The Republican Thread

[farmteam]

I see no reason for Naser Abdo to live to see 2012.

 

Wait, what? No attack was carried out. This was stopped before it happened. I don't think you can receive a death sentence for merely attempting to do something, even the murdering of US citizens/servicemen.

 

On a related note, does this legally constitute a treasonous act, or is there some "intent to commit treason" law this would fall under?

[southsider2k5]

Wait, what? No attack was carried out. This was stopped before it happened. I don't think you can receive a death sentence for merely attempting to do something, even the murdering of US citizens/servicemen.

 

On a related note, does this legally constitute a treasonous act, or is there some "intent to commit treason" law this would fall under?

 

I believe attempting treason, is still treason.

[StrangeSox]

Is treason clearly defined anywhere?

[Balta1701]

Is treason clearly defined anywhere?

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "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." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

[NorthSideSox72]

president Obumble has really done a terrible job in his leadership role during this whole debt ceiling debacle.

 

has he even put together any type of plan?

He pushed multiple compromise plans. The one I liked, a couple weeks ago now, was a $4T deficit cut over 10 years, but must includde re-tooling the tax structure, removing a lot of breaks/credits, and getting rid of some of the Bush tax cuts. Funny thing was, both parties balked at it.

 

[Y2HH]

He pushed multiple compromise plans. The one I liked, a couple weeks ago now, was a $4T deficit cut over 10 years, but must includde re-tooling the tax structure, removing a lot of breaks/credits, and getting rid of some of the Bush tax cuts. Funny thing was, both parties balked at it.

 

Yea, this is the one I liked too.

 

Something strange is going on here on Soxtalk politics when we start agreeing more and more.

[mr_genius]

He pushed multiple compromise plans. The one I liked, a couple weeks ago now, was a $4T deficit cut over 10 years, but must includde re-tooling the tax structure, removing a lot of breaks/credits, and getting rid of some of the Bush tax cuts. Funny thing was, both parties balked at it.

 

Did he actually come out with a plan? Maybe he did and I didn't notice.

 

Anyways, I think some re-tooling of the tax structure, as you put it, would be a fine as long as the spending cuts are legit.

[Rex Kickass]

Did he actually come out with a plan? Maybe he did and I didn't notice.

 

Anyways, I think some re-tooling of the tax structure, as you put it, would be a fine as long as the spending cuts are legit.

 

Perhaps you missed the last month of negotiations with the Speaker of the House, Majority Whip and Senate Majority and Minority leaders. Just because he doesn't submit a plan to you in writing, it doesn't mean there hasn't been one. Congress has the sole authority to raise the debt limit, not the President. He's also endorsed at least three separate plans for passing a procedural vote.

[mr_genius]

Perhaps you missed the last month of negotiations with the Speaker of the House, Majority Whip and Senate Majority and Minority leaders. Just because he doesn't submit a plan to you in writing, it doesn't mean there hasn't been one. Congress has the sole authority to raise the debt limit, not the President. He's also endorsed at least three separate plans for passing a procedural vote.

 

basically, he is not leading. got it.

[bigruss]

basically, he is not leading. got it.

Nobody is, it's a clusterf***.

 

And shouldn't conservatives not want the President to lead this? A) He's a democrat B) The Senate has this power, so it would mean the President is taking on more power by doing so.

 

So basically, he's doing what Republicans should want him doing. Staying out of most of it but endorsing deals that he thinks are best.

Edited July 29, 2011 by bigruss22

[Balta1701]

So basically, he's doing what Republicans should want him doing. Staying out of most of it but endorsing deals that he thinks are best.

Of course, every time he endorses a deal, his endorsement immediately kills any chance of the House voting for it.

[EvilMonkey]

Of course, every time he endorses a deal, his endorsement immediately kills any chance of the House voting for it.

Kinda like the Senate Dems saying they will vote against a bill that hasnt even reached them yet for them to read because it will come from the Republicans in the House? Yup.

[StrangeSox]

Kinda like the Senate Dems saying they will vote against a bill that hasnt even reached them yet for them to read because it will come from the Republicans in the House? Yup.

 

No, not like that at all.

[Y2HH]

No, not like that at all.

 

It's not quite the same, but equally ignorant.

 

Then again, it's also a foregone conclusion that any bill from either side will favor themselves and the other side will balk anyway.

[StrangeSox]

It's not quite the same, but equally ignorant.

 

Then again, it's also a foregone conclusion that any bill from either side will favor themselves and the other side will balk anyway.

 

It's pretty hard to argue that Reid's plan really favors any sort of Democrat party platform or ideology beyond "it's not quite as terrible as Boehner's bill." I also don't see why it's ignorant to say they're not going to pass a short-term measure that will mean a repeat of the same fight in a few months but with bigger stakes.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...is_is_mine.html

 

lol, classic:

 

"Obvious what is being done in the House is not compromise. It is being jammed through with all kinds of non-transparent dealings, people shuffling in and out of the Republican Leader's office. We're recognizing that the only compromise that there is, is mine," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said.

[Y2HH]

It's pretty hard to argue that Reid's plan really favors any sort of Democrat party platform or ideology beyond "it's not quite as terrible as Boehner's bill." I also don't see why it's ignorant to say they're not going to pass a short-term measure that will mean a repeat of the same fight in a few months but with bigger stakes.

 

It's ignorant to say they won't pass a bill they haven't read, even if they *anticipate* it won't be what they're looking for. Read it first, if it's not, THEN veto it/don't pass it. But don't say you're going to vote no on something you haven't yet read.

 

Then again, this sort of behavior doesn't surprise me since they pass or veto bills they've never read all the time now...as a matter of fact, I don't think anyone reads them anymore...they just vote yes or no ... well, because.

 

This entire mentality, IMO, is ignorant...thus why the entire f***ing government is ignorant.

[StrangeSox]

They know it'll have a short-term patch and another vote in a few months as well as mandating a vote on a balanced budget amendment. Even at the general level, those make the bill DOA in the Senate because they're viewed (correctly, imo) as substantially bad policy. You don't need to dive into the details to see that.

[Y2HH]

They know it'll have a short-term patch and another vote in a few months as well as mandating a vote on a balanced budget amendment. Even at the general level, those make the bill DOA in the Senate because they're viewed (correctly, imo) as substantially bad policy. You don't need to dive into the details to see that.

 

They don't know anything, they assume it. Even if they end up being right, until it's written and they see it, it's an assumption.

 

As I said in a previous post, when the democrats held majorities in the house and senate through most of GW's presidency, they had no problems kicking the can a few months at a time. They raised the debt ceiling under GW like 9 times. That sounds long term to me! It's hypocritical, and to me, it's expected. Funny now they want a "longer term" solution, when the shorter term solutions were wonderful for them for years on end.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Y2HH

[mr_genius]

They don't know anything, they assume it. Even if they end up being right, until it's written and they see it, it's an assumption.

 

As I said in a previous post, when the democrats held majorities in the house and senate through most of GW's presidency, they had no problems kicking the can a few months at a time. They raised the debt ceiling under GW like 9 times. That sounds long term to me! It's hypocritical, and to me, it's expected. Funny now they want a "longer term" solution, when the shorter term solutions were wonderful for them for years on end.

 

they don't want it to come up around an election, because they know they will lose the spending argument.

[StrangeSox]

They don't know anything, they assume it. Even if they end up being right, until it's written and they see it, it's an assumption.

 

Boehner's publicly stated the framework of the plan. Reid has publicly stated that the Senate won't bother with said framework. Where's the ignorance?

 

As I said in a previous post, when the democrats held majorities in the house and senate through most of GW's presidency,

 

LOL wut? you mean for two years of the house only?

 

they had no problems kicking the can a few months at a time. They raised the debt ceiling under GW like 9 times. That sounds long term to me! It's hypocritical, and to me, it's expected. Funny now they want a "longer term" solution, when the shorter term solutions were wonderful for them for years on end.

 

Right, but we never had one party willing to drive the economy off of a cliff in order to make drastic fiscal policy changes in the US. Insisting that it become a 2012 campaign issue, both for the Presidency and for Congress, doesn't seem like it'll make it any less painful than it is right now.

Edited July 29, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

they don't want it to come up around an election, because they know they will lose the spending argument.

 

I know why they want a long term solution *now*, and that's exactly it. It's politics as usual.

 

Party politics first...country second.

[Y2HH]

LOL wut? you mean for two years?

 

Your sarcastic, and obviously defensive stance is a complete failure.

 

I don't care if it was for 2 years or 4 years...the fact that when a republican was in office they had no f***ing issue kicking the can every 6 months is hilarious. They were ok with it then, but now they require a long term solution.

 

Try harder next time.

 

LOL Wut? Go back to Digg/Reddit with that garbage.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Right, but we never had one party willing to drive the economy off of a cliff in order to make drastic fiscal policy changes in the US. Insisting that it become a 2012 campaign issue, both for the Presidency and for Congress, doesn't seem like it'll make it any less painful than it is right now.

 

So it's all about timing. The timing favors them now, because the economy is going to drive off a cliff...so NOW they need to do it right.

 

They should have done it right years ago and then we wouldn't be where we are now. In other words, they helped create the problem -- which you ignore -- and now they want to solve it because they're looking out for the American people!

 

I don't buy it.

 

They're playing politics, as always...the mere timing of this happens to be on their side for this specific moment in time, and ONLY in regard to this specific argument.

[StrangeSox]

Your sarcastic, and obviously defensive stance is a complete failure.

 

I don't care if it was for 2 years or 4 years...the fact that when a republican was in office they had no f***ing issue kicking the can every 6 months is hilarious. They were ok with it then, but now they require a long term solution.

 

Try harder next time.

 

I dunno, it was a pretty significant blunder you made since it was in fact a Republican Congress that kept raising the debt ceiling without issue.

 

And, like I said, before it was a routine matter. Now, thanks to the extremism that's taken over the Republican party, it's not. Doing it again in 6 months would be fine if we weren't guaranteed to go through this same protracted bulls*** again, but we are.

 

As I pointed out to jenks a few days ago, that sword cuts both ways. Democrats don't want this to be a campaign issue, Republicans do. But I've no doubt you understand that.