Obama charged with treason; Romney tactitly assents?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Rana said:
Bad Obama, bad.

There is a slight difference, general references to the Republicans aren't quite the same as calling the President of the United States treasonous. The woman probably didn't even know the meaning of the word or what she was referring to specifically, she was just being a parrot.

Polly want a biscuit.
Click to expand...

1) She is entitled to her opinion. If she believes Obama is deliberately violating the Constitution, then that would be an act of treason as it is a betrayal of what he has sworn to uphold.

2) That said, I think she is wrong and I think Romney should have called her out on it.

3) There is no difference. Hoffa launched a verbal attack on American citizens. It was uncalled for and he should have been called out on it.
 
Superfreak said:
I don't care who they are talking about. It matters not. Both of them should have been called out. Hoffa and the random woman. The point I was making is that it is comical for the Obama admin to proclaim Romney lacks fortitude for failing to do the very same thing Obama failed to do.

Hoffa was attacking Americans... as President, Obama should be above that and he should have called him out on it. Romney also should have called the woman out on the treason comment. The fact that neither did says a lot about their character. Which is why you should all vote for Johnson if he runs.
Click to expand...

I'm voting for Obama.
 
Darla said:
I'm voting for Obama.
Click to expand...


sellout.jpg
 
cawacko said:
sellout.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL

I know you don't think I'm voting for a Romney supreme court pick? Not in this life. Plus I don't want STY and Bravo and the rest "congratulating" me. I saw them do it to Onceler it was so debasing, I felt sorry for him. I am going to vote for Obama, and you can all stick it! I hope your heads explode!
 
The born don't care about fetus-Americans. If Obama is re-elected it won't even matter if I make it out of the womb. He is passing a law making it abortion legal until I'm 18 months old, or can walk without assistance, whichever comes first.

Give Fetus-Americans the right to vote NOW!
 
That's funny, because the constitution specifically defines treason in a way that makes it almost impossible to prosecute. Acting unconstitutionally is not treason.
 
Gatorman said:
Treason = impeachment and visa versa, the topic of this thread. You opined the SCOTUS would determine Presidential activity outside the Constitution which implied possible charges of treasonous behavior generally don't groan at all but I reserve the right to repay the little gifts left for me. It's the right thing to do, isn't it?
Click to expand...

This is wrong. Treason does not mean impeachment, and impeachment doesn't mean treason. That's nonsense. The only way to remove a president from office is to impeach them. Even if he were tried for treason and found guilty, they'd still be president until they were impeached.
 
\\\(())/// said:
.

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.


​
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason
Click to expand...

It's so difficult to prosecute that you actually often see spies charged under different laws. We use it casually, often just to mean anyone whom we perceive to have acted disloyally. I imagine this is one huge reason the founders chose to define it in such narrow terms. The hysterical application of "treason" as a very general charge has lead to many reigns of terror before in other countries.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Well I don't know what he called R's, but if it was stupid pigfuckers, then what's the problem?

Sorry, but the President deserves some respect and since the R base has none for this President, when they start calling him a Muslim, and a terrorist, and saying he has committed treason, if Romney can't open his mouth, it says a lot about him.

I assume you know the difference between the Presidency and generic "republicans" or "democrats".
Click to expand...

He gets the same respect that the D base showed President Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top