• 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!

Man charged with threatening to kill Cantor and his family

Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

Erod said:
If the federal government grows beyond the intended bounds of the Constitution, all bets are off.
Click to expand...

Which it hasn't. You could pretty much claim anything is an overstep at that point and claim secession is okay when its not. Secession is unamerican.
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

PogueMoran said:
Texas is not an independent state. When they signed the treaty to become a state they had an option whether to be one state or split up into many. They forfeited their own independent sovereignty when they signed the treaty annexing Texas to the United States and the federal government took on all debts from the Republic of Texas. They do not have a right to secede under law. Besides the Civil War very much put an end to that question.
Click to expand...

Edit: They do not have a right to leave the union under the Join Resolution of 1845 that admitted them into the union as a state. To clear things up they were given an option to split into as many as 4 states. The part about taking on debts came from the proposed treaty, however, the actual joint resolution calls for Texas itself to hold all their own public debts.
 
SgtRock said:
Feds: Philly Man Threatened To Kill Cantor In Online Video

Its pretty obvious to me that our democrat politicians are enciting people to violence. Wait a minute, isn't that what liberals are accusing the evil republicans of doing. Dems need to zip it and stop throwing around accusations.
Click to expand...

See below:

Chappy said:
I think this Philadelphia man is if not insane then profoundly wrong and his actions deserve to be condemned.

I don't think Democratic political leaders have incited political violence in their language or in their deeds. And, sad to say, I don't feel the same about many conservative leaders in this country.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is reprehensible to threaten out elected officials. I'm glad he's in custody.

And he is insane, (see below) but that in no way excuses his threats.

Councilman said:
I am interested to find out what connections Norman Leboon, 38, of the 1600 block of Brenner Street, has with any political party.

I also can't wait to hear his explanation, and further what was actually contained in the video.

I hope he goes to trail and there is no plea bargain so we can see if it was something really threatening or can it be seen another way.

At this point we know pretty much nothing.

We know that some of the treat claims are a PONY as Obama brilliant.

We know the Lefties have lied for months about threats and hate speech when all the time 99.9% of hate speech has come from Liberals who have set the stage for all kinds of false flag operations, like Pelosi claiming 70s violence when in fact it was from the left the violence came.

Then there is; "Rock Thrown Through Ohio Dem Rep's Office Window. Reality: Office is on 30th Floor of Cincinnati Skyscraper..."

Can anyone name a person who can throw a rock over 300 feet straight up through a window?

If you know such a person send them to the NY Yankees, they could use a pitcher with that kind of arm.
Click to expand...


I'm sure his threats against Cantor were just as rambling as those he made against Obama (near the end of the video). He doesn't have a very high opinion of Pelosi or Reid either.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdOfwx6I3kQ&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- President Obama you will beg God for life[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

PogueMoran said:
Texas is not an independent state. When they signed the treaty to become a state they had an option whether to be one state or split up into many. They forfeited their own independent sovereignty when they signed the treaty annexing Texas to the United States and the federal government took on all debts from the Republic of Texas. They do not have a right to secede under law. Besides the Civil War very much put an end to that question.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the issue you bring forth has never fully be resolved by the Supreme Court after the civil war in which Texas had to be readmitted to the union. There may not be specific language in the Texas constitution but article one is clear in it's intentions. That said, there is no clear definition or condition in the U.S. constitution in regards to annexation of Texas. This argument has never been resolved, therefor according to the Texas constitution we could take a default position acknowledging this right.
 
Since the Cantor story has been all over the media, that pretty much flushes Sarah Palin's screaching about 'fair and balanced' down the toilet.

I hope they throw the book at anyone who threatens a congressman.
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

deltabtry said:
I disagree, the issue you bring forth has never fully be resolved by the Supreme Court after the civil war in which Texas had to be readmitted to the union. There may not be specific language in the Texas constitution but article one is clear in it's intentions. That said, there is no clear definition or condition in the U.S. constitution in regards to annexation of Texas. This argument has never been resolved, therefor according to the Texas constitution we could take a default position acknowledging this right.
Click to expand...
You can disagree all you like but it doesnt make you correct. Article 1 is very clear in that Texas is subject to the Constitution of the United States. There is no mechanism for secession in the US Constitution. Furthermore the supreme court did address this contrary to what you stated in Texas V White 1869. The supreme court ruled that Texas remained apart of the union since it first joined regardless of it joining the confederacy. The court also held the US Constitution does not permit the states the right to secede. Your argument holds no weight under the US Constitution. Try reading the Joint Resolution of 1845 for better clarity on the annexation of Texas
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

buck said:
Do you think it incites to violence that democrats (including Obama) are accusing insurance companies of willfully causing the death of many people and accusing republicans of being on the side of the insurance companies?

Or when Alan Grayson basically says that the republicans beleive all the sick should just up and die?
Click to expand...

Lack of affordable insurance or denials of treatment by insurance corporations accounted for 45,000 unnecessary deaths in the last year. That's not an "accusation", that's a statement of fact. And yes, Republicans are quite clearly doing the bidding of the insurance corporations, as are some Democrats.

How exactly can anything Rep Grayson has said be twisted into a call for violence? Please quote the exact words and how you arrived at such a completely erroneous conclusion. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

The Uncola said:
Lack of affordable insurance or denials of treatment by insurance corporations accounted for 45,000 unnecessary deaths in the last year. That's not an "accusation", that's a statement of fact. And yes, Republicans are quite clearly doing the bidding of the insurance corporations, as are some Democrats.
Click to expand...

I am sure you mean lack of “affordable health care” has led to the “unnecessary deaths” you describe. I know Obama wants to blame insurance companies, but let’s at least be honest here. There are many reasons health care is as expensive as it is, very few of which will be solved by this bill. Insurance companies are simply following the contracts they have with the client. If the client lies on a contract and that lie is material to the issuance of that contract, the contract is void. It’s really simple contract law. It’s fine to pass legislation outlawing that, but that will only lead to higher insurance premiums. So, you’re main complaint will not be solved. I don’t believe you really expect insurance companies to add all these benefits (no pre-ex denials, no recissions, cover “kids” long after they are adults) and not have to charge more premium just to break even.


The Uncola said:
How exactly can anything Rep Grayson has said be twisted into a call for violence? Please quote the exact words and how you arrived at such a completely erroneous conclusion. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Because there is a certain segment of the population that will take to heart Grayson's statement that republicans want the sick to die. There are people that will take to heart Obama’s suggestion that insurance companies are evil and extend it to republicans (like you did). There are people that will essentially begin a lynch mob to go after bank executives that receive bonuses they are legally entitled to enflamed by statements of certain democrats. The executives were so fearful for their lives that many had to buy guns for self defense.
 
In a recent speech in Philadelphia President Obama said the Dems should bring a gun to a knife fight in regards to health care legislation. I wonder if this left wingnut from Phili, Norman Leboon took the presidents words to heart?

Was the president inciting people to violence?
 
Last edited:
SgtRock said:
In a recent speech in Philadelphia President Obama said the Dems should bring a gun to a knife fight in regards to health care legislation. I wonder if this left wingnut from Phili, Norman Leboon took the presidents words to heart?

Was the president inciting people to violence?
Click to expand...
Bringing a gun to a knife fight is a common expression. It doesnt mean what you try to pait as. As for Norman Leboon being a lefty he also threatened President Obama in his videos.

Norman Leboon, a Threatening Kind of Guy The Washington Independent

Besides Obama and Cantor he threatened movie studios over the movie Babe. He threatened Federal Judges and David Duke. There doesnt seem to be much rhyme or reason to his rants.
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

PogueMoran said:
Really you need that one answered for you? I could remember one of the bloodiest events of our history had to do with secession.

Secession is an unamerican concept.
Click to expand...


LOL.

The states seceeded. Then the federal Union government came down and started some **** acting like they still owned these states. Then they fought for their independence and lost.

So, how is secession violent?
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

Caine said:
LOL.

The states seceeded. Then the federal Union government came down and started some **** acting like they still owned these states. Then they fought for their independence and lost.

So, how is secession violent?
Click to expand...
Oh I get it you're of the belief that the civil war was the North's war of aggression. The states never had a right to secede under our constitution. The federal union didnt come down and started ****. The confederates attacked fort sumter which was under federal control. Secession led to violence. What is American about seceding from America?
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

PogueMoran said:
Oh I get it you're of the belief that the civil war was the North's war of aggression. The states never had a right to secede under our constitution. The federal union didnt come down and started ****. The confederates attacked fort sumter which was under federal control. Secession led to violence. What is American about seceding from America?
Click to expand...


Quote me where I stated it is American to secede and maybe you would have a point.

There is nothing inherently violent about seceding, that is my point.

You claim that the suggestion of seceding is violent because of the example of the civil war.


So by your logic, It is violent to wear red because of street gang violence associated with that color.
 
PogueMoran said:
Bringing a gun to a knife fight is a common expression. It doesnt mean what you try to pait as. As for Norman Leboon being a lefty he also threatened President Obama in his videos.

Norman Leboon, a Threatening Kind of Guy The Washington Independent

Besides Obama and Cantor he threatened movie studios over the movie Babe. He threatened Federal Judges and David Duke. There doesnt seem to be much rhyme or reason to his rants.
Click to expand...

So then the guy is clearly a nut? Well I am glad whatever he was planning he wasn't able to fulfill and that he rest safely behind bars for a while.
 
soccerboy22 said:
So then the guy is clearly a nut? Well I am glad whatever he was planning he wasn't able to fulfill and that he rest safely behind bars for a while.
Click to expand...

This guy who treatened CANTOR was a bonified whack job and it does not appear at all that he was acting from partisan reasons since he did indeed threaten both BO and Cantor. Of course this guy is a very bad apple and needs to be put away for life but CANTOR , the Tea Bobs , CANTOR appllogists cannot call this partisan or balme the Democrats for this nut job.
 
Last edited:
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

DarkWizard12 said:
how did you get that?

No, he's under the impression that democrats are grandstanding hypocrites for saying that republicans are inciting people to violence, when republicans are getting threatened as well.
Click to expand...

Some place along the line, when young, spankings should have been administered to the liars on this forum... Politics are filthy, both sides cannot be proud of what they do..
This is a case of a man pulling a criminal act, his politics have nothing to do with this....
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

earthworm said:
Some place along the line, when young, spankings should have been administered to the liars on this forum... Politics are filthy, both sides cannot be proud of what they do..
This is a case of a man pulling a criminal act, his politics have nothing to do with this....
Click to expand...

It's like an addiction. Once you figure out how much politics plays into your own life, you either go one of two directions: digging into it deeper to find the corruption, or ignoring it by pretending nothing bad will happen if you just keep thinking happy thoughts. Most people go the happy thoughts route, and I don't blame them... but it's too late for me. I've paid to close attention to what Obama is doing to this country, I wish I could just turn it off and make the tax and debt increases stop...
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

PogueMoran said:
You can disagree all you like but it doesnt make you correct. Article 1 is very clear in that Texas is subject to the Constitution of the United States. There is no mechanism for secession in the US Constitution. Furthermore the supreme court did address this contrary to what you stated in Texas V White 1869. The supreme court ruled that Texas remained apart of the union since it first joined regardless of it joining the confederacy. The court also held the US Constitution does not permit the states the right to secede. Your argument holds no weight under the US Constitution. Try reading the Joint Resolution of 1845 for better clarity on the annexation of Texas
Click to expand...
Well I am not claiming to be correct or incorrect it's unresolved, but what I am saying is that it can be argued and it could go either way. None the less if the federal government violates the 10th amendment, in a sense this would be a breach of contract and that being the constitution. Thus far this issue has never been resolved, therefor the Texas constitution could be used to secede. I am also aware the U.S. constitution does not permit states to secede but like I mention in regards to Texas it has never been completely resolved. The ruling of 1869 take precedence over the 1845 decision...IMO
All in all my main point being is that there is maneuvering room for Texas to pursue this, although this would never happen unless the federal government goes extreme and completely goes off the cliff. Rattling the saber is healthy from time to time to remind the federal government of it's duty and obligations to the constitution.

BTW I am not saying your wrong either, I just believe with some certainty that this case could be made if the federal government continues down the path it is currently traveling.
 
Last edited:
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

deltabtry said:
Well I am not claiming to be correct or incorrect it's unresolved, but what I am saying is that it can be argued and it could go either way. None the less if the federal government violates the 10th amendment, in a sense this would be a breach of contract and that being the constitution. Thus far this issue has never been resolved, therefor the Texas constitution could be used to secede. I am also aware the U.S. constitution does not permit states to secede but like I mention in regards to Texas it has never been completely resolved. The ruling of 1869 take precedence over the 1845 decision...IMO
All in all my main point being is that there is maneuvering room for Texas to pursue this, although this would never happen unless the federal government goes extreme and completely goes off the cliff. Rattling the saber is healthy from time to time to remind the federal government of it's duty and obligations to the constitution.

BTW I am not saying your wrong either, I just believe with some certainty that this case could be made if the federal government continues down the path it is currently traveling.
Click to expand...
Youre not making any sense. You're saying it hasnt been resolved and yet it was resolved under the supreme court ruling. The Texas constitution states that it is subject to the US Constitution and the US Constitution has no mechanism for secession. Texas has no right to secede, it is not possible under the joint resolution that congress passed in 1845 making them a state and is not possible under the constitution. If the 10th was indeed violated they could take it up in the courts but that still gives them no right to secede.

You are incorrect in saying it wasnt resolved as it has been resolved no state has the right to secession.
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

Caine said:
Quote me where I stated it is American to secede and maybe you would have a point.

There is nothing inherently violent about seceding, that is my point.

You claim that the suggestion of seceding is violent because of the example of the civil war.


So by your logic, It is violent to wear red because of street gang violence associated with that color.
Click to expand...
Incorrect assumption. Secession lead to civil war the color red doesnt necessarily lead to gang violence. Besides its beyond talking about secession when you have right wing squawkers on the radio talking about an armed revolution.
 
Last edited:
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

PogueMoran said:
Incorrect assumption. Secession lead to civil war the color red doesnt necessarily lead to gang violence. Besides its beyond talking about secession when you have right wing squawkers on the radio talking about an armed revolution.
Click to expand...

Those guys are morons.

The only reason why secession would lead to violence is on the behalf of the group that was seceeded FROM. Not the group Seceeding.
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

PogueMoran said:
Youre not making any sense. You're saying it hasnt been resolved and yet it was resolved under the supreme court ruling. The Texas constitution states that it is subject to the US Constitution and the US Constitution has no mechanism for secession. Texas has no right to secede, it is not possible under the joint resolution that congress passed in 1845 making them a state and is not possible under the constitution. If the 10th was indeed violated they could take it up in the courts but that still gives them no right to secede.

You are incorrect in saying it wasnt resolved as it has been resolved no state has the right to secession.
Click to expand...
You are correct but after the civil war Texas had to be readmitted to the Union, meaning it was no longer part of the union. This is what the argument would be.
 
Re: Feds: Philly Man Threatened GOP Leader

deltabtry said:
You are correct but after the civil war Texas had to be readmitted to the Union, meaning it was no longer part of the union. This is what the argument would be.
Click to expand...

There is no argument. Read Texas Vs White this was settled in that case. What in your mind would constitute this issue being resolved?

Texas was readmitted under the original agreement as if they never left the union. They never had a lawful right to leave
 
Last edited:
HUH? Have you read about what the kooky right wingers are doing?
:shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom