He's a traitor to human-kind, but he's a nationalist pig, through and through. So, it depends... Are you a human, or are you a nationalist? Because he hasn't betrayed one of those groups.
Thank you, Harvey. Your frankness is refreshing.
I believe that Obama is a traitor. In my view, he is in opposition to a fundamental duty he faces as President, the defense of the Constitution of the United States of America. Recent weeks have indicated a slide off that stance to a more right leaning position.
That said, I too believe that my current evidence would not rise to the level of treason.
Conjecture is an interesting word. Perhaps we could agree that accusing each others candidate and party of traitorous acts is nothing more that a couple of internet blowhards trying to one up each other with insults.
BTW, do you have all that crap you posted on a macro?
Look, I have given you a link to a major news source. Quick and dirty to back up my position. I?m sitting here on a Sunday night, sipping a few rum and cokes and surfing the net.
I?m not preparing for trial here, son.
Take the sources you find at WND and track them down. Don?t accept the conventional wisdom, spouted here, that WND is all BS. Why not do it and give us an honest report back?
I told you I would call you on bullshit. That's what your post is. I enumerated the reasons I believe the Bushwhackos are guilty of treason, and I related them to several established definitions of the word. Conversely, you gave us nothing but an opinion unsupported by any facts or even statements of exactly which acts Obama has committed that you believe constitute treason. Furthermore, I specifically warned you that quoting from aluminum foil beanie sources like World Net Daily don't pass the < sniff > test around here.
In another thread, you characterized yourself as "a highly disciplined and knowledgeable Conservative." You have a long way to go to convince anyone of that. :roll:
Funny you should ask for two reasons:
1. You bet I do. Actually, I use relevant portions of saved versions of my previous posts. They take a long time to write, especially with the links and formatting, and they happen to be true so I'm not going to rewrite the same information from scratch to reply to the same bullshit. However, when I use them, I edit them to address the specific post(s) to which I'm replying.
2. You just raised my sense that you have posted on AT under a previous account because the only people, here, who refer to my posts are those who try to demean their value by referring to them as "macros."
If you were wondering what others meant by posting, WWYBYWB, it stands for Who Were You Before You Were Banned?
Of course, if you are a previously banned member, you already know that. :Q
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
He said the Warren Court wasn't as radical as the rightists of the day (John Birch Society, etc.) said it was, because it didn't make a major reinterpretation of the Constitution. He said that the Civil Rights movement was too focused on trying to get changes through Court Action, rather than through Legislative Action, and that community organizers of the day didn't push hard enough for "redistributive change". I don't see anywhere he said the Constitution "is not sufficient".
You're making the classic Ditto-Head error of listening to what El Rushbo tells you he meant rather than listening to what he actually said, and reading the words put into his mouth by the overlay on a heavily edited recording of a radio show he once appeared on. You, poor Julius, have fallen victim to the Straw Man Argument (one of Limbaugh's specialties). I hoped for better from you.
Harvey,
We have admitted into evidence your stipulation that your whole case is based on conjecture.
You then go on to throw in a bunch of macroed documentation to create the illusion of a well thought out case.
Conjecture won?t cut it (neither will voluminous documentation that won?t be let in) in my court room. My ruling is final.
Is that arbitrary? You betcha. It?s my thread.
We have admitted into evidence your stipulation that your whole case is based on conjecture.
You then go on to throw in a bunch of macroed documentation to create the illusion of a well thought out case.
Conjecture won?t cut it (neither will voluminous documentation that won?t be let in) in my court room. My ruling is final.
Is that arbitrary? You betcha. It?s my thread.
CallMeJoe,
Pay attention here, buddy. Everyone is agreeing that our accusations, while not without merit, won?t rise to the level to convict?
For Christ sakes (no that?s not blasphemy, I am licensed and authorized to use the name for power) you people (Ross Perot) need to keep your eye on the ball here.
This isn?t a court room, son.
Read the terms of service for this forum. I must have had a lapse of judgment agreeing to let some second rate arbitrator monitoring these boards hold sway over my conduct.
The point is, this is a conversation. If you want judicial standards, count me out.
Pay attention here, buddy. Everyone is agreeing that our accusations, while not without merit, won?t rise to the level to convict?
For Christ sakes (no that?s not blasphemy, I am licensed and authorized to use the name for power) you people (Ross Perot) need to keep your eye on the ball here.
This isn?t a court room, son.
Read the terms of service for this forum. I must have had a lapse of judgment agreeing to let some second rate arbitrator monitoring these boards hold sway over my conduct.
The point is, this is a conversation. If you want judicial standards, count me out.
Are you reading challenged? My "case" is most definitely NOT based on conjecture. I specifically named the acts committed by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang that I believe constitute grounds for charging them with treason. The only thing I said was "conjectural" was whether they would be convicted of the crime in a U.S. court of law. That's because I dropped out of law school after a year so I can't claim to know how it would be resolved in an actual trial.
However, I do understand legal concepts, and I have often discussed the matter with a number of friends who are practicing attorneys and with one of my sisters who is a sitting judge on the California State Appellate Court and who previously taught Constitutional law.
Sorry, but your thread or not, your "ruling" is utter bullshit. :roll:
Hey Harv,
I?ve got to break this to you gently.
This body is the judicial laughing stock of the Nation. (Libs and Conservatives) Not a good make weight.
I don?t like your guy. He?s a traitor.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
In what manner?
Come on, Outrage Julius - offer a more compelling argument than the quivering lipping of a teary eyed child you've given so far...
I think I?m going to like this forum.
There are a lot of good, challenging minds, completely devoid of Wisdom.
Fertile ground to begin the process of bringing minds (full of mush) to a good solid footing.
There are a lot of good, challenging minds, completely devoid of Wisdom.
Fertile ground to begin the process of bringing minds (full of mush) to a good solid footing.
In regards to the OP, I do believe that GWB is a traitor. He has sold this country out and has attempted to destroy it. I hope that he is tried in a court, be it US or international, and sentenced to death via public hanging followed by deportation of the entire Bush family. This will send a clear message to future Presidents that they will pay the ultimate price if they try to destroy the country. Furthermore, it will rid the US of the plague of the GWB bloodline and save us from any future Bush who may have political aspirations.
Julius Shark, I believe that my post largely explains what I believe. GWB has tried to destroy this country and we should punish him for his actions. We need to show aspiring politicians/Presidents that they cannot destroy the country without facing any consequences. We, the People, will deliver their execution if they dare to betray us.
What part of my post do you not understand?
What part of my post do you not understand?
I hate to break this to you, and I won't bother being gentle about it. When you refer to "the judicial laughing stock of the Nation," if you're referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, you seriously don't know your ass from the proverbial hole in the ground for at least a couple of reasons:
1. No matter what you think of the Ninth Circuit, they are practicing judges. You were far more credible when you admitted you weren't qualified to make such judgments and said:
I'll take that as an admission that you're not qualified to consider them "judicial laughing stock of the Nation."
2. This is my sister. She doesn't sit on the Federal bench, and she doesn't sit on regular criminal court cases. She is an appelate judge on the State Bar Court, dealing specifically with crimes committed by judges and attorneys. She is a Constitutional scholar who spent her early career as a First Amendment specialist for many major newspapers and taught legal ethics at the Law School of the University of San Francisco.
So now, we're back to your lame ass, unsupported assertion with no facts and no law to back it. As they say in your Traitor In Chief's home turf, you're all hat and no cattle.
Go home and practice. :laugh:
CallMeJoe,
Facts are useful, in some instances. Facts are changeable, Wisdom is unchangeable.
You want me to try logic? Logic is a form of philosophy, not much better than a Liberal view of the World.
I?ll continue to live my life through Wisdom.
It?s a better way to go.
To the rest of you,
My Conservative friends, (where are you) God bless.
You other turds - I'll deal with tomorrow.
I'm going to bed.
Facts are useful, in some instances. Facts are changeable, Wisdom is unchangeable.
You want me to try logic? Logic is a form of philosophy, not much better than a Liberal view of the World.
I?ll continue to live my life through Wisdom.
It?s a better way to go.
To the rest of you,
My Conservative friends, (where are you) God bless.
You other turds - I'll deal with tomorrow.
I'm going to bed.
I think that your argument would be laughable if you didn't sincerely believe it.
from the WND article you linked and obviously didn't read in full:
I wouldn't be surprised that Obama does believe in some form of redistribution of wealth, but he was making the case that the Warren Court WASN'T radical because it didn't try to radically change the constitution. I'm sure Obama would've agreed that the Roe vs. Wade decision, which upheld the right to an abortion based on finding a "right to privacy" theory, was 'radical' in contrast.
Even IF Obama did believe in redistribution of wealth, I fail to see how that makes Obama a traitor. Opposing/different views, no matter how offensive, do not make one a traitor, much less amount to treason. And even if Obama believes in a viewpoint not supported by the Constitution, how does that make him betray trust or be false to an obligation? In the absence of a concrete action such as handing over classified information to a sworn enemy, cherry-picking beliefs as evidence of 'treason' thankfully isn't punishable....
from the WND article you linked and obviously didn't read in full:
I wouldn't be surprised that Obama does believe in some form of redistribution of wealth, but he was making the case that the Warren Court WASN'T radical because it didn't try to radically change the constitution. I'm sure Obama would've agreed that the Roe vs. Wade decision, which upheld the right to an abortion based on finding a "right to privacy" theory, was 'radical' in contrast.
Even IF Obama did believe in redistribution of wealth, I fail to see how that makes Obama a traitor. Opposing/different views, no matter how offensive, do not make one a traitor, much less amount to treason. And even if Obama believes in a viewpoint not supported by the Constitution, how does that make him betray trust or be false to an obligation? In the absence of a concrete action such as handing over classified information to a sworn enemy, cherry-picking beliefs as evidence of 'treason' thankfully isn't punishable....
I agree with you to some degree. But Those who have Wisdom and true Belief would condemn GWB to Death. You are a non-believer, sent to this forum to try to corrupt us. We will not be fooled.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Facts are facts. At any given time, they are immutable. The applicability of facts may change with respect to a given situation as conditions change.
Wisdom is in fact mutable. Wisdom is determining what is fact and what is not and correctly applying the facts to the situation.
You've failed at both philolsophy and logic.
For a change??? You have to start before you can "continue." :roll:
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter