General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

12. So GOTV in 2014

Reply to clydefrand (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 7, 2013, 02:01 PM

Oct 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

245 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sedition is against the law [View all] Playinghardball Oct 2013 OP

Republicans believe that they are above the law AZ Progressive Oct 2013 #1

Sedition requires force Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #2

No it does not. nt LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #6

Then why does it show up so often in the sedition statute? onenote Oct 2013 #7

They are forcing government shut down. nt LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #13

Ridiculous. onenote Oct 2013 #20

All of which raises the question as to whether constitutionally-elected officials can commit acts indepat Oct 2013 #204

Can the President veto a continuing resolution to fund the government? onenote Oct 2013 #205

The president sure as hell can if unrelated garbage (extortion) is attached thereto indepat Oct 2013 #238

This message was self-deleted by its author onenote Oct 2013 #239

The oath of office. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #212

what if that default occurs because the President vetoes a debt ceiling extension onenote Oct 2013 #240

Yep. I agree with this. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #243

Remember when all those anti-war groups tried to FORCE and end to the war? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #46

We "Forced" the administration to listen to our demands. Covered under free speech from what I know. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #79

Congress can de-fund any law. There is no requirement they fund a program or war. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #80

Yeah, and they tried that what 40 times? Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #83

And they can try 40 times more. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #85

How about they just do what is good for the country and quit pissing around? Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #99

If dissension is sedition then democracy is sedition Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #137

Sound bite. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #222

Still true and you're stuck with that fact. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #236

You have GOT to be on the other side. You blast MY dissension and defend theirs. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #223

No one has come anywhere close to suggesting you should be prosecuted Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #234

Yes it does. It says so right there in the cited statute. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #9

Um...no it doesn't. LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #11

Oh good grief Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #15

Oh Geeze oh whiz... LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #16

OK, so what about the other 16 times that has happened in US history? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #17

Oh Geeze. LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #34

So in other words Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #38

NO - What is different are people like the Koch Brothers being SO close to OWNING the Government. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #108

And some RWers see communists behind every tree Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #135

I'm talking about specific, behavior not a broad swath and McCarthy like persecution. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #219

MAYBE because the other 16 times it was for defensible reasons. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #107

Or maybe you're just raving up and down this thread. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #136

Says the guy who had 12 of the 78 posts before I ever got in on the discussion. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #220

I'm not a man Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #241

Which is not the same thing as "by force." NuclearDem Oct 2013 #18

yes it is. LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #37

No, it's not. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #40

Yes, it is LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #42

No, it's not. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #43

Yes it is. LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #45

No, it's not. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #51

Yes it is. LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #53

No, it's not. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #55

nt LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #56

..... sibelian Oct 2013 #61

lol BOG PERSON Oct 2013 #73

^^ THREAD WINNER RIGHT HERE Richardo Oct 2013 #203

Your understanding of the legal English is poor. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #29

Um...perhaps not LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #35

"We can let judges decide what 'by force' means." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #41

No. Just let them decide, and not YOU. LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #44

They don't get to decide because congresscritters cannot be arrested and tried Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #49

Wow. This isn't them 'not giving us what we want' LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #50

You still can't have congresscritters arrested and tried every time you want something Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #60

There IS room in this law, you are just taking ONE word and defending their abuse of the process. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #118

That one word is the entire point. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #133

Tell that to Bill Clinton Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #116

When was Clinton arrested by the police and held for trial? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #134

Are you so young that you don't remember White Water, Impeachment and Special Prosecutor Ken Starr? Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #221

Even if "by force" meant what you claim it means (and it doesn't), onenote Oct 2013 #59

see post #124. It's not wrong. But thanks. nt LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #149

So did Bill Clinton commit "sedition" when he vetoed a CR and "forced" a shutdown? onenote Oct 2013 #153

Hate to correct you, but it's U.S. Marshal's and as a member of that Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #158

I need a DU spell check!! onenote Oct 2013 #169

Total agreement, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #170

NO. He didn't premeditatively PLAN to use it as a tool and the veto is his right. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #228

Post title is false equivilancy. Post 35 doesn't define force-says let judges not a DU poster decide Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #226

Hate to break it to you: members of Congress can't be "recalled" onenote Oct 2013 #232

Against my better judgment, I am going to jump in here Samantha Oct 2013 #124

Thanks Samantha LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #148

DEFINITION OF FORCE - VERB #2 Make (someone) do something against their will. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #72

This Government was SHUT DOWN by force of willfulness of the extremists in Congress. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #75

By force means by force of arms. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #76

NO it does not say force of arms - it says force. Period. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #82

For the umpteenth time, abusing the power of the purse to exploit a completely arbitrary concept NuclearDem Oct 2013 #84

No, it doesn't. Nice try. Look up the word "sedition." n/t duffyduff Oct 2013 #91

He must be too busy Duff, I found some clarification Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #123

According to your post you're inciting sedition against the lawful authority of congress. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #139

Asking that people stop seditious behavior is sedition. Pointing out racisim is racist. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #224

They are using their constitutional authority no differently than previous congresses Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #235

with all due respect DonCoquixote Oct 2013 #77

Mass shootings? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #81

??? What you live under a rock? Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #106

Which one of those was political, per the other poster's comment? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #132

Yes, every one of these who are trying to scuttle Obamabcare are also advocating NO Gun Control. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #105

Sedition Act of 1918 --- YUP, the rethugs ARE DEEPLY seditious Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #86

The Sedition Act is no longer law, and it's almost certainly unconstitutional. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #88

Yeah, I said that. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #102

Oh my dear God. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #150

Never thought I would see this shit on DU. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #154

Look, dear, ONLY when people take it to the exteme where it could actually topple the Government. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #225

And advocating jailing political opponents is against everything a liberal should stand for. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #3

Pretending a crime isn't a crime just because the perpetrator is your political opponent isn't, no LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #48

You still haven't proven criminal activity. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #58

Nice try defending fascists like the Kochs. duffyduff Oct 2013 #92

Someone breaks the law, they break the law. Sedition is against the law in it's current form. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #103

It seems Eric Holder's Department of Justice disagrees with you, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #104

Right, so Bush isn't a war criminal just because he got away with it. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #110

The bottom line is that no one in any position of authority is even talking sedition. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #112

Listen 63 posts, stupid is just their act. They are a well organized wrecking crew. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #115

Now it's 64 posts. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #117

You're new, maybe you don't know a lot of the history we've discussed here. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #120

And no court of law is even going to entertain a motion of sedition, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #122

Sure, 2014 is a given as long as we have enough Election Judges to watch for tampering. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #125

"63 posts"? Llewlladdwr Oct 2013 #217

Well, it was actually my way of giving they guy a break. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #218

How many of these stupid threads are going to be posted? onenote Oct 2013 #4

If you don't like them, don't read them. No one here is holding a gun to your head. nt Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #111

Thanks, but no thanks. I think I'll continue to respond to them onenote Oct 2013 #141

It is amazing how many DUers want to establish a dictatorship. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #5

What the repubs are doing is not politial liberty clydefrand Oct 2013 #8

So GOTV in 2014 Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #12

Yes, it is their political liberty. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #27

The political liberty of holding the nation hostage? AZ Progressive Oct 2013 #10

So you'd charge them with what--criminal metaphor? pinboy3niner Oct 2013 #19

I'd throw the book at them. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #22

*SNORT* pinboy3niner Oct 2013 #23

This is the law of the land...it is NOT establishing a dictatorship. nt LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #14

Except when you grotesquely distort the law for personal gain. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #21

WHAT personal gain? Preventing elected officials from abusing their power is our obligation. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #128

Concerning my sig line Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #138

I have been accused of being humorous on occasion Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #229

Clearly the republicans should be allowed to run the economy into the ditch...again. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #24

Jailing political opponents IS what dictatorships do. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #25

Conspiring to destroy an economy by shutting down the country is what criminals would do. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #28

The OP is trying to claim that they are guilty of sedition and should be jailed. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #30

Look at it this way, and no offense. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #47

Here's the problem onenote Oct 2013 #65

An amazingly lucid and well-thought out statement Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #68

I didn't know that we didn't like each other! onenote Oct 2013 #69

The only solution being put forward by the GOP is either suspend ACA or the economy gets it. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #70

Great... Use the patriot act to jail your political opponents... Decaffeinated Oct 2013 #130

WTF is going on here? R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #155

So take it to an intelligent "next level" Decaffeinated Oct 2013 #160

I disagree with your analysis. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #162

Right, didn't everyone here want the CEO Bailout Queens to go to jail for their crimes? Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #230

You really ARE clueless, aren't you? duffyduff Oct 2013 #93

Fascist jail their political opponents. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #98

I DO NOT have the Liberty to SHUT DOWN the Government. It's NO ONE's God given right. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #113

Not voting for something is NOT the use of force. MineralMan Oct 2013 #26

Yep. The Constitution protects us from stupid interpretations of the sedition law by courts onenote Oct 2013 #33

I guess I prefer accurate representations of things over overstatement. MineralMan Oct 2013 #36

I'm with you all the way! onenote Oct 2013 #54

That law should be repealed. It's been used as a political cudgel far too often. MNBrewer Oct 2013 #31

Actually, it's very, very rarely used. MineralMan Oct 2013 #39

The reason I think this discussion is important is because this is an INSIDE job. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #119

But the law against sedition doesn't 'get us there.' MineralMan Oct 2013 #147

Thank you for a reasonable opinion. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #244

And the reason it's so hard to prosecute is because sedition laws have been abused time and again. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #171

That's what so many are not understanding. MineralMan Oct 2013 #189

Post removed Post removed Oct 2013 #32

And those claiming the moral high ground shouldn't be standing in quick sand when they do it. nt LaydeeBug Oct 2013 #52

You mix an excellent metaphor... MineralMan Oct 2013 #57

When you start calling fellow DU posters "ignorant" you lose all creditability. nm rhett o rick Oct 2013 #62

I don't know. Seems like ignoring ignorance would be more damaging to one's credibility. onenote Oct 2013 #63

I feel that educating the ignorant is positive. Ignoring the ignorant is sometimes rhett o rick Oct 2013 #64

Personally, I've tried to avoid calling anyone ignorant or stupid. onenote Oct 2013 #66

I agree the idea promoted by the OP isnt a good idea. I dont mind if the idea rhett o rick Oct 2013 #67

Seeing how there appears to be enough DEM/GOP votes for a clean CR, but that the GOP leadership R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #71

Without the moral high ground, what makes you better than your opponents? Llewlladdwr Oct 2013 #74

We will have no moral high ground if the economy tanks and it could have been prevented. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #78

The PATRIOT Act is not the means. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #89

Good luck to you if the economy collapses. Really. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #156

What are you proposing? onenote Oct 2013 #87

Something. Anything. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #159

And what? Send the U.S. Marshal's in to arrest the repubs whom you deem to be committing Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #161

I love all the new posters here all of a sudden with the concernz for doing absolutely nothing. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #163

I'm not saying do nothing, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #164

Oaky, sure... R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #166

Well, Duh. Of course I understand, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #167

"opponents that we disagree with." R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #172

The hell it wouldn't be silencing those you disagree with. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #173

I'm glad that you are on record for doing nothing unti 2014. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #178

That's right, I'm on record doing it within the constraints of the Constitution, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #179

I'm not a new poster onenote Oct 2013 #168

I've been here 8 years longer than you. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #174

Still waiting for you to describe exactly what should be done to force onenote Oct 2013 #175

My suggestion was to pin the GOP as financial terrorists, and go from there R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #181

How does that result in funding the government? onenote Oct 2013 #183

I have an idea for you. Do nothing. Consider nothing. That is about your speed. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #194

Never thought I would see this on DU, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #186

You have been here for 92 posts. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #196

And yet you want to use it in an unconstitutional way to get back at political opponents. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #199

"And yet you want to use it in an unconstitutional way..." Sauce for the Goose. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #206

And perhaps, with your strategy, we can create a constitutional crises. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #177

With your do nothing approach the economy gets a knife in the back. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #180

Oh I have an approach, one that's within the Constitution Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #182

"Oh I have an approach, one that's within the Constitution..." R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #190

And your approach would throw the govt into a Constitutional crises. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #195

So you admit it. You would do nothing. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #198

I'm already on record as doing something within the constraints of the Constitution, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #202

Good luck voting next year. Maybe the GOP will shut down government again right before the election. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #208

So your approach is to toss out the Constitution? onenote Oct 2013 #184

Is the PATRIOT act a law? R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #191

And of course once you have the leaders arrested on -- something -- Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #185

We should go with you plan B. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #192

Yes, you should. Arresting politicians acting lawfully within their constitutional purview Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #193

I will love to see your posts if it all falls apart. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #197

Go subverting the constitution by criminalizing political dissent and it will fall apart Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #201

The PATRIOT Act is the law of the land. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #207

It's a fairly basic point of American law that the Constitution trumps ANY federal law. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #209

You're a constitutionalist? Really? R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #210

Sigh. dairydog91 Oct 2013 #211

That's where you are wrong. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #213

In the race for crazy we are quickly pulling ahead. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #214

Good luck to you after the 17th. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #215

If all you want to do is punch first then punch first Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #216

I didn't ask for your luck so thanks. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #242

It's harsh, but it's true. We have to call it what it really is. n/t duffyduff Oct 2013 #90

This is stupid and has more than a hint of fascism... Decaffeinated Oct 2013 #94

The Kochs aren't simply disagreeing. duffyduff Oct 2013 #96

So what do you want to do about it? Decaffeinated Oct 2013 #121

And the Kochs! Well, you're consistent. Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2013 #245

Unfortunately.... Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2013 #95

Yes, they are. This is not harmless disagreement. duffyduff Oct 2013 #97

I grasp it perfectly well... Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2013 #100

It's funny, if the shoe were on the other foot Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #101

this is not a "failure to pass legislation" grasswire Oct 2013 #114

Has it occured to you Abq_Sarah Oct 2013 #129

a hella lotta people despised the laws abolishing slavery, too grasswire Oct 2013 #165

Not voting on a law you prefer is not the same as keeping slaves. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #188

This is precisely failure to pass legislation Jeff In Milwaukee Oct 2013 #140

What the tea bag group is doing might not be sedition or illegal. But, if they never back down, ladjf Oct 2013 #109

It takes 2 sides to have a stalemate. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #144

If the Dems capitulate every time the pubs pull this stunt, then there will ultimately have the ladjf Oct 2013 #151

That may be true but each side is still maintaining the stalemate for their own policial agenda Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #152

When treason doth prosper DonCoquixote Oct 2013 #126

Actually the author of that quote is John Harrington. onenote Oct 2013 #146

and to all the people who say "force has not been used" DonCoquixote Oct 2013 #127

What does that have to do with the government shutdown? onenote Oct 2013 #142

The admins need to start doing something to rein this nonsene in. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #145

political differences Niceguy1 Oct 2013 #131

Since Congress is who decides what the law is in the first place, this is kind of silly (nt) Recursion Oct 2013 #143

Yes, lets expand the term sedition to include all sorts of political speech. hughee99 Oct 2013 #157

It isn't just "NOT" voting that is seditious. Heck that's passive resistance DEMS are all over that. Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #231

Still not a crime pinboy3niner Oct 2013 #237

yup gopiscrap Oct 2013 #176

Sedition is against the law. Of course, no one has committed sedition. onenote Oct 2013 #187

A lot of blowhards pretend they believe in it. Rex Oct 2013 #200

I wish they staid out of this nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #227

Exactly what makes this the worst Constitutional crisis since Ft. Sumpter? onenote Oct 2013 #233