HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What is treason?
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:53 PM

What is treason?

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason



In my mind there are persons (including some politicians and corporations) who manifest" betrayal of allegiance to the United States....

If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.


Our country has been profoundly weakened by the actions of politicians who promote the interests of corporations - at the expense of U.S. citizens.

Does it matter if the enemy lives abroad or on our shores?

I'm really tired of the rhetoric in recent news. Politicians who promote the outsourcing of jobs should
be voted out. I believe it is treasonous to undermine the citizens of the United States.

63 replies, 2953 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply What is treason? (Original post)
mia Feb 2013 OP
graham4anything Feb 2013 #1
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #3
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #4
graham4anything Feb 2013 #5
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #6
graham4anything Feb 2013 #8
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #10
graham4anything Feb 2013 #13
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #14
graham4anything Feb 2013 #15
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #16
dionysus Feb 2013 #34
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #39
graham4anything Feb 2013 #60
dionysus Feb 2013 #63
Smarmie Doofus Feb 2013 #24
graham4anything Feb 2013 #29
Mutatis Mutandis Feb 2013 #59
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #61
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #58
mia Feb 2013 #11
mia Feb 2013 #7
graham4anything Feb 2013 #2
mia Feb 2013 #9
Deep13 Feb 2013 #12
Lint Head Feb 2013 #17
mia Feb 2013 #25
mia Feb 2013 #18
Deep13 Feb 2013 #45
mia Feb 2013 #48
Deep13 Feb 2013 #53
X_Digger Feb 2013 #47
mia Feb 2013 #50
Separation Feb 2013 #54
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #21
mia Feb 2013 #33
TheMastersNemesis Feb 2013 #19
Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #20
mia Feb 2013 #26
treestar Feb 2013 #22
mia Feb 2013 #35
TreasonousBastard Feb 2013 #23
Occulus Feb 2013 #28
TreasonousBastard Feb 2013 #43
mia Feb 2013 #46
TreasonousBastard Feb 2013 #49
mia Feb 2013 #52
TreasonousBastard Feb 2013 #55
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #27
aristocles Feb 2013 #31
mia Feb 2013 #38
leveymg Feb 2013 #30
mia Feb 2013 #42
ancianita Feb 2013 #32
Coyotl Feb 2013 #36
mia Feb 2013 #51
Phlem Feb 2013 #37
mia Feb 2013 #41
Phlem Feb 2013 #56
davidn3600 Feb 2013 #40
mia Feb 2013 #44
MineralMan Feb 2013 #57
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #62

Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:00 PM

1. Ralph Nader and Ron Paul

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:04 PM

4. You forgot clinton and obama.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:07 PM

5. Why? Are you against the Democratic Presidents of the United States? I am not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:08 PM

6. Are they not just as guilty of shipping jobs oversees?

 

Both of them are mediocre at best for working people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:11 PM

8. So are you against the Democratic Party?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:12 PM

10. When it goes against me.

 

Are you party uber allies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:19 PM

13. You are either with the Democratic party or against it. Me, I am for it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:21 PM

14. Sounds like you have a credibility problem then.

 

Blind allegiance is a sign of low IQ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:24 PM

15. name calling is a sign of losing the argument.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:26 PM

16. I have not named called.

 

Just pointing to certain features of people's learning difficulties.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:13 PM

34. you may be smarter than that guy, but your anti-dem crap stinks up the joint. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:26 PM

39. Anti Dem? LOL.

 

Anti DLCer to the bone and I make no apologies for it.

Some people don't care or they refuse to hold accountable our Party or elected leaders. I rather not be in that line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #34)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:03 PM

60. I am anti-burn it down radical without realizing what will come the day after.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:30 PM

63. so am i, i apologize for inadvertantly dissing you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:46 PM

24. Interesting. Did you favor or oppose the Republican Bloomberg who ran against...

our Dem nominees for NYC mayor in 2001, and 2005?

Did you support the Dem nominee against Bloomberg in 2009?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:00 PM

29. I live in New Jersey therefore, I don't vote in NY since before 1990.

 

Were I to vote in NYC would be double voting and that is illegal.

Had I been a NYC voter, I would have voted for the democratic candidate, but of course, that doesn't stop me from loving the Great Equalizer Meek Mike on his great stance against the NRA and guns.

I am a faithful follower of the guidelines of this site.
Supporting the vote in general elections of any and all democratic candidates in offices lower than the Presidential race, except in the rare instances when the democratic line is empty, or the democratic candidate cannot win and then and only then is the third party vote acceptable.

Never of course in a Presidential election where 270 is only divisiable by two.

And where in 2000, Ralph Nader conspired either unknowingly or knowingly to throw the election to the republican candidate as New Hampshire(with those 4 electoral votes) proved.

Had Gore got those 4, he would have gotten 270, and Florida then would have been irrelevant.

10 million less voters in 2000 than any comparatable election.
Meaning they stayed home beliving the dreck out of Nader's mouth about both parties being one and the same.

A lie of coures proven by SCOTUS time and again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:56 PM

59. blind faith, 'my party, right or wrong', kool-aid drinking etc, come to mind

 

The 2-party sham-o-rama claims another victim. Are the Democrats better than the Republicans on a majority of issues? Yes, yes they are, but this is only a surface-glance view.

There are true warrior progressives in the Democratic (Bernie Sanders is a national treasure) Party, but at the end of the day, when viewing the long-wave impact on the foundational issues of runious bankster systemic control, debt, empiric wars, erosion of civil liberties, striping-mining of the vast bulk of US industrial capacity, etc etc, both parties (in the totality of their combined governmental outcomes), dine at the same table.

What happened to your critical thinking skills?

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil, and evil will triumph when good men and women do nothing but march to any tune played, as long as the cacophony comes out from under the colours of their 'sides' banner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mutatis Mutandis (Reply #59)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:55 PM

61. Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party.

He caucuses with Democrats, but is a Socialist.

There are many progressive Democrats in both houses, most people here ignore them because that doesn't fit into "They All Suck!" narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:39 PM

58. the allegiance to The Party mentality creeps me out too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:14 PM

11. If they give comfort to an enemy of U.S. citizens they are just as much to blame. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:10 PM

7. So be it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:02 PM

2. The south in the Civil War

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:11 PM

9. They lost for good reason. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:19 PM

12. Here's the text.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Treason is not giving aid or comfort or weakening the country in some abstract way. It has to be an act of war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:27 PM

17. Who needs war when you have a criminal cabal or coup.

The Bush crime family declared war on the Constitution without uttering a word

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:48 PM

25. Speaking of cabals...



I magine that our country is heading this way... but with softer, soothing voices for the propaganda commercials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:30 PM

18. "It has to be an act of war."

The majority conduct of U.S. polititicians has been against the best interests of the welfare of U.S. citizens. I call this an "act of war".

Some people in power in the United States are against us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:05 AM

45. That's not was war means.

Corruption is pretty bad and I make no excuses for it, but it isn't treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:17 AM

48. Victor vs. victim.

In today's political atmosphere, my family, my children, and my grandchildren are less likely to survive. I call that "war".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:09 AM

53. You can call it what you want, but it's not what "war" means. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:15 AM

47. And I call that "Snickerdoodle-Skiddlywamps" -- my term means as much as yours. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:40 AM

50. Except that "Snickerdoodle-Skiddlywamps" aren't known to be harmful. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:48 AM

54. They do however, sound delicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:39 PM

21. That text is the ONLY answer in America and the only path to declaring someone as such.

It is black and white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:09 PM

33. Thank you.

Your post makes it clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:35 PM

20. Are you suggesting that President Obama has committed treason?

Obama gets win as Congress passes free-trade agreements

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-gets-win-as-congress-passes-free-trade-agreements/2011/10/12/gIQAGHeFgL_story.html

The South Korea deal has the potential to create as many as 280,000 American jobs, according to a recent assessment by the staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission, and to boost exports by more than $12 billion. Several major labor unions have warned that any gains will come at the cost of layoffs among American workers because of heightened competition from South Korean imports.

The South Korea deal is widely hailed as the most consequential trade pact since the North American Free Trade Agreement was ratified in 1994.

The House approved all three deals and was quickly followed by the Senate. Final approval of the agreements represents a victory for the Obama administration and congressional leaders in both parties, who have touted the trade pacts as a means to jump-start the flagging economy without additional government spending. Ratification of the agreements holds particular importance for President Obama, who has set a goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015 and is facing a tough bid for reelection with unemployment stuck at 9.1 percent.

“I look forward to signing these agreements,” Obama said late Wednesday. He hailed passage as “a major win for American workers and businesses.”






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:52 PM

26. Treason? Seems to fit.

Our president is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:40 PM

22. Anyone who doesn't agree with me

Seriously, I think it is limited to war and battlefields. Maybe people do a lot of bad things, but the term treason should not be thrown around to mean anything we don't agree with, even if it is really bad. Political disagreement is not enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:15 PM

35. The battlefield has been extended beyond notions of "land".

Our Earth has been partitioned at the whim by those who rule. Geographical boundaries no longer exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:43 PM

23. Getting kinda dicey expanding the definition so far...

remember "None Dare Call It Treason"-- John Stormer's anti-Communist screed so beloved by the more unhinged Goldwater supporters? What if they came back in force and tried again to call us traitors? And this time they win?

This title, btw, came from an olde John Harrington rhyme:

“Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” The mind of a wingnut is truly bizarre-- Stormer was implying that American "communism" worked, so we're afraid to call it the demon that it is.

FWIW, your idea isn't all that new but has an excellent pedigree as the estimable Cicero thought along the same lines:

“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 carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, 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 the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero

In practice, though, such thinking didn't make much of a mark in Cicero's time, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:58 PM

28. If war is never legally declared, can the Constitutional definition ever be properly applied?

I'm honestly curious. A "no" would make "police actions" and "authorizations of the use of military force" one hell of a lot more tempting to exploit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:44 PM

43. Wasn't this all explored when we fooled around with the American Taliban...

and tried to make him and his ilk demonic terrorists instead of prosecuting under enough other laws we have against murder and blowing things up? Treason was hardly brought up with all the other charges flying around.

I remember once hearing a Federal judge talking about the "heniousness rule"-- if a crime is truly abhorrent, he ain't gonna walk and a way will be found to fry his ass.

As far as exploiting goes, I'm not sure the few Americans working violently for a foreign power are looking for loopholes.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:09 AM

46. Corporations weren't people in Cicero's time either.

Hail Cicero!
Nevertheless, times have changed - politics are global -the enemies aren't as easy to identify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:20 AM

49. No, but the means of production and most wealth was held by...

powerful families and clans which worked pretty much the same way. And "treason" was often a little more obvious, as Julius found about Brutus.

Trade was as important in those days as it is now-- they just didn't have the technology we have, and were more likely to invade and conquer than make a deal.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:09 AM

52. Trade was important then as it is now.

Multimational corporations have usurped the power of the U.S. Our elected officials in Washington facilitated the weakening of our country.
They have continued to vote in favor of their benefactors. our citizens continue to become less-able to survive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Reply #52)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:25 AM

55. Nothing new here. Back in Andrew Jackson's time...

he was considered a populist, but started out as a country lawyer representing creditors and landowners collecting debts and forcing evictions. Later on he closed down the US Bank, but that just led to the crisis of 1837 and it took years to get over it. Worse, he was responsible for the Trail of Tears when he threw the Cherokees out of Georgia when gold was found on their land. Populist my ass-- money talked.

And then we had the railroads and the robber barons at the turn of the century who managed to wash their hands of the Jonestown flood and get us into WWI so they could make a few bucks. That era lasted until WWII when they still made plenty of money, but had a harder time stealing it.

So, it was a small window between WWII and the Truman years to about Johnson's tenure that American politics and industry seemed to be following a higher path. They weren't, really, but it looked that way.

Here we are in a new century where money is acting like it always has-- to get more. The fundamental problem with the American economy appears to be that the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much. And, I would add the observation that so many don't have a problem with the rich because they themselves hope to be rich one day. Very few have a great ambition to be poor.

What to do about it? Not much we can without a groundswell of opposition to this nonsense. They have the ability to buy candidates and pay for the propaganda, so we have to stop whining about it and find a way to work smarter. Get the country to simply say "bullshit" to this sort of thing.

On PBS' "Makers" they did a good piece on Phyllis Schlafly who they infer almost singlehandedly killed the ERA because she was a brilliant propagandist who managed to turn half the women in the country against the other half. We need our own Schlafly who can drive the masses to work together.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:57 PM

27. Not again! This is so TIRED

Nobody cares what somebody can imagine words might mean when they have perfectly sensible meanings.

Treason is not about weakening the United States.

Treason is about substantially and purposefully assisting the enemy in a WAR.

And that means WAR... not the war on drugs, or the war on poverty.

War.

Treason does not mean being a bad American.

And since the death penalty is specified for Treason in the Constitution, these ever-present, "Here's what I think treason means, despite it obviously not meaning this" threads are de facto suggestions that whoever it is that is offending the OP writer ought to be put to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:03 PM

31. Thank you! I agree with you. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:25 PM

38. Offense is welcomed.

Anything that will promote understanding is good - even if the intent is ambiguous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:02 PM

30. We're not at war with our trading partners, that's the critical difference here.

Also, when the free trade laws and treaties you so object to were written, the balance of trade in most sectors was in the favor of US-based corporations. It still is in Trade In Services. It's really a lack of a national industrial policy -- and laws that might regulate where corporations invest and how they repatriate profits -- that has caused real problems, and that is the source of the imbalance in trade and deficit, as well as the offshoring of so many jobs that were formerly performed inside the U.S.

If you have to, attack the real problem - it's the internal policies of U.S.-based multinational corporations. Those business decisions were made in boardrooms in the U.S., in most cases a decade or more ago. That's where you have to apply pressure -- accusing people of High Treason may feel good, but it doesn't attack the problem at its real source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:43 PM

42. "If you have to, attack the real problem -

it's the internal policies of U.S.-based multinational corporations."

Thank you. I was hoping this would have been assumed. Our Earth no longer has international boundaries. Those who have the most capital rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:04 PM

32. It's treasonous for Congress to approve the overseas sales of weapons without tracking their

distribution for the life of the weapons -- before, during or after our 'wars.' These very weapons have been used against Americans. All secret weapons deals involving American weapons manufacturers should result in the shutdown of the dealers and the American manufacturers. Merchants of death must be pro-life when it comes to their fellow citizens and country, and they must be accountable for their product and whose hands they fall into. Stupidity about 'dealers', 'shipping,' or international laws is never a defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:16 PM

36. Ah, having the Supreme Court appoint the loser President!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:52 AM

51. The first of many examples.

As a Miami-Dade County resident, this action compelled me to get involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:16 PM

37. Ah the treason thread.

If any of ya'll have the curiosity, Norman Goldman has covered the treason angle exhaustively. Very interesting angles and opinions, unfortunately non that seems to stick.



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:36 PM

41. Just googled "Norman Goldman"

Found out he's a "Progressive". Plan to notice what he says in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:12 PM

56. Actually

He claims to be more independent cause he'll call out dirty Dems too. He's a retired lawyer and explains some of the legal ramifications of legislation in simple easy to understand jargon. He's a good guy on the inside too. Do check him out if you have a chance.



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:32 PM

40. Is Thomas Jefferson a traitor for saying this?

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:00 AM

44. Thomas Jefferson responded to the rights of the of the citizens,

unlike most of our current elected officials who reflect the demands of corporate donors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:37 PM

57. Treason is a very specific crime, with a very specific

definition. The Constitution defines it for the United States, and very clearly. What you are talking about is not treason. Outsourcing jobs is not treason. Treason involves war and the betrayal of the United States during war. Nothing else fits the Constitutional definition.

Please read what it says there. All of what it says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mia (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:58 PM

62. Treasons definition should be very strict in its understanding.

Very little latitude should be given to the actual legal definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread