Petition seeking treason charges for Iran letter hits 100,000 signatures

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wouldn't agree here simply because the republicans won in the face of an onslaught. An onslaught that still couldn't rally enough dems to the polls.

Hey, whatever you want to call it. It still followed the six-year itch trend to the letter. Using similar trends, I'm willing to bet that the Republicans will win the Presidency (yes there is a similar trend where a party loses the Presidency after a two term President leaves). Though I do think it is funny that you think the Republicans winning Congress had anything to do with shifting American values and nothing to do with predictable human behavior. Of course the reason for that is because you still buy into the stupid republican/democrat paradigm.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Daedal


No its really not treason. This is more propaganda stuff. There are some really, really dark forces on the left.

I see this petition as no different than Republicans constantly trying to chase impeachment proceedings on Obama for various "scandals" he's gone through. In other words, what comes around goes around.

The reasons behind talk of Obama impeachment are a lot more serious than this bs. This is really a trifle in comparison.

Uh huh... All that serious talk and no evidence to put forward of wrongdoing that would allow the impeachment proceedings to go forward. No I see this as the EXACT same thing. I find it ironic that not only do you not see it, but justify one over the other. Methinks if the parties were reversed you'd be cheerleading this petition instead of dismissing it.

The democrats have done this before years back and some are still in public positions. This is just the republicans taking a play out of the dem handbook if we want to look at the tactic and disregard the merits.

In the case of the dems letter writing efforts it should be noted that they sent letters to leaders that we were having hostile relations with in a clear effort to undermine the republican president and constitutional values. They look far more like treason than this bs.

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: Flatfish

Just like when they invited Bibi to speak against our President in front of a joint session of congress, I seriously doubt they gave Obama a heads-up that they were sending the letter.

You really do have a selective and hate filled memory don't you? The admin WAS informed that Netenyahu was invited to speak before Congress. The White House didn't like that idea and Congress said tough cookies. Nothing to see there at all, unless of course you hate Jews.

If they had, I feel sure he would have informed that there was no need to have it translated and printed in Iranian because unlike those ignorant assed republicans who signed and sent the letter, Obama knows that Iran's negotiator was educated in the U.S. and reads & speaks English quite fluently.

I know that the Iranian Gov't have their own translators, but the framers of the letter probably though it was a polite gesture to have it sent in the native language. Only a idiot would be arrogant enough to ignore the recipients native language. Oh, wait...that pretty much sums up this admin, narcissistic and arrogant.

Talk about selective memory!

The republicans didn't inform Obama about Bibi's invite until after the invite was sent. It's been all over the news which makes me wonder where you get your facts to form your memory with in the first place.

Yeah Obama knew he was coming alright, but not until after the invitation had been sent and received.

Even John Boehner himself admitted that he didn't inform or consult the President prior to sending the invite.

You really should quit lying to yourself, it's not healthy.

a reply to: Flatfish

Nowhere did I say they asked for permission. You should really get into comedy!

But they did tell him that Bibi was coming. They really didn't care what Obama thought about it all and went ahead anyways. I guess the little baby got a taste of his own medicine didn't he?

They sent the invitation before Obama had a chance to read the invitation...sound familiar?

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Daedal


No its really not treason. This is more propaganda stuff. There are some really, really dark forces on the left.

I see this petition as no different than Republicans constantly trying to chase impeachment proceedings on Obama for various "scandals" he's gone through. In other words, what comes around goes around.

The reasons behind talk of Obama impeachment are a lot more serious than this bs. This is really a trifle in comparison.

Uh huh... All that serious talk and no evidence to put forward of wrongdoing that would allow the impeachment proceedings to go forward. No I see this as the EXACT same thing. I find it ironic that not only do you not see it, but justify one over the other. Methinks if the parties were reversed you'd be cheerleading this petition instead of dismissing it.

The democrats have done this before years back and some are still in public positions. This is just the republicans taking a play out of the dem handbook if we want to look at the tactic and disregard the merits.

In the case of the dems letter writing efforts it should be noted that they sent letters to leaders that we were having hostile relations with in a clear effort to undermine the republican president and constitutional values. They look far more like treason than this bs.

No not the same, this usually happens when there is an impasse a pol or ex pol go in to make contact saving the face of official government,this was never done during actual negotiations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wouldn't agree here simply because the republicans won in the face of an onslaught. An onslaught that still couldn't rally enough dems to the polls.

Hey, whatever you want to call it. It still followed the six-year itch trend to the letter. Using similar trends, I'm willing to bet that the Republicans will win the Presidency (yes there is a similar trend where a party loses the Presidency after a two term President leaves). Though I do think it is funny that you think the Republicans winning Congress had anything to do with shifting American values and nothing to do with predictable human behavior. Of course the reason for that is because you still buy into the stupid republican/democrat paradigm.

Well naturally a dem is going to deny that the last republican sweep had nothing to do with changing values. Obamas whole thing deal that got him in office was a promise to shift attention to neglected values. Election records simply demonstrate a falling away from the "hope and change" hype that got him in and most notably from those that voted for him in the first place.....communicated by apathy by dems overall at the polls by their low turn out. Why anyone would have though after his first election and going into a dem controlled congress that the party would never end. Thats what the dems like to call a mandate.......but fickle human voting habits when the republicans take control.

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
They are risking engaging the US in war with Iran for nothing else than to protect Israel. That is treasonous.

Your opinion?

Please provide proof.

"Proof"?

Let's not even get into Israel's already established history if trying to get the US entangled in armed conflicts.

Let's forget for now about the clout of the pro Israel lobby in this country and the unreal amounts of US dollars going to keep Israel armed to the teeth.

The only proof I need is the fact that these lunatics in our government even sent this letter. Oh, and also (I'm sorry, there's just no getting around it) these guys and gals in our congress all have this bats@!# crazy idea that America has some kind of moral imperative to defend Israel no matter what.

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: Flatfish
It's almost like treason on a global scale.

Please point out what is treasonous

I already have and it's becoming ever more apparent that attempting to explain it to you again is a futile effort.

You're only going to hear what you want to hear and I doubt I have anything available in that category.

The legal argument being kicked around revolves around this law, albeit about 150+ years out of date -

18 USC 983 - The Logan Act

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Wiki - The Logan Act overview

As I stated in another post, their actions have not violated any laws.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Flatfish

Nowhere did I say they asked for permission.

You should really get into comedy!

But they did tell him that Bibi was coming. They really didn't care what Obama thought about it all and went ahead anyways. I guess the little baby got a taste of his own medicine didn't he?

They sent the invitation before Obama had a chance to read the invitation...sound familiar?

I didn't say they ask for permission either, those are your words.

I said they didn't inform him that they were sending the invite until after they did it.

For someone who rants about selective memory, you sure seem to have one.

All of you that signed this WH petition will probably soon wish you had not gone there and done that. That is all I am going to say for now.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Daedal


No its really not treason. This is more propaganda stuff. There are some really, really dark forces on the left.

I see this petition as no different than Republicans constantly trying to chase impeachment proceedings on Obama for various "scandals" he's gone through. In other words, what comes around goes around.

The reasons behind talk of Obama impeachment are a lot more serious than this bs. This is really a trifle in comparison.

Uh huh... All that serious talk and no evidence to put forward of wrongdoing that would allow the impeachment proceedings to go forward. No I see this as the EXACT same thing. I find it ironic that not only do you not see it, but justify one over the other. Methinks if the parties were reversed you'd be cheerleading this petition instead of dismissing it.

The democrats have done this before years back and some are still in public positions. This is just the republicans taking a play out of the dem handbook if we want to look at the tactic and disregard the merits.

In the case of the dems letter writing efforts it should be noted that they sent letters to leaders that we were having hostile relations with in a clear effort to undermine the republican president and constitutional values. They look far more like treason than this bs.

No not the same, this usually happens when there is an impasse a pol or ex pol go in to make contact saving the face of official government,this was never done during actual negotiations.

It was. Basically interfering along partisan grounds and with sympathy for in the face of presidential policy and positioning on issues effected. Like when they publically raged the Contra rebels and encouraged the regime down there to resist the presidents support of the rebels. That wasn't considered treason and may not have been really. It was certainly called treason by many because it clearly supported the defeat of the rebels. In the Nuke case there is really no clear signs of any treason by any rational person on all sides save for the Obama loyalists. Like loyalists to King George really, considering any resistance to his majesties wishes and desires to be treason.

a reply to: Flatfish

Then why did you complain about the Congress asking Bibi to come speak? You keep saying what is being done is treasonous, but yet when it comes to your criminal element doing the same things, there are nothing but crickets coming out of your little corner of ethics, standards and morality.

Think about that for a while. Sounds pretty hypocritical doesn't it.

a reply to: Logarock

I'm not excusing any behavior here. I am just looking beyond the political divide and seeing that it is just one party using another party's tactics against them. The fact that you defend one over the other says worlds about where you stand.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Daedal


No its really not treason. This is more propaganda stuff. There are some really, really dark forces on the left.

I see this petition as no different than Republicans constantly trying to chase impeachment proceedings on Obama for various "scandals" he's gone through. In other words, what comes around goes around.

The reasons behind talk of Obama impeachment are a lot more serious than this bs. This is really a trifle in comparison.

Uh huh... All that serious talk and no evidence to put forward of wrongdoing that would allow the impeachment proceedings to go forward. No I see this as the EXACT same thing. I find it ironic that not only do you not see it, but justify one over the other. Methinks if the parties were reversed you'd be cheerleading this petition instead of dismissing it.

The democrats have done this before years back and some are still in public positions. This is just the republicans taking a play out of the dem handbook if we want to look at the tactic and disregard the merits.

In the case of the dems letter writing efforts it should be noted that they sent letters to leaders that we were having hostile relations with in a clear effort to undermine the republican president and constitutional values. They look far more like treason than this bs.

No not the same, this usually happens when there is an impasse a pol or ex pol go in to make contact saving the face of official government,this was never done during actual negotiations.

It was. Basically interfering along partisan grounds and with sympathy for in the face of presidential policy and positioning on issues effected. Like when they publically raged the Contra rebels and encouraged the regime down there to resist the presidents support of the rebels. That wasn't considered treason and may not have been really. It was certainly called treason by many because it clearly supported the defeat of the rebels. In the Nuke case there is really no clear signs of any treason by any rational person on all sides save for the Obama loyalists. Like loyalists to King George really, considering any resistance to his majesties wishes and desires to be treason.

Which sitting Pol did that?? they may have raged about Reagan's war but that's probably as far as it went.
As to consequences we are talking of a Nuclear threat and a war which Israel is gunning for and because we are Israel's big bad brother we are duty bound to come to their aid even when little brother is acting the ass.
Logarock there is no defending this.

a reply to: Logarock

A dem? You think I'm a Democrat?

a reply to: MiddleClassWhiteBoy
Before you condemn me, here is a question you should ask yourself: Do you vote in every election? Did you vote in the midterm elections? I do. And as I vote, I have every right to whine.

I do not go with the party line, I do not vote all republican or democrat, but make the selection based on the performance of the person who has been in office. And any more I tend to vote to not send the same person back into office.

But beyond that, and I think you should consider this well. I vote and look at things from the perspective of what will the law be like in 5 years, what will it be like in 10 years and more. I also look at the door it seeks to open, and the precedents that it sets. I also read the laws, very carefully, and I also tend to pay attention to people who have made it their job to study the law. Now take a look at the republicans.

This is a group who have appeared to failed basic science, who seek to push a religious agenda on the people, who would, through laws seek to discriminate and legislate the country with a view that no one wants. The republicans wanted a shot, and what have they done? Not one thing, save the same old rhetoric about this or that being bad. About policies that they do not like and yet, instead of working to try to make the country better, congress is not doing a dam thing at all. Now I don’t know about you, but I hold all of congress in contempt, and do not like or trust them. Time and time again, each side has had the majority in both legislatures, and could have done something, anything, and yet it gets stalled up or tends to end up going no where due to the endless bickering and in fighting.
Nor do I like the democrats, they do not represent the people, but their own interest, trying to give me a nanny state that we all can do very well without. I do not need a government to tell me what I can or can not eat, or drink, nor do I need one to tell me how to run my own household. I can do that well enough without them stepping in. Unlike many, I take responsibility for myself, and my household.
I am also tired of terms like Treason being thrown around, yet fail to see the fine points of the law, and the first being that unless Congress has declared war, no state of war exists. Did it not, just once, ever dawn on you that if Congress had declared war, that many of these endless conflicts that the USA is involved in, would have been over a lot faster? There are laws and rules that apply in war, and by doing such, they could have been enacted. If there was a declared war, then yes, Snowden would have to face the charges of Treason. But there was not, and thus he is not guilty of treason, nor are the 47 republicans in office. They are guilty of something else, and in this case, it is not treason, but they are guilty of violating the Logan act. The only question is does anyone in office have the gall to pull the trigger and charge them with that federal crime and take it to court. So tell me how is it treason? Do state what Obama has done that would say he is a traitor? Tell us who are the 2 witnesses, to this and at what country is the USA at war with that had been legally declared by congress? Show us the evidence to that. Cause in the end, for there to be treason, there would have to be a public trial and the evidence presented for all to see, not just hidden.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

I'm not excusing any behavior here. I am just looking beyond the political divide and seeing that it is just one party using another party's tactics against them. The fact that you defend one over the other says worlds about where you stand.

Its pretty clear where you stand. And yes out of the two parties I hold that the democrats/left/progressives are the most reactionary and dangerous of the two by far.

And by tactics I mean that in very raw form. Bring the issues in on top of the tactics and there is a clear departure between the two sides.

Another thing......consider that Obama is not negotiating without condition with the Iranians. He is at least trying to appear like he is working some deal with Iran's desire for and western concerns with the nuke program. Taking that in mind its really not against the president that the house speaks but against a wider ended deal in light of those concerns. This was not the tone of prior democratic letter writing interference. Their efforts clearly demonstrated their Marxist sympathies......which is why folks don't trust a democrat with Muslim sympathies to negotiate a nuke program with the likes of militant Iran.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Flatfish

Then why did you complain about the Congress asking Bibi to come speak? You keep saying what is being done is treasonous, but yet when it comes to your criminal element doing the same things, there are nothing but crickets coming out of your little corner of ethics, standards and morality.

Think about that for a while. Sounds pretty hypocritical doesn't it.

There are no crickets on my side of this argument. If you and your's think you have reason to charge any of the democrats of "doing the same thing," then start your own petition and do something about it.

I won't be crying any tears for anyone convicted of treason or violating the Logan Act regardless of their political affiliation.

You act like we can't prosecute someone for breaking the law just because someone else may have gotten away with it in the past.

"I know I did it but look, the other guy did it too so it must be alright."

Sounds kinda childish now doesn't it.

a reply to: sdcigarpig


Considering that Obama is negotiating a deal that effects other nations and not simply an american concern by any stretch then the Logan act is out here.

His dumb azz should be weighed here by his reaction to the melt down at home that is trying to pop up over the domestic horizon. He goes to Selma.....he needs to get his azz down to Ferguson with peace I his mouth. See his negotiations with Iran and who Iran is in this light.