Sedition

[hedgehog]

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Yesterday I thought this was nonsense, this morning I think there are people guilty of sedition. It is one thing to hold certain positions and ideas, but another to conspire to destroy the United States government. I think that line has been crossed.
We've been here before:

"James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the "Fire-eater" program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as President, and thus trigger secession declarations by the slave-owning states. Whatever the "intent" of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Democratic_National_Convention

Start with the Kock brothers, Ed Meese and Demint. Check out Ted Cruz holding his "secret" meeting with House Republicans. All of this may be moot in an hour or so, but I think investigations need to be held.


Please give your thoughts on this.

16 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	It\'s not sedition, it\'s politics.
	6 (38%)
	It\'s sedition, but it\'s more harmful to the country to do anything about it than to leave it.
	0 (0%)
	It\'s sedition, but for the sake of the country, a non-criminal commision or Congressional investigation is needed.
	0 (0%)
	It\'s sedition, and for the sake of the country, a criminal investigation needs to happen.
	8 (50%)
	It\'s sedition, but I don\'t know what the next step should be.
	2 (13%)
	It\'s not sedition, but they are slimy pieces of shit.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[onenote]

1. Want to undo a good portion of the advantage the Democrats have picked up?

Start a time wasting partisan "investigation" instead of using that advantage to tackle immigration and other issues.

[HappyMe]

2. I agree.

Time to pick up the pieces and move forward. Launching a big "investigation" would be just as embarassing as some stupid impeachment crap the teabaggers throw out there.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Exactly. You can't impeach Obama for wielding his due constitutional authorities.

Both sides need to stop trying to criminalize the process.

[HappyMe]

6. It's pretty damn bizarre.

What the Cruzers are doing is politics. Granted, they have raised the maniac bar pretty high but it isn't a crime.

[freebrew]

17. Maybe, but ...

what about an 'under the table investigation'? Don't make it public, just find out who is bankrolling this shit and expose them then?

[HappyMe]

19. Meh.

I think it's time to move forward with the business of the country. 2014 is right around the corner, so we need to work towards that.

Besides, I think it's pretty well known that the Heritage idiots are behind this. Probably the Kochs too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. We'd be lucky if that's all that happens.

When you start arresting and trying political opposition the opposition will conclude political processes have been abrogated by the party in power. Policy votes and elections would be the least of our worries. Yet, thread after thread so many have convinced themselves that they can do whatever they want to suspend the constitution and impose their will on tens of millions of people who do not agree with them without allowing those people political recourse. This is a sickness and it needs to end.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Yes, OF COURSE the Obama administration should criminally prosecute his political opponents.

I mean, that's what our Constitution and democracy is all about.

[cthulu2016]

7. C'mon, please... You cannot criminally conspire to do something that isn't a crime.

Voting no on a budget or a debt limit increase is not a crime. (If it is, Obama would have to turn himself in.)

This whole sedition thing is embarassing. The Constitution is quite plain in intentionally giving the majority of the House of Representatives the option to eliminate the government of the USA.

It is the prerogative of the House of Representaives to have a budget of $0.00.

If it was not, the Constitution would say it is not.

Doing so would cause great harm, but so do all kinds of other possible government actions. There is no law against it.

This whole line of argument is the inverse of Republican belief that a black president cannot be legitimate.

The assholes in Congress are legitimate. They got there within the system and are using powers they have.

The idea is that voters will elect sane, responsible people (including to state legislatures that do the redistricting). They didn't. So if the system fails it fails under its own weight.

[Demo_Chris]

21. Well said. I hate this kind of silliness. If the GOP wants to act crazy we do not need to follow. nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

8. It's sedition. As the President himself said: "This is not normal."

So no, it's not just politics.

There were UNELECTED outside groups conspiring to pull this shit for months.

[randome]

10. We are unelected, also.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[hedgehog]

15. But i think anyone here who advocates overthrowing the government ends up

TOMBSTONED!

[hedgehog]

9. At what point does a decision to force one's minority view on the majority

cross the line? Compare the decision to force the United States into a shut-down and default to the various Civil Rights movements -

even if you thought same-sex marriage or blacks drinking from the same fountain meant the end times, no one ever thought that the goal of those movements was to bring down the government. I think the case can be made that bringing down the government was and is the goal here.

[randome]

11. It never reaches that point.

Because our 18th century founders -in their laughably 'infinite' wisdom- did not foresee this. That's why our Constitution is badly in need of a revamp.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[cthulu2016]

12. If a MAJORITY didn't want it that way then a MAJORITY

is free to change the rules of the House and the Senate.

This whole process has been the system as it has been established and continually maintained by majorities working within the guidelines those majorities established.

[hedgehog]

13. Good point - although the Republicans recently changed the rules in the House to

make Cantor the one who decides whether a bill reaches the floor!

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/14/house-gop-changed-rules-before-shutdown-to-prevent-senate-bill-from-easily-returning-to-house-floor/

[BluegrassStateBlues]

14. You are correct.

No one is calling for a criminal investigation over a simple disagreement like a minimum wage increase or marriage equality.

These people jeopardized a world superpower and conspired with outside groups to do so. It is not normal. It is not "just politics." It's an unprecedented and dangerous abuse of authority.

[rock]

16. It's politics

The Democratic politicians played very badly the last time gerrymandering occurred.

[TacoD]

18. Please add another option:

Something to the effect of: "It's not sedition, but they are being real slimy pieces of shit."

[hedgehog]

20. Done!

[TacoD]

22. OK I changed my vote :-) (nt)

[freshwest]

23. The intent is to bring down the government with rhetoric and money. Problem is:

The first amendment.

It allows for religious freedom and freedom of speech. Seditious speech and religious zealotry have brought down governments before, by stealth or outright, since they have freedom to reach the masses tell them to hate government that supports diversity of opinion or equality, the enemy of concnetrations of control.

There are many kinds of concentrations of power, in both centralized and non-centralized social orders. Anarchy always enables rightists in the end, despite the fools that may think it won't.

It lends to concentrating power in small groups or under local warlords. The end of democratic government leads to harsh conservative ends, not freedom or liberty as many say, or rather, are taught to say.

People are stressed and retreating to the bastions of historical power, the institutions of religion. They will always outlast governments.

What we are seeing is a particularly malignant and powerful form of religion ready to kill anyone who will not bow to them. They claim to not be religious, some claim it's philosophy, the end is the same.

I went with 'IDK' what to do since I don't know what to do but tell the truth and try to win by setting a good example as Obama has.

[winter is coming]

24. It might be sedition, but I doubt it could be proven. n/t