DescentBB

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:they seem unwilling to allow...... even a floor vote in the House. Can any of you tell me what, exactly, they are attempting to do if not subvert the Federal government, whcih would be treason?

You mean like Harry Reid has done since he's been in charge of the Senate?

There can be no negotiables placed upon running the government and paying for legislation previously passed. None. This nonsense has to stop. Can you, CUDA, address my ponderings above, to the effect that some of these folks WANT the government and economy to fail in order to engender a civil war? Or, do you think some of them are trying to fulfill some sort of whacked out End Times scenario? I had an interesting discussion with a couple of lawyers the other day(welcome to the fun of estate probate process!), one of whom was a former GOP official down here. They were saying that one could read the situation as getting so bad that it would be completely legal for the President to invoke Emergency powers for the good of the nation. Is that the situation you wish to see? Now, I have no legal training, but the discussion was an eye opener, so I merely listened and munched away on my overpriced cheeseburger. But, really, what is the end game here? We can't allow this sort of hostage taking of the government and the economy to continue, and yesterday's actions seemed to indicate that the GOP house will do whatever a certain PAC tells them to do, so where do we go?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Talk about respect for an elected official, then say that a bunch of them should be hanged…

And imagine saying that about the president.

They'd turn it racial saying you want to lynch a black man. Nothing like a hypocrite huh?

what is the penalty for treason, and the definition thereof?

Its truly a shame you're so ignorant of our type of government. And how e "Representative" government is supposed to work. But in typical leftwing fashion you label those you disagree with to try and marginalize them.

what is willingly bringing the government down and the economy(most especially, the economy) to a halt amount to, CUDA? Nothing about this has a damned thing to do with 'representative government'. Nothing. They rigged the House rules so that only 3 people can bring a bill to the floor, they refuse to form a conference committee on two passed Budget bills, they are openly suggesting a government default. I ask again, what is the end game, save bringing the nation down? Because, if the economy tanks, you not only have the current 'shutdown' scenario, you have a situation where NOTHING will be payable by the government, as revenues would quickly dry up. What is the goal here, I ask for the umpteenth time? For the clowns in the weekend protests, it was to have Obama resign? Is THAT representative governance?

Harry Reid

for reference purposes, the Treason Statute:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


now, if we cannot generate the money to operate the armed forces, or are forced to renege on bonds held by foreign powers(notably the Chinese), what do you think our enemies will do in such a situation. Do you think, say, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, China and others are NOT going to take advantage of the situation?

CUDA wrote:Harry Reid

so you come up with a name you don't like and a cute emoticon. Nice debate skillz.

This is a joke right?

nope

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Harry Reid

so you come up with a name you don't like and a cute emoticon. Nice debate skillz.

much like you ignoring Reid doing the same thing in the Senate.

Physician heal thyself

nice debate skills

Hmmm read me that part about giving aid and comfort to the enemy again....and where did those surface to air missiles go that were in State Department hands in Libya....some islamofacists in Syria I think. They call themselves al Queda or something like that....

Will Robinson wrote:Hmmm read me that part about giving aid and comfort to the enemy again....and where did those surface to air missiles go that were in State Department hands in Libya....some islamofacists in Syria I think. They call themselves al Queda or something like that....

one has to KNOWINGLY do so, Will. Come on now, you are smart enough to know the difference.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Harry Reid

so you come up with a name you don't like and a cute emoticon. Nice debate skillz.

much like you ignoring Reid doing the same thing in the Senate.

Physician heal thyself

nice debate skills

still not addressing my core questions, either, are you? What is supposed to be the end result here?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Harry Reid

so you come up with a name you don't like and a cute emoticon. Nice debate skillz.

much like you ignoring Reid doing the same thing in the Senate.

Physician heal thyself

nice debate skills

still not addressing my core questions, either, are you? What is supposed to be the end result here?

OH I think your doing a wonderful job of showing your ignorance in our form of government, your lack of understanding on how representative government works, your hypocrisy in only attacking on side of a two headed coin, when both sides do exactly the same thing, and your partisan lefty approach in labeling those that you disagree in an attempt to marginalize their arguments and stifle debate.

I think that sums it up nicely. so keep posting

You see, this trying to “destroy the government” talk is a bunch of bull★■◆●, what we really have here is a group of people that believe this is the only way to get their voices heard.

Those people know damn right well any bills to amend the ACA will never reach the floor of the Senate, and if they did they would never pass.

Don’t get me wrong, I do NOT support what these people are doing, but to accuse them of “trying to destroy” distorts their real intentions.

If you really believe what you are saying, then you should bring them to court…or shut up, because there is also a crime in falsely accusing someone.

Spidey wrote:You see, this trying to “destroy the government” talk is a bunch of ****, what we really have here is a group of people that believe this is the only way to get their voices heard.

Those people know damn right well any bills to amend the ACA will never reach the floor of the Senate, and if they did they would never pass.

Don’t get me wrong, I do NOT support what these people are doing, but to accuse them of “trying to destroy” distorts their real intentions.

If you really believe what you are saying, then you should bring them to court…or shut up, because there is also a crime in falsely accusing someone.

how do you rationalize the number of these loons who are going out into public stating that debt default will not be a bad thing? And, yes, at the end of this mess, I do think they should be brought before a Court, but it isn't anything I could do single-handedly.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:You see, this trying to “destroy the government” talk is a bunch of ****, what we really have here is a group of people that believe this is the only way to get their voices heard.

Those people know damn right well any bills to amend the ACA will never reach the floor of the Senate, and if they did they would never pass.

Don’t get me wrong, I do NOT support what these people are doing, but to accuse them of “trying to destroy” distorts their real intentions.

If you really believe what you are saying, then you should bring them to court…or shut up, because there is also a crime in falsely accusing someone.

how do you rationalize the number of these loons who are going out into public stating that debt default will not be a bad thing? And, yes, at the end of this mess, I do think they should be brought before a Court, but it isn't anything I could do single-handedly.

it isn't anything that can be done PERIOD. it is not illegal, do you not understand that?


why do you need to be such a hater??

Sorry, CUDA, but it is perfectly legal to prosecute a domestic citizen for treason if they knowingly weaken the US to the point of danger from enemies.

oh, and CUDA, why aren't you addressing my question? Where is this all supposed to lead?

no need to. you wouldn't understand my answer if I did. you need to have a basic concept of how our government works first.

representative government

[rep-ri-zen-tuh-tiv] Show IPA
noun
1.a person or thing that represents another or others.
2.an agent or deputy: a legal representative.
3.a person who represents a constituency or community in a legislative body, especially a member of the U.S. House of Representatives or a lower house in certain state legislatures.

show me where anyone in our government is not doing EXACTLY that. but in your INFINITE ignorance you call for them to be tired for treason and hanged.

so keep talking. pretty soon you'll be hanging yourself

well, New York magazine say it's over.....and the markets and my financial advisor seem to concur. Hope they're right:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -over.html

and only a chicken little would have thought otherwise

Congressional Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God


now, given that the Constitution(in the 14th amendment) bars the prevention of Federal debts being paid, shall we talk 'representative government' again, CUDA?

your ignorance is Growing slick. either that or your lying.

we would still pay our bills as required by the constitution (Unless the President specifically chose to ignore his Oath)

Moody’s, Oct. 7: We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact. The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

SO which is it?? your ignorance or a Lie??

callmeslick wrote:Congressional Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God


now, given that the Constitution(in the 14th amendment) bars the prevention of Federal debts being paid, shall we talk 'representative government' again, CUDA?

Is that like Obama telling I.C.E. to not deport illegal immigrants when the law clearly states people illegally entering the US are to be deported? So who is not upholding their oath?

where is that remotely pertinent to the Congressional Oath of Office? Oh, and look into the development of Executive Power since 1970.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Hmmm read me that part about giving aid and comfort to the enemy again....and where did those surface to air missiles go that were in State Department hands in Libya....some islamofacists in Syria I think. They call themselves al Queda or something like that....

one has to KNOWINGLY do so, Will. Come on now, you are smart enough to know the difference.

So if the administration knowingly transferred the weapons captured in Libya to islamofacists in Syria we can proceed with treason charges for all involved in giving the order or knowingly allowing the transfer to take place. Right?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Hmmm read me that part about giving aid and comfort to the enemy again....and where did those surface to air missiles go that were in State Department hands in Libya....some islamofacists in Syria I think. They call themselves al Queda or something like that....

one has to KNOWINGLY do so, Will. Come on now, you are smart enough to know the difference.

So if the administration knowingly transferred the weapons captured in Libya to islamofacists in Syria we can proceed with treason charges for all involved in giving the order or knowingly allowing the transfer to take place. Right?

yes, were they aware that such weapons were given to groups openly and knowingly willing to use them against the US, that would be the case. Lots of luck proving that.

Looks as if(according to Sen. Ayotte(R-New Hampshire), that the deal is going to be: Open the government until Jan 15, Raise the debt ceiling until February sometime, with no strings attached. It is claimed that Boehner will put it to the floor. Thus, we've had, as a nation, to suffer through several weeks of complete BS to accomplish what, exactly? If, indeed, this means a complete end to hostage-taking of the nation for ideology, that will be something positive, but I suspect that not to be the case, untl after the People speak next November.

callmeslick wrote:Looks as if(according to Sen. Ayotte(R-New Hampshire), that the deal is going to be: Open the government until Jan 15, Raise the debt ceiling until February sometime, with no strings attached. It is claimed that Boehner will put it to the floor. Thus, we've had, as a nation, to suffer through several weeks of complete BS to accomplish what, exactly? If, indeed, this means a complete end to hostage-taking of the nation for ideology, that will be something positive, but I suspect that not to be the case, untl after the People speak next November.

so we will once again kick the can down the road and have the same inept democrats willing to compromise about anything. I say come Feb. just have the country go into chapter 11 and be done with it. Reid and Obama can't compromise now and they won't compromise in Feb. and they won't ever unless no debt ceiling increase actually happens.

Thus far, Reid and Obama have compromised on the Sequester, on the budget numbers(closer to the GOP figures than the Dem figures in the lanquishing Senate budget resolution), on healthcare, on spending priorities.........yeah, it's all those evil Dems. Wait until the 2015 House is sworn in and see what Democrats get accomplished.

Is that like the insurance plan I was told I could keep and now find out it will be dissolved on Dec.15? Which means I will have to find a new plan?

and my plan that will have a 30% premium increase ($160 a month) and and a $1500 Deductible increase starting next year, \


just found out yesterday. glad it's "affordable"

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Hmmm read me that part about giving aid and comfort to the enemy again....and where did those surface to air missiles go that were in State Department hands in Libya....some islamofacists in Syria I think. They call themselves al Queda or something like that....

one has to KNOWINGLY do so, Will. Come on now, you are smart enough to know the difference.

So if the administration knowingly transferred the weapons captured in Libya to islamofacists in Syria we can proceed with treason charges for all involved in giving the order or knowingly allowing the transfer to take place. Right?

yes, were they aware that such weapons were given to groups openly and knowingly willing to use them against the US, that would be the case. Lots of luck proving that.

The State a Department was operating their long standing operation to track and buy MANPAD's (man operated portable air defense missiles) it has been an ongoing program in lots of places where the regime falls apart and rebels end up with sophisticated surface to air missiles that terrorists covet for the ability to shoot down commercial aircraft.

Nothing unusual about running that in Libya, but for some reason State decided they needed to arm Syrian rebels and some of those surface to air missiles are now in al Queda hands in Syria and they used the CIA to handle some of the weapons. Not the usual operators of the MANPAD program, that is usually State and US military. Hmmm....

Obviously, by the stated purpose of the MANPAD program, State knows the missiles are a threat to us and a terrorists favored weapon. State also knew al Queda was in Syria receiving the weapons.

So there is less than you think that separates Hillary et al from your definition of treason.

And you can take the collection of sources for this slowly unravelling story from a liberal ... Daily Kos so that you can skip your first predictable move of demonizing the messenger.
Here is but a snippet of relevance...

Meanwhile, ABC reported that one of three Americans killed with Ambassador Stevens was part of group assigned to locate these looted Libyan MANPADS, shoulder-fired missiles that can be used to shoot down airliners.

On September 24, the New York Times carried a front-page story cryptically entitled, "Attack in Libya was major blow to CIA efforts”, http://www.nytimes.com/... Without really identifying what those efforts have been, the Times alluded to the fact that:

American intelligence operatives also assisted State Department contractors and Libyan officials in tracking shoulder-fired missiles taken from the former arsenals of the former Libyan Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces.

Other rumblings have emerged of late from the major media about the conflicting roles of the CIA in both coordinating the arming of the Syrian opposition and problems with anti-terrorism operations, as evidenced by the fatal attack on Americans in Benghazi.

Maybe the proof is leaking out of the Bengahzi pudding.

I'm guessing the right wingers will try to hold these cards close to their vest until Hillary is declared the Dems candidate and then try to splash the blood on her shoes.
That is if al Queda doesn't take an airliner down using one of those missiles in the meantime and spoil the timing.

Will she try to save her shot being President by throwing Obama under the bus if it happens?

You know Cuda, copy-pasting a random dictionary definition is pretty much a cover-your-ass move to avoid admitting that you've been completely defeated in a debate. If there's not a title for that equivalent to Godwin's Law, there sure as hell should be, because it's pathetic.

And really? You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that holding the entire government hostage, and possibly irreparably damaging our economy, represent normal "representative government"? By that logic, the creation of the Confederacy and the Civil War could be termed, "That time a bunch of people disagreed."

callmeslick wrote:how do you rationalize the number of these loons who are going out into public stating that debt default will not be a bad thing? And, yes, at the end of this mess, I do think they should be brought before a Court, but it isn't anything I could do single-handedly.

No slick, I see stupidity and ineptness where you see some grand conspiracy.

perhaps, Spidey, you are correct.......it just seems to lock-step to be random to me. I hope you're right, actually. Stupid can be weeded out more easily.

Top Gun wrote:You know Cuda, copy-pasting a random dictionary definition is pretty much a cover-your-ass move to avoid admitting that you've been completely defeated in a debate. If there's not a title for that equivalent to Godwin's Law, there sure as hell should be, because it's pathetic.

UHM. you cannot make up a definition of a word just to suit your "theory" not matter how inept you are with English. the reason we have a dictionary it to educate stupid people. ya know they make an Ap for your Mobile phone. maybe you should download it

And really? You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that holding the entire government hostage, and possibly irreparably damaging our economy, represent normal "representative government"? By that logic, the creation of the Confederacy and the Civil War could be termed, "That time a bunch of people disagreed."

try reading up on the founding of our government. it almost didn't come into existence because of our "representative government" and it's history for the last 237 years thisbut that would require knowledge of history on your part. so it would seem that English and History were not part of your education process in school. I can understand the ignorance of those subjects while in school. but whats your excuse now?

CUDA wrote:try reading up on the founding of our government. it almost didn't come into existence because of our "representative government" and it's history for the last 237 years thisbut that would require knowledge of history on your part

followed by:.

so it would seem that English and History were not part of your education process in school. I can understand the ignorance of those subjects while in school. but whats your excuse now?

wow!!! Irony overload!!!!

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:try reading up on the founding of our government. it almost didn't come into existence because of our "representative government" and it's history for the last 237 years thisbut that would require knowledge of history on your part

followed by:.

so it would seem that English and History were not part of your education process in school. I can understand the ignorance of those subjects while in school. but whats your excuse now?

wow!!! Irony overload!!!!

PROVE ME WRONG

read the part in red and tell me what the hell that means. It is gibberish,and for you to take ANYONE to task about their grasp on English was ironic, as I noted. Prove you wrong? I can't prove you lucid from attempting to read that mess.