 1:50:05 PM EST
1. "Treason does not prosper. The reason? When treason prospers, none dare call it treason."

2. "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." Cicero, 42 B.C.E.
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 1:53:51 PM EST
By the legal definition of treason, he is not (quite) a traitor.

By intent and purpose, well...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top