(09-23-2019 07:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 05:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Shiate, he's got my vote...for the loony bin. He sounds more like a CNN commentator than a Republican. Wow, what a nut job. And he was a former governor? What's wrong with us for electing screwy guys like him? What does he think we should do about Killery and Comey for two?

It was a long time ago. He was elected Gov. of Mass. back in 1990 and ’94. He seemed much more sane in those days.

Back when Biden had a brain, Harris had courage and, nah, O'Roarke never had a heart.

The Libertarian Party needs to have a "sit one cycle out" eligibility rule for POTUS. This makes the third high profile former Republican in the last decade who made their way onto the LP POTUS ticket who turned out to be weasel interested in themselves and little else. Gary Johnson is the only switch hitter they've had that wasn't a weasel.

From Wikipedia, but this is the gist of it:

"United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

"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 the United States 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"

OK, you've got to have enemies, which can conceivably happen in peacetime, but you most likely have to be at war (we are not, at least not declared, and certainly not with Russia or Ukraine in any event). The penalty is not automatic death, as Weld suggests, but alternatively prison for 5 years or more and fine of $10,000 or more. Treason in wartime is generally punishable by death. There can be events of treason without war, and those would be the prison/fine incidents in general.

(09-23-2019 09:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The Libertarian Party needs to have a "sit one cycle out" eligibility rule for POTUS. This makes the third high profile former Republican in the last decade who made their way onto the LP POTUS ticket who turned out to be weasel interested in themselves and little else. Gary Johnson is the only switch hitter they've had that wasn't a weasel.

I don’t agree (politically) with a lot of things Bob Barr has said and done, but I hope we can agree that he is in the non-weasel category. I think he sincerely gave the LP his best effort the year that he ran.

(09-23-2019 10:42 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 09:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The Libertarian Party needs to have a "sit one cycle out" eligibility rule for POTUS. This makes the third high profile former Republican in the last decade who made their way onto the LP POTUS ticket who turned out to be weasel interested in themselves and little else. Gary Johnson is the only switch hitter they've had that wasn't a weasel.

I don’t agree (politically) with a lot of things Bob Barr has said and done, but I hope we can agree that he is in the non-weasel category. I think he sincerely gave the LP his best effort the year that he ran.

I put Barr in camp weasel with the two Veeps. IMO if you take the standard bearer ticket position (POTUS) you need to be committed to the party beyond just the life cycle of your candidacy. You need to give back to those whose shoulders you stood on to have a viable path to the White House. Bob Barr doesn't have the annual ground game to get ballot access in 45+ states every single cycle ... the LP does.

(09-23-2019 04:51 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 12:50 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This William Weld is a Never Trumper in good company with the insanity on the left....

Weld would have his political opponents EXECUTED... nice! Weld is more liberal and psychotic than most of his democrat buddies.

Think you misspelled psychedelic judging on his comments.

Used to be kinda a fan as well, mebbe back 30 yrs ago, now?

He’s just another nut looking to make his public “mark”.

Sorry, Bill. Go blow another dube with the Johnson.

My gosh I wish the candidates would actually give the party a chance.

Steady stream of “No Shot” instead. Nice

(09-23-2019 11:14 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  IMO if you take the standard bearer ticket position (POTUS) you need to be committed to the party beyond just the life cycle of your candidacy.

Hmmm. Have to part ways on that one.

But answer me this. If Barr is a “weasel” for not supporting future LP-nominees that followed after him, what word can possibly describe the treachery of Weld, who openly urged support for Hillary Clinton in the closing days of a campaign while he, personally, was on the LP ticket as Gary Johnson’s VP? In my book, Weld is simply despicable. I look forward to seeing him get 3% or so in the GOP primaries this time around, unless he punks out first to avoid the embarrassment.

(09-24-2019 12:15 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 11:14 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  IMO if you take the standard bearer ticket position (POTUS) you need to be committed to the party beyond just the life cycle of your candidacy.

Hmmm. Have to part ways on that one.

But answer me this. If Barr is a “weasel” for not supporting future LP-nominees that followed after him, what word can possibly describe the treachery of Weld, who openly urged support for Hillary Clinton in the closing days of a campaign while he, personally, was on the LP ticket as Gary Johnson’s VP? In my book, Weld is simply despicable. I look forward to seeing him get 3% or so in the GOP primaries this time around, unless he punks out first to avoid the embarrassment.

I don't mean future nominees, I mean the party itself. He should pay that forward by continuing to fundraise and work to expand the party and maintain ballot access. He was given a leg up. He should pay that forward by helping the party continue to provide a leg up to others going forward. It's not about the people it's about the process.

(09-23-2019 07:02 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Did you even watch the video? Weld clearly says the only penalty for treason is death. And that grounds for removal from office are treason, bribes and other high crimes or misdemeanors, and Trump is guilty of all three. He clearly accuses Trump of treason in this interview. Connect the dots - others (who apparently did watch the video) realize what I am saying and just think Weld is a nut.

That's fine if you want to dismiss him as a nut, but don't accuse me of deflection. The headline of this thread says MSNBC is asking questions about executing President Trump. Who in the world do you think they're asking the questions to (and Weld seems more than happy to answer it).

So did Mueller and his band of angry democrats answer this question or not?
This guy is sick with TDS and the drive by media is shaking the bushes to find looney toons such as him to populate their ‘news shows’.
This is all a smoke screen for Biden. They don’t give a chit what Biden did. Just cover for his senile old azz and make it all about Trump.

(09-23-2019 01:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And to think that there was actually a time when I liked Bill Weld. I thought GWB should have picked him or Christy Whitman instead of Cheney as his VP candidate.

I would imagine there were a number of socially moderate Republicans you may have liked prior to Trump. Most have since left the party, or distanced themselves from Trump. Good to see you haven’t.

Perhaps a more accurate headline would be... “Moderate Republicans are making the case for treason”

(09-23-2019 07:25 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 07:02 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Did you even watch the video? Weld clearly says the only penalty for treason is death. And that grounds for removal from office are treason, bribes and other high crimes or misdemeanors, and Trump is guilty of all three.

And here the Dems can't even decide on impeaching Trump. So you're the one that has the concrete evidence on those accusations? Let's hear it. You've apparently already tied and convicted him of all three.

Because they're mostly cowards worried about their own skins rather than the Constitution or the country here.

And we're waiting on the acting DNI to follow the law and release the complaint to Congress.

(09-23-2019 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  From Wikipedia, but this is the gist of it:

"United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

"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 the United States 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"

OK, you've got to have enemies, which can conceivably happen in peacetime, but you most likely have to be at war (we are not, at least not declared, and certainly not with Russia or Ukraine in any event). The penalty is not automatic death, as Weld suggests, but alternatively prison for 5 years or more and fine of $10,000 or more. Treason in wartime is generally punishable by death. There can be events of treason without war, and those would be the prison/fine incidents in general.

So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

(09-23-2019 01:59 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Say what you want about the Democratic presidential candidates but I don't believe any of them have advocated the death penalty for any of their competitors. It seems to me that if you want to talk about loony bins, the line starts and ends with the Republican side of the ballot.

Well Sparatacus didn't want to send it to the courts. He wanted to personally punch him. I'm sure there are plenty of other similar examples. You don't even listen to your own side.

(09-24-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  From Wikipedia, but this is the gist of it:

"United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

"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 the United States 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"

OK, you've got to have enemies, which can conceivably happen in peacetime, but you most likely have to be at war (we are not, at least not declared, and certainly not with Russia or Ukraine in any event). The penalty is not automatic death, as Weld suggests, but alternatively prison for 5 years or more and fine of $10,000 or more. Treason in wartime is generally punishable by death. There can be events of treason without war, and those would be the prison/fine incidents in general.

So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

(09-24-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  From Wikipedia, but this is the gist of it:

"United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

"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 the United States 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"

OK, you've got to have enemies, which can conceivably happen in peacetime, but you most likely have to be at war (we are not, at least not declared, and certainly not with Russia or Ukraine in any event). The penalty is not automatic death, as Weld suggests, but alternatively prison for 5 years or more and fine of $10,000 or more. Treason in wartime is generally punishable by death. There can be events of treason without war, and those would be the prison/fine incidents in general.

So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

That is exactly what he did. But you are an ostrich.

(09-24-2019 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  From Wikipedia, but this is the gist of it:

"United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

"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 the United States 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"

OK, you've got to have enemies, which can conceivably happen in peacetime, but you most likely have to be at war (we are not, at least not declared, and certainly not with Russia or Ukraine in any event). The penalty is not automatic death, as Weld suggests, but alternatively prison for 5 years or more and fine of $10,000 or more. Treason in wartime is generally punishable by death. There can be events of treason without war, and those would be the prison/fine incidents in general.

So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

That is exactly what he did. But you are an ostrich.

1. It was their money.
2. It secured a nuclear agreement that was working.
3. It was their money.
4. There's no evidence any of that money was used for terrorist activities.
5. Iran wasn't broke and had ample fundS to conduct any terrorist activities regardless of the money.
6. IT WAS THEIR MONEY!

(09-24-2019 10:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  From Wikipedia, but this is the gist of it:

"United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

"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 the United States 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"

OK, you've got to have enemies, which can conceivably happen in peacetime, but you most likely have to be at war (we are not, at least not declared, and certainly not with Russia or Ukraine in any event). The penalty is not automatic death, as Weld suggests, but alternatively prison for 5 years or more and fine of $10,000 or more. Treason in wartime is generally punishable by death. There can be events of treason without war, and those would be the prison/fine incidents in general.

So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

That is exactly what he did. But you are an ostrich.

1. It was their money.
2. It secured a nuclear agreement that was working.
3. It was their money.
4. There's no evidence any of that money was used for terrorist activities.
5. Iran wasn't broke and had ample fundS to conduct any terrorist activities regardless of the money.
6. IT WAS THEIR MONEY!

Alright. You aren't an ostrich. That is an insult to the intelligence of an ostrich. Prime example is #4. How does the left know that Truett Cathey used money earned from Chick Fil A to donate to organizations opposing gay marriage?

It was their money and we had it. We had frozen it for decades because of their terrorist activities.

(09-24-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  From Wikipedia, but this is the gist of it:

"United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:

"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 the United States 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"

OK, you've got to have enemies, which can conceivably happen in peacetime, but you most likely have to be at war (we are not, at least not declared, and certainly not with Russia or Ukraine in any event). The penalty is not automatic death, as Weld suggests, but alternatively prison for 5 years or more and fine of $10,000 or more. Treason in wartime is generally punishable by death. There can be events of treason without war, and those would be the prison/fine incidents in general.

So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

Devils Advocate: Can you say the money definitely wasn't used to fund terrorist activities?

(09-24-2019 12:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  So can we convict Obama for giving Iran access to $150 billion to commit terrorist acts?

Yes, if that's what he did. Of course anyone with a pulse knows that what you're claiming isn't even remotely based on any sort of fact.

That is exactly what he did. But you are an ostrich.

1. It was their money.
2. It secured a nuclear agreement that was working.
3. It was their money.
4. There's no evidence any of that money was used for terrorist activities.
5. Iran wasn't broke and had ample funds to conduct any terrorist activities regardless of the money.
6. IT WAS THEIR MONEY!

How does the left know that Truett Cathey used money earned from Chick Fil A to donate to organizations opposing gay marriage?

1. I'm not the left.
2. Da Fuq does this have to do with CFA?
3. Where has anyone claimed that any boycott was solely due to TC using only CFA money for donations? And I have never even followed that story and my family eats at CFA whenever we're near one. My guess is that the boycott of CFA was because that's his biggest source of income.

Sidebar: Boycotts are stupid anyway.