Is American support for Obama treasonous ?

[jay_a2j]

Discuss.

[hairy potter]

yeah it's like saying you want the country to be blown up by al qaeda i mean look at this



the evidence speaks for itself

[Phatscotty]

If America is the US constitution, then yes, it is

[Woodruff]

Discuss.

Is this where you try to assassinate President Obama, Jay?

(And a quick hello to the Secret Service Agent who has now joined our fine group.)

[spurgistan]

Discuss.

Is this where you try to assassinate President Obama, Jay?

(And a quick hello to the Secret Service Agent who has now joined our fine group.)

It's actually probably good that you invited him on in. Thank you for doing what you do, sir.

And in response to the OP, of course it is. I mean, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Seriously, now.

[notyou2]

Is this where the fundamentalist, god fearing, people hating, christians hang out?

Your HATE is showing.

Stop calling yourself a christian.

[bradleybadly]

Is American support for Obama treasonous?

No, it's just misguided.

[Fircoal]

Was American support for Bush treasonous?

No

Was it stupid?

I would sure say so.

Is American support for Obama treasonous?

Again no

Is it stupid?

Well that's debatable. I would say probably so, as support for almost any politician right now is pretty bad, but the point is this: It's not treasonous to support a candidate who you disagree with it. You may find it stupid to do so, but having a different opinion from yours isn't treason.

[jonesthecurl]

NO, but having a different one from MINE is.

[GabonX]

Is American support for Obama treasonous?

No, it's just misguided.

I'm going with this^

[PLAYER57832]

Discuss.

No, but talk of any president "not being legitimate" long after the votes are counted IS.

[PLAYER57832]

If America is the US constitution, then yes, it is

So Bush, taking us into a war on what wound up being fabricated evidence, Bush telling federal agencies to ignore rules its own scientific data created (regarding wetland classifications, etc.), And Bush packing the Supreme court with justices so in the pocket of corporations they actually voted to consider them people.. Those are not treason,

But Obama.. is?

In one way , they both impinge upon us, the standards of the constitution.. the Patriot Act. Somehow, though, I don't think that was what most of you had in mind.

[saxitoxin]

Bush packing the Supreme court with justices so in the pocket of corporations they actually voted to consider them people

The Democrat Congress could effectively override the court's decision next week, or tomorrow, or this afternoon, if they would amend the many sections of the USC that include both humans and juristic persons in the definition of people.

But they don't need to do that. You, and your compatriots, are running through the maze to that tasty piece of cheese just like they knew you would, as they express faux and grandiose outrage at the Court's interpretation of laws they wrote.

No, but talk of any president "not being legitimate" long after the votes are counted IS. [treason]

You believe expressing that thought should should subject someone to a death sentence?

It's unfortunate when people choose not to embrace moderation and mainstream values, instead self-polarizing to defeatist fringe extremism, such as demanding the killing of people with whom they disagree.

[Phatscotty]

she would probably slit a few throats without blinking, so long as it was true their fiscal responsibility was going to be responsible for a million deaths in the future. you see she had no choice...

"do you want millions to die?"

[PLAYER57832]

Bush packing the Supreme court with justices so in the pocket of corporations they actually voted to consider them people

The Democrat Congress could effectively override the court's decision next week, or tomorrow, or this afternoon, if they would amend the many sections of the USC that include both humans and juristic persons in the definition of people.

But they don't need to do that. You, and your compatriots, are running through the maze to that tasty piece of cheese just like they knew you would, as they express faux and grandiose outrage at the Court's interpretation of laws they wrote.

True

No, but talk of any president "not being legitimate" long after the votes are counted IS. [treason]

You believe expressing that thought should should subject someone to a death sentence? [/quote]
Of course not. Even though treason is specifically identified as being a crime worthy of the death penalty in the constitution, other penalties can be assigned.

Even so, i should have worded that better. I was being, not quite sarcastic, but descending to the level of the OP. When the talk goes from mere voicing disagreement, to condemnations so strong that they incite violance -- its like the old bit about shouting fire in a theatre not being "protected speech".

Initially, some questions were OK. At this late juncture, its like putting the same person up for trial over and over, having them aquitted over and over, until finally the hope is to get a "jury" that might actually convice, regardless of evidence. The president is not just any person. He represents us to the world. When our nation attacks the president so viciously and spuriously, its not civil disagreement. So much criticism just detracts from his ability to operate international and nationally, it really detracts from all of us.

Jay is more in the second category, but many others are definitely in the first. When protests truly begin to inferfere with the "business" of running a nation, then it goes from being "protest" or "voicing opinion" to being treasonous or almost treasonous.

[PLAYER57832]

she would probably slit a few throats without blinking, so long as it was true their fiscal responsibility was going to be responsible for a million deaths in the future. you see she had no choice...

"do you want millions to die?"

Seems like you are projecting, there.

[saxitoxin]

No, but talk of any president "not being legitimate" long after the votes are counted IS. [treason]

You believe expressing that thought should should subject someone to a death sentence?

Of course not. Even though treason is specifically identified as being a crime worthy of the death penalty in the constitution, other penalties can be assigned.

Got it, okay. So you just want them jailed for speaking, writing or thinking those things.

What will we do with the papers and books they leave behind, though? They could influence others to commit ThoughtCrime. Oh wait, I have an idea ...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... g#p2796269

[PLAYER57832]

Got it, okay. So you just want them jailed for speaking, writing or thinking those things.

No, only when the speech is A. libel and B. truly disruptive of the government.

[BigBallinStalin]

Got it, okay. So you just want them jailed for speaking, writing or thinking those things.

No, only when the speech is A. libel and B. truly disruptive of the government.

What's "truly disruptive of the government" mean? Sort of like protecting "national interests"?

[oVo]

So Bush, taking us into a war on what wound up being fabricated evidence, Bush telling federal agencies to ignore rules its own scientific data created (regarding wetland classifications, etc.), And Bush packing the Supreme court with justices so in the pocket of corporations they actually voted to consider them people.. Those are not treason,

But Obama.. is?

In one way , they both impinge upon us, the standards of the constitution.. the Patriot Act. Somehow, though, I don't think that was what most of you had in mind.

You left out allowing eminent domain's use as a tool to evict residents from their coastal homes so that private developers could acquire the land to build malls.

[saxitoxin]

No, but talk of any president "not being legitimate" long after the votes are counted IS. [treason]

You believe expressing that thought should should subject someone to a death sentence?

Of course not. Even though treason is specifically identified as being a crime worthy of the death penalty in the constitution, other penalties can be assigned.

Got it, okay. So you just want them jailed for speaking, writing or thinking those things.

What will we do with the papers and books they leave behind, though? They could influence others to commit ThoughtCrime. Oh wait, I have an idea ...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... g#p2796269

No, only when the speech is A. libel and B. truly disruptive of the government.

Okay, I think I got it this time. So, the last 200 years of American libel laws stipulating monetary redress through civil action aren't enough. The nature of the emergency is so grave that siege-legislation needs to be enacted subjecting people, for the first time, to prison for libel ... but only if it involves a government official.

But, still, what will we do with their libelous books and pamphlets? The US may need to erect new book burning facilities to get rid of the disruptive speech, don't you agree? Perhaps, as a community-building activity, we could get the neighborhood to attend and chant slogans during the book burnings? It would be like a block party. Saxi's bringing brauts!

I just think it's wonderful Americans have such moderate, mainstream, temperate views.

[saxitoxin]

Hey, who posted this video of Player online without her permission?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGqwqxRF ... re=related

[tzor]

No, but talk of any president "not being legitimate" long after the votes are counted IS.

First of all, I think that everyone has a right to continue to belive that those evil hanging chads made Gore the president.

Second, it has been a great tradition for the opposition to call the current president a "bastard" especialy after the Alien and Sedition laws were allowed to expire during Jefferson's term as president.

Third, I don't think anyone seriously believes Obama is a Vulcan.