• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi Tells Illegal Immigrants That Work Site Raids are Un-American

LaMidRighter said:
Actually it could be construed treason in this case because of the nature of the statements, it's too serious of a charge to apply for this particular stupid un-american statement IMO but a political opponent with a creative side and good grasp of semantics could have a chance of making a treason charge stick against Pelosi.
Click to expand...

I just think it's a term that gets thrown around too much. Terrorist is another one. Hyper-partisan people somehow feel justified in assigning these terms to people simply because they don't agree with them. Both sides are guilty of this. I'm not going to stop pointing out the absurdity of this.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I just think it's a term that gets thrown around too much. Terrorist is another one. Hyper-partisan people somehow feel justified in assigning these terms to people simply because they don't agree with them. Both sides are guilty of this. I'm not going to stop pointing out the absurdity of this.
Click to expand...




"hyper-partisan" is another one thrown around too much. Just sayin... :2wave:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
"hyper-partisan" is another one thrown around too much. Just sayin... :2wave:
Click to expand...

It's a word thrown around this forum too much, I agree. The words "treason" and "terrorist" are overused on a far larger scale than "hyper-partisan". While it is an overused term I think it's pretty apt and certainly not as serious of a charge to make as "treason" or "terrorist".
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
"hyper-partisan" is another one thrown around too much. Just sayin... :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yep.

I'm a partisan, but it seems holding clear, consistent Conservative values and trying to unpartisanize the opposition from their nice intentions but flawed logic makes you "hyper-hyper."

Same goes with having fun with the wackos in their party to try and illustrate what they're linked to.

YouTube - Scooter - Hyper Hyper
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, bull. Carceration is a maximally effective deterrent.
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's effective only on certain types of individuals, but in general is almost completely ineffective. Look up the word "recidivism" and let's revisit what effect incarceration has on deterring criminal activity. People decide to obey the law because they are lawful, not so much because they don't want to go to jail. People who commit crime have already determined that jail is worth the risk.

Make the employment of more than five illegal aliens a felony and start putting their employers in the federal penitentiary.
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty easy. Determining who is actually responsible might be a bit difficult.

That'll deter the crap out of the illegal alien business.
Click to expand...
Hefty fines would have the same effect and not cost nearly as much as incarcerating people. The problem as it stands is that there are no real consequences because we aren't enforcing the laws we already have. Besides if your theory were true, you would see much less white collar crime, and that is what this is when it comes to hiring illegals. People who are intent on committing crime will not focus on the incarceration part, they will focus on how to not get caught.
 
Hyper partisan is a very apt term when applied to people like zimmer and TD for example. I don't mind that they hold "consistent conservative values," it's their blind allegiance to the mantra that all things liberal are automatically bad and their constant caterwauling and gross categorization of "democrats" and "liberals." It's ignorant. The same can be said for certain posters on the left.

There are posters on this forum that you know are true blue conservatives but don't frequently engage in making broad and sweeping comments in which they lump all people of a particular political persuasion together just because.

Hyper partisan works.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Yep.

I'm a partisan, but it seems holding clear, consistent Conservative values and trying to unpartisanize the opposition from their nice intentions but flawed logic makes you "hyper-hyper."

Same goes with having fun with the wackos in their party to try and illustrate what they're linked to.

YouTube - Scooter - Hyper Hyper
Click to expand...

This is a prime example of your hyper partisanship seeping through. Guilt by association at all costs, if you are liberal you are wrong, no matter to what degree you are liberal. The term fits you perfectly.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I just think it's a term that gets thrown around too much. Terrorist is another one. Hyper-partisan people somehow feel justified in assigning these terms to people simply because they don't agree with them. Both sides are guilty of this. I'm not going to stop pointing out the absurdity of this.
Click to expand...
Treason is a specific charge, Pelosi can easily be removed from office according to the constitutional amendment 14, section 2: The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27 From that link
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a violation of her duty as a sworn congresswoman to me. This guy summed it up well Committing Treason, and here is article III, section 3: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 24 of 25 While treason is overused it could be applied to Pelosi's statements relatively easily. As far as terrorists go, if you use terror to get your point across you are a terrorist, many environmental and animal rights groups in the U.S. qualify as much as the Wahabi sects of the middle east. I'm not assigning treason to Pelosi cause I hate her, only because she basically fits the definition this time.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Treason is a specific charge, Pelosi can easily be removed from office according to the constitutional amendment 14, section 2: The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27 From that link
Sounds like a violation of her duty as a sworn congresswoman to me. This guy summed it up well Committing Treason, and here is article III, section 3: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 24 of 25 While treason is overused it could be applied to Pelosi's statements relatively easily. As far as terrorists go, if you use terror to get your point across you are a terrorist, many environmental and animal rights groups in the U.S. qualify as much as the Wahabi sects of the middle east. I'm not assigning treason to Pelosi cause I hate her, only because she basically fits the definition this time.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of Pelosi either, I was just illustrating that I think the term far too often gets thrown around and assigned to people just because one doesn't agree with their political views. That's just stupid to me.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I'm not a big fan of Pelosi either, I was just illustrating that I think the term far too often gets thrown around and assigned to people just because one doesn't agree with their political views. That's just stupid to me.
Click to expand...
I do agree, we need to stop abusing the serious charges, but this time in my opinion someone would have a decent case for impeachment or criminal charges against the house speaker in this particular case.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
But since they have chosen to ignore this nation's laws, their asses should be marched home at bayonet point if necessary, after they've been finger-printed so we can know if they're repeat offenders. Those people can spend a couple years in jail before they go back home.
Click to expand...

Hopefully at hard labor... say, picking crops?
 
dclxvinoise said:
How are liberals deliberately trying to destroy the US?
Click to expand...

You're kidding me, right? It's a joke question?

They're deliberately contravening any and all Constitutional prohibitions against what they're doing....and that means almost all of what they're doing.


dclxvinoise said:
And treason shouldn't be used to describe it because it's a serious charge and it's up to our justice system to dole out treason charges, not hyper partisan people who post on debate forums.
Click to expand...

Since "treason" is the correct word, it's the word that should be used.

Read the First Amendment sometime. It doesn't limit specific words to the government.

Saying they're actions aren't treasonous is like saying the Rosenbergs were good Americans.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You're kidding me, right? It's a joke question?

They're deliberately contravening any and all Constitutional prohibitions against what they're doing....and that means almost all of what they're doing.
Click to expand...

So all liberals are doing this? Do you have any proof to back up this assertion or more partisan rhetoric?

Since "treason" is the correct word, it's the word that should be used.

Read the First Amendment sometime. It doesn't limit specific words to the government.

Saying they're actions aren't treasonous is like saying the Rosenbergs were good Americans.
Click to expand...

I never said that you couldn't say it. I'm saying that it amounts to nothing. Just because you say it's treason doesn't mean it actually is treason and you are not the authority on what is or isn't treason. You are a guy on a debate forum.
 
Lerxst said:
This is a prime example of your hyper partisanship seeping through. Guilt by association at all costs, if you are liberal you are wrong, no matter to what degree you are liberal. The term fits you perfectly.
Click to expand...

I asked where has socialism worked over the long haul.
Using any definition.
Any.

Leftists couldn't defend socialism and then tried to attack me.
They couldn't define it, so they couldn't defend it.

LOL.

It doesn't work, so why support any part of it?
Look at what happened to us from Federal Taxation that was supposed to hit only a fraction of 1%.
That was 1916.
Look at us today.

That's socialism in a nut shell.
Starts small and expands like the Universe after the Big Bang.

Sorry, there's been enough "bang'in".
In direct opposition to the Consitution.
I'm all supported out.

A result of excess bang'in.
 
dclxvinoise said:
So all liberals are doing this? Do you have any proof to back up this assertion or more partisan rhetoric?
Click to expand...

Define "liberals".

If that definition includes any violation of the Constitution, then yes, by your definition of "liberal", they're all doing it.

You can't define "liberal" in it's modern sense without incurring a violation of the Constitution.

dclxvinoise said:
I never said that you couldn't say it.
Click to expand...

Actually, you did.

dclxvinoise said:
I'm saying that it amounts to nothing. Just because you say it's treason doesn't mean it actually is treason and you are not the authority on what is or isn't treason. You are a guy on a debate forum.
Click to expand...

Okay, you don't want your heros and your messiah to be called traitors.

Can you come up with any reason why I should stop speaking the truth just because it's unflattering to your heros and your messiah?
 
zimmer said:
I asked where has socialism worked over the long haul.
Using any definition.
Any.

Leftists couldn't defend socialism and then tried to attack me.
They couldn't define it, so they couldn't defend it.

LOL.

It doesn't work, so why support any part of it?
Look at what happened to us from Federal Taxation that was supposed to hit only a fraction of 1%.
That was 1916.
Look at us today.

That's socialism in a nut shell.
Starts small and expands like the Universe after the Big Bang.

Sorry, there's been enough "bang'in".
In direct opposition to the Consitution.
I'm all supported out.

A result of excess bang'in.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Exactly. What we need are Tax Condoms, so when the fools in the government start spending on a program we don't subscribe to, we don't have to pay taxes on it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah. Exactly. What we need are Tax Condoms, so when the fools in the government start spending on a program we don't subscribe to, we don't have to pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...

As an USA citizen I fully support condom distribution.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Define "liberals".

If that definition includes any violation of the Constitution, then yes, by your definition of "liberal", they're all doing it.

You can't define "liberal" in it's modern sense without incurring a violation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Um...I wasn't aware of the definition of liberal changing. Perhaps your perception has changed or the outspoken liberals in this country have strayed from liberalism as it is defined, but I fail to see how the meaning of a word can change when it is clearly defined the same way that it always has been.

Actually, you did.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. I criticized you for saying it. There's a difference. I have as much right to criticize you as you do to say it.

Okay, you don't want your heros and your messiah to be called traitors.
Click to expand...

You don't know who my heroes are. You don't even know me. All you know is the stereotype that you have about liberals and you think that I, being somewhat liberal, must fit those stereotypes. That's called ignorance.

Can you come up with any reason why I should stop speaking the truth just because it's unflattering to your heros and your messiah?
Click to expand...

Obama isn't my messiah and I never said that you couldn't voice your opinion. Keep trying though. :roll:
 
dclxvinoise said:
Um...I wasn't aware of the definition of liberal changing.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is typical of your kind. Don't let it bother you.

dclxvinoise said:
Perhaps your perception has changed or the outspoken liberals in this country have strayed from liberalism as it is defined, but I fail to see how the meaning of a word can change when it is clearly defined the same way that it always has been.
Click to expand...

You said you weren't aware that it's changed.

That means you're not dealing with a full set of facts, and that means the arguments you draw from your incomplete facts is wrong.

Since you clearly haven't read even the introduction to F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I suggest you stop posting immediately and read that book. Beyond the obvious...it'll tell you the original meaning of the word "liberal", if you read the book it will also tell you you're on the wrong side of the original meaning of the word. So you'll have to make a choice about where you want to be.

Krystal Nacht II is coming soon enough. You'll need to pick sides before then.

dclxvinoise said:
No I didn't. I criticized you for saying it. There's a difference. I have as much right to criticize you as you do to say it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can continue being wrong, and I'll continue telling the truth about what modern liberals are doing to this country, using the word "treason" since that best describes their actions.

dclxvinoise said:
You don't know who my heroes are.
Click to expand...

Let me guess....Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? John Brown? Spartacus? Ayn Rand? No...

....you're a self-professed liberal in America in 2009. That means you admire Karl Marx, Che, Castro, Lenin, Obama, Mao, and all the rest of that ilk.

dclxvinoise said:
You don't even know me. All you know is the stereotype that you have about liberals and you think that I, being somewhat liberal, must fit those stereotypes. That's called ignorance.
Click to expand...

It's called "experience". People who don't fit a certain broad stereotype don't accept slavery in any form, even if others spray perfume on it and call it "liberalism" today.

dclxvinoise said:
Obama isn't my messiah and I never said that you couldn't voice your opinion. Keep trying though. :roll:
Click to expand...

Who is your messiah?
 
Last edited:
That means you admire Karl Marx, Che, Castro, Lenin, Obama, Mao, and all the rest of that ilk.
Click to expand...

F'in hilarious.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your ignorance is typical of your kind. Don't let it bother you.
Click to expand...

Ad-hom.

You said you weren't aware that it's changed.

That means you're not dealing with a full set of facts, and that means the arguments you draw from you incomplete facts is wrong.
Click to expand...

It hasn't changed. The definition is the same as it has always been. If the liberals of today are not of that definition then they aren't liberals. It's as simple as that.

Since you clearly haven't read even the introduction to F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I suggest you stop posting immediately and read that book. Beyond the obvious...it'll tell you the original meaning of the word "liberal", if you read the book it will also tell you you're on the wrong side of the original meaning of the word. So you'll have to make a choice about where you want to be.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'll stick with the dictionary definition. Thanks, though.

Krstal Nacht II is coming soon enough. You'll need to pick sides before then.
Click to expand...

Do you spend a lot of time in the conspiracy theories section?

Yes, you can continue being wrong, and I'll continue telling the truth about what modern liberals are doing to this country, using the word "treason" since that best describes their actions.
Click to expand...

You can say that your opinion is the truth all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's only your own opinion.

Let me guess....Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? John Brown? Spartacus? Ayn Rand? No...

....you're a self-professed liberal in America in 2009. That means you admire Karl Marx, Che, Castro, Lenin, Obama, Mao, and all the rest of that ilk.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you don't even know me. And yet you still try to tell me who my heroes are. The funny thing is that it just makes you look like a partisan hack and nothing more.

It's called "experience". People who don't fit a certain broad stereotype don't accept slavery in any form, even if others spray perfume on it and call it "liberalism" today.
Click to expand...

Life is too complex to be defined by stereotypes.

Who is your messiah?
Click to expand...

I don't have one.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your ignorance is typical of your kind. Don't let it bother you.



You said you weren't aware that it's changed.

That means you're not dealing with a full set of facts, and that means the arguments you draw from your incomplete facts is wrong.

Since you clearly haven't read even the introduction to F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I suggest you stop posting immediately and read that book. Beyond the obvious...it'll tell you the original meaning of the word "liberal", if you read the book it will also tell you you're on the wrong side of the original meaning of the word. So you'll have to make a choice about where you want to be.

Krystal Nacht II is coming soon enough. You'll need to pick sides before then.



Yes, you can continue being wrong, and I'll continue telling the truth about what modern liberals are doing to this country, using the word "treason" since that best describes their actions.



Let me guess....Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? John Brown? Spartacus? Ayn Rand? No...

....you're a self-professed liberal in America in 2009. That means you admire Karl Marx, Che, Castro, Lenin, Obama, Mao, and all the rest of that ilk.



It's called "experience". People who don't fit a certain broad stereotype don't accept slavery in any form, even if others spray perfume on it and call it "liberalism" today.



Who is your messiah?
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl:rofl

You just made the list there homeboy.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I just think it's a term that gets thrown around too much. Terrorist is another one. Hyper-partisan people somehow feel justified in assigning these terms to people simply because they don't agree with them. Both sides are guilty of this. I'm not going to stop pointing out the absurdity of this.
Click to expand...

You are so naive - sometimes the term traitor applies. So often politicians (D's much more often than R's) perform acts of treason when they think it gives them political capital... more power and/or money! They might not even realize how they are bringing down the country that provides their seat of power and often their wealth. It doesn't matter... their acts are still treasonous!

One example that chaps my hide: How many U. S. soldiers do you think were killed in Iraq due to the very much publicized image of Harry Reid stating something to the effect "We have lost the war in Iraq!" Don't you think that Reid's image on CNN in Iraq demoralized our troops and pumped up the enemy... likely resulting in stronger resistance by an enemy who thinks they are winning or at least have a chance... ultimately resulting in the death of U. S. soldiers. This is an example of a treasonous act by Harry Reid for which he will never be held accountable! That bastard! The Democrat party has many such players... Murtha is another prime example of the traitors with a D beside their name!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom