Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

All they have to do is offer "a response". I would laugh my ass off if they just responded with a simple "No." in a manner tha suggested that they didn't even read it. Also, can't you be executed for treason?

At 11/15/12 12:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 11/15/12 12:12 PM, Cootie wrote: Also, can't you be executed for treason?

nope

18 USC 2831

"Whoever; ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death"

However, I don't think seccession falls under treason. Sounds more like it falls under rebellion or insurrection which does not have the death penalty.

None of these petitions actually represent a significant populace of each State. Fuck, almost none of these petitions were actually submitted by people of the aforementioned state.

Butthurt Republicans: Try again.

At 11/15/12 02:03 PM, BarryLyndonIII wrote: None of these petitions actually represent a significant populace of each State. Fuck, almost none of these petitions were actually submitted by people of the aforementioned state.

Butthurt Republicans: Try again.

Another thing I find amusing. The Dems keep saying it's just butthurt Republicans. Kinda hypocritical for them to say that considering they threw the same temper tantrum when Gore lost to Bush 12 years ago.

At 11/15/12 07:18 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yeah but alot of treason cases now a days would result in Life in prison.

Or a drone strike if you're in, for example, Yemen.

At 11/15/12 07:38 PM, Feoric wrote: Or a drone strike if you're in, for example, Yemen.

Treason is a civilian, or at least courts martial, term. The drone strikes are methods of combat.

Apples and Bricks.

At 11/15/12 07:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: source? unless thats sarcasm its kinda hard to tell.

It's not.

At 11/15/12 07:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Treason is a civilian, or at least courts martial, term. The drone strikes are methods of combat.

Apples and Bricks.

That's my point.

At 11/15/12 01:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
18 USC 2831

"Whoever; ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death"

However, I don't think seccession falls under treason. Sounds more like it falls under rebellion or insurrection which does not have the death penalty.

not even, its non violent protest= first amendment.

At 11/15/12 09:07 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Anwar al-Aulaqi was a leader in Al Qaeda recruiting. he was targeted for termination.

He was also a U.S. citizen.

At 11/15/12 09:16 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/15/12 09:07 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Anwar al-Aulaqi was a leader in Al Qaeda recruiting. he was targeted for termination.

He was also a U.S. citizen.

One's citizenship does not matter when differentiating between enemy cobatants.

At 11/15/12 09:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: One's citizenship does not matter when differentiating between enemy cobatants.

He wasn't a combatant, though.

In which country did he get naturalization? What foreign state did he take an oath to? Which country's armed forces did he join engaged in hostilities against the USA? Which country did he get a job with?

Is Al-Qaeda an answer for any of them, or is it Yemen? "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" isn't a government, it's not a gang, it's not a country. He was a citizen killed by our military who didn't even charge him with anything.

So, fine, you think the guy masterminded several terrorist attacks. So did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - except we we captured him and we're still trying to figure out how to try him.

At 11/15/12 09:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/15/12 09:16 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/15/12 09:07 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Anwar al-Aulaqi was a leader in Al Qaeda recruiting. he was targeted for termination.

He was also a U.S. citizen.

One's citizenship does not matter when differentiating between enemy cobatants.

So called "enemy combatants" is an arbitrary ideal when you consider "Secular Ethics" :-)

If Texas did secede and the President wanted to call it treason he very likely could. Secession of a state is similar in character though not in degree to the secession of an individual; the sub-legal entity refuses to recognize the authority/validity/legitimacy of the super-legal entity and so 'declares itself' independent.

The declaration of separation from the super-entity is of importance only in a legal and symbolic sense [though symbolism has a powerful affect on the consciousness and thus action of individuals]. What matters IN FACT is that the sub-entity, the Lonestar Republic in this case, rejects the authority of US Federal law, and above all, US Federal Taxation over them.

I regard the sovereignty of the US Federal government with the same view a regular person holds the sovereignty of rule of MacDonalds; none whatsoever. But a person could look at what Texas' secession would do to federal Tax funds and regard their secession as a fiscal attack upon them, and would thus constitute treason.

I doubt Obama would call it treason in public; that kind of rhetoric would merely vindicate the secession. But he probably could if he wanted to.

I sometimes chuckle at stuck-up-progressives who say "Go ahead and secede Texas, we don't want you anyway", that kind of thinking, if accepted, would undermine their entire national vision.

Secession a media stunt LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2BACRIcXGg&feature=g-u-u

At 11/16/12 07:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Secession a media stunt LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2BACRIcXGg&feature=g-u-u

wonder why the MSM would risk giving everyone the idea that they can Succeed their way out of shit creek, when its main goal is to keep people believing they aren't in it to begin with?

At 11/18/12 02:21 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 11/16/12 07:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Secession a media stunt LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2BACRIcXGg&feature=g-u-u

wonder why the MSM would risk giving everyone the idea that they can Succeed their way out of shit creek,

First you have to ask Obama's permission to leave the Union of the USA which he cannot do because he would need to rewrite parts of the constitution and he will not do that even if he could as it's makes no sense for him to do so. MSNBC is all about profit and they will sell you guy's on anything no matter how true, false or controversial as the bottom line is maxing profit.

when its main goal is to keep people believing they aren't in it to begin with?

MSNBC is all about profit and they will sell you guy's on anything no matter how true, false or controversial as the bottom line is maxing profit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga7j39Yk1vo&feature=plcp

Dang, I have seen a lot of movies lately that have relevance to what we're talking about in the forums. I couldn't help but be reminded of "Lincoln" although oddly enough, that movie was more about freeing the slaves instead of preserving the Union, which is actually what Lincoln was more concerned about. At least we don't have a big moral issue hanging in the balance like that, unless those states are angry about gay marriage, which is actually probably true.

At 11/18/12 10:17 AM, Ericho wrote: that movie was more about freeing the slaves instead of preserving the Union, which is actually what Lincoln was more concerned about.

I've read that Lincoln was very reluctant to free the slaves and only did so as a political boost for the Civil War.

At 11/18/12 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I've read that Lincoln was very reluctant to free the slaves and only did so as a political boost for the Civil War.

From what I've been able to gather, he was morally opposed to slavery, as Washington and Jefferson were, but very much like them, was unsure how to handle it. He knew that no matter what he did, it was going to cause a huge problem, so he avoided it until he couldn't any longer.

At 11/15/12 07:16 PM, wildfire4461 wrote:

At 11/15/12 02:03 PM, BarryLyndonIII wrote: None of these petitions actually represent a significant populace of each State. Fuck, almost none of these petitions were actually submitted by people of the aforementioned state.

Butthurt Republicans: Try again.

Another thing I find amusing. The Dems keep saying it's just butthurt Republicans. Kinda hypocritical for them to say that considering they threw the same temper tantrum when Gore lost to Bush 12 years ago.

They had good reason to throw a temper tantrum. The sole reason Bush won is because the Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, decided that Florida's electoral votes didn't count.

On the other hand, the Dems won the popular vote for the Presidency, the Senate and the House.

Try again.

At 11/18/12 04:52 PM, BarryLyndonIII wrote:

They had good reason to throw a temper tantrum. The sole reason Bush won is because the Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, decided that Florida's electoral votes didn't count.

On the other hand, the Dems won the popular vote for the Presidency, the Senate and the House.

Try again.

Sorry. Despite that subsequent recounts showed Bush won those fair and square.

At 11/15/12 02:03 PM, BarryLyndonIII wrote: None of these petitions actually represent a significant populace of each State. Fuck, almost none of these petitions were actually submitted by people of the aforementioned state.

Butthurt Republicans: Try again.

LOL Amen brother... Romney and the Republican Rollerderby are about to steer themselves right off the cliff of mainstream politics...

i'm high on drugs

At 11/26/12 11:46 AM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:

LOL Amen brother... Romney and the Republican Rollerderby are about to steer themselves right off the cliff of mainstream politics...

i'm high on drugs

No, it's democrat lies doing that. And the democrat eating it up like sheep. So far this week alone, I've heard that Romney was a Grand Wizard in the KKK, and the Obama has bombed ZERO countries.

People eat up this "Obama's a peace loving, economic genius", and it's fine with me. They will dominate politics for a while, the republicans are going to have to lean even FURTHER toward the left. The parties will merge, and then a real conservative, equal rights, economic freedom party can get mainstream attention.

At 11/18/12 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/18/12 10:17 AM, Ericho wrote: that movie was more about freeing the slaves instead of preserving the Union, which is actually what Lincoln was more concerned about.

I've read that Lincoln was very reluctant to free the slaves and only did so as a political boost for the Civil War.

And you would be correct. Lincoln adhered to a view that was common among many Americans that while slavery was a moral evil there was a serious problem about having free blacks live among whites, his idea was to deport them to a free colony in Africa, and by modern standards his views about the races would constitute as being racist; [his sins are forgiven for having emancipated the slaves out of expediency]

I actually think a separate State, perhaps an independent country either within or without the US, where emancipated slaves would be subsidized to immigrate to, would probably have saved the US a great deal of trouble. Of course America's civil rights legacy is of MLK, not Malcom X.

But a Hollywood film about a political figure like Lincoln is not going to be anything other than an exercise in Hagiography, it can't afford not to be.