Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Absolutely, provided it is true. Failing NYT may have concocted a story just to stay relevant in a time where MSM (especially print media) is failing.

If true, this represents a direct threat to the Republic and should be terminated with extreme prejudice. All US military/intelligence/law enforcement assets should be tasked with rooting out the unlawful subversive treasonous DEEPSTATE insiders and hanging them from the tallest tree in DC.

Yes, treason is an offense punishable by death and this is one limited instance I feel it is more than warranted. This doesn't just harm Trump, it harms every American and our Constitution. If the article is true, it means we're living under a tyranny and patriots are duty bound to act decisively.

Either way, it is important to follow the President's lead here. Whatever he commands/decides is best is A-OK with me. I'm on board with President Trump 100% and will support him in any way I possibly can.

We are winning. We will defeat the treasonous scum, provided the failing NYT is telling the truth.

Wow. You want the Op-Ed author murdered? Yes, the level of whackdoodle just went up several notches.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Absolutely, provided it is true. Failing NYT may have concocted a story just to stay relevant in a time where MSM (especially print media) is failing.

If true, this represents a direct threat to the Republic and should be terminated with extreme prejudice. All US military/intelligence/law enforcement assets should be tasked with rooting out the unlawful subversive treasonous DEEPSTATE insiders and hanging them from the tallest tree in DC.

Yes, treason is an offense punishable by death and this is one limited instance I feel it is more than warranted. This doesn't just harm Trump, it harms every American and our Constitution. If the article is true, it means we're living under a tyranny and patriots are duty bound to act decisively.

Either way, it is important to follow the President's lead here. Whatever he commands/decides is best is A-OK with me. I'm on board with President Trump 100% and will support him in any way I possibly can.

We are winning. We will defeat the treasonous scum, provided the failing NYT is telling the truth.

Wow. You want the Op-Ed author murdered? Yes, the level of whackdoodle just went up several notches.

This is the same person who wants every member of ANTIFA shot by the police for being "terrorists".

Doesn't come as much of a surprise they want someone killed for writing an Op-Ed.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
*Leans back in comfortable chair, drinks beer and eats pringles whilst grinning at some of the more unhinged comments*

Wow, the level of delusion is high in here. The Orange Emperor is being increasingly revealed for what he is - unstable, ignorant and out of his depth - but some people still think that it's all a plot against him?
Sheesh...

And some people reveal that they believe everything they read, so long as it confirms their biases.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
*Leans back in comfortable chair, drinks beer and eats pringles whilst grinning at some of the more unhinged comments*

Wow, the level of delusion is high in here. The Orange Emperor is being increasingly revealed for what he is - unstable, ignorant and out of his depth - but some people still think that it's all a plot against him?
Sheesh...

And some people reveal that they believe everything they read, so long as it confirms their biases.

And then others can read someone's opinion without having an emotional response.

Something that is a healthy trait of an adult living in a free society where all opinions can be voiced.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah... I'm starting to suspect JBurns is an aspiring authoritarian with the posts he makes advocating political suppression of liberals or merely just people against Trump.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
*Leans back in comfortable chair, drinks beer and eats pringles whilst grinning at some of the more unhinged comments*

Wow, the level of delusion is high in here. The Orange Emperor is being increasingly revealed for what he is - unstable, ignorant and out of his depth - but some people still think that it's all a plot against him?
Sheesh...

And some people reveal that they believe everything they read, so long as it confirms their biases.

When it confirms my earlier research? And basic reading of New York events in the 1980's and 90's? Come off it, anyone who thinks that Trump is some kind of genius has not been paying attention at all.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

And then others can read someone's opinion without having an emotional response. Something that is a healthy trait of an adult living in a free society where all opinions can be voiced.

Consistently bragging about how fair-minded one is isn't a good look. A lot of people did the same as the Nazis came to power. Sometimes you have to stand against injustice and tyranny, or at least get out of the way.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

And then others can read someone's opinion without having an emotional response. Something that is a healthy trait of an adult living in a free society where all opinions can be voiced.

Consistently bragging about how fair-minded one is isn't a good look. A lot of people did the same as the Nazis came to power. Sometimes you have to stand against injustice and tyranny, or at least get out of the way.

On SNAP! You went there:
Godwin's law

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
*Leans back in comfortable chair, drinks beer and eats pringles whilst grinning at some of the more unhinged comments*

Wow, the level of delusion is high in here. The Orange Emperor is being increasingly revealed for what he is - unstable, ignorant and out of his depth - but some people still think that it's all a plot against him?
Sheesh...

And some people reveal that they believe everything they read, so long as it confirms their biases.

When it confirms my earlier research? And basic reading of New York events in the 1980's and 90's? Come off it, anyone who thinks that Trump is some kind of genius has not been paying attention at all.

"Research"? Oh man, here we go. Do what everyone else does and write a book about it. You might get your 15 minutes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

And then others can read someone's opinion without having an emotional response. Something that is a healthy trait of an adult living in a free society where all opinions can be voiced.

Consistently bragging about how fair-minded one is isn't a good look. A lot of people did the same as the Nazis came to power. Sometimes you have to stand against injustice and tyranny, or at least get out of the way.

On SNAP! You went there:
Godwin's law

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

I mentioned the Nazis, not Hitler. What's your reading level at?

Doublepost

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who mentioned anything about a dictatorship? No problem, your mistake

In fact I only recommended/support following the law and enforcing the prohibition on acts of treason, sedition or insurrection and the penalties that go along with them.

Allowing a "shadow government" to exist does indeed make it a dictatorship. A tyranny. Something that is "Less than" American. Less than free. Less than Constitutional. IE: a wholly unacceptable situation & extreme national emergency, again provided the OP-ED is being truthful.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

And then others can read someone's opinion without having an emotional response. Something that is a healthy trait of an adult living in a free society where all opinions can be voiced.

Consistently bragging about how fair-minded one is isn't a good look. A lot of people did the same as the Nazis came to power. Sometimes you have to stand against injustice and tyranny, or at least get out of the way.

On SNAP! You went there:
Godwin's law

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

I mentioned the Nazis, not Hitler. What's your reading level at?

Yes. The Nazis. The political group led by Hitler...

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

And then others can read someone's opinion without having an emotional response. Something that is a healthy trait of an adult living in a free society where all opinions can be voiced.

Consistently bragging about how fair-minded one is isn't a good look. A lot of people did the same as the Nazis came to power. Sometimes you have to stand against injustice and tyranny, or at least get out of the way.

I haven't resorted to hyperbole, so I feel like I'm looking alright.

Injustice and tyranny would be suppressing free speech. Or punishing someone for speaking against the leader.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who mentioned anything about a dictatorship? No problem, your mistake

You did by advocating killing people who release stuff about Trump.

In fact I only recommended/support following the law and enforcing the prohibition on acts of treason, sedition or insurrection and the penalties that go along with them.

You literally just advocated breaking the Constitution and murdering a whistleblower for blowing the whistle.

Allowing a "shadow government" to exist does indeed make it a dictatorship. A tyranny. Something that is "Less than" American. Less than free. Less than Constitutional. IE: a wholly unacceptable situation & extreme national emergency, again provided the OP-ED is being truthful.

Making up lies to justify breaking the Constitution doesn't justify your ideas.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The left doesn't get to quote Godwin's law or anything of the sort. Ever again.

Ever since the lot of hysterical leftist authoritarians started throwing out words like "Nazi" "Racist" "Fascist" "Sexist" to describe those who merely hold different political opinions.

Sure, you have the right to say any word you want. But don't expect it to be taken seriously. In case you haven't noticed, you all have lost absolutely any shred of credibility you had left. After the Kavanaugh tantrums, I don't think any mainstream American or right-winger will give 99% of Dems the time of day. And I don't blame them, one bit. (RE: the left/Democrat party as a whole, perhaps not you specifically)

You all are unhinged. Look at this thread as an example, some here are actually supporting a shadow government/tyranny. And you still have the nerve to say one word about the right-wing? I don't think so.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The left doesn't get to quote Godwin's law or anything of the sort. Ever again.

Ok. I don't care what you think, but thanks for telling me your useless opinion about Godwin's Law and liberals.

You all are unhinged. Look at this thread as an example, some here are actually supporting a shadow government/tyranny. And you still have the nerve to say one word about the right-wing? I don't think so.

Dude. You are so far gone down the authoritarian trail that you are calling people unhinged just for disagreeing with you. It would be unnerving, but I'm taking solace in the fact that you have absolutely zero say in how the government is ran (outside of the same vote every other citizen gets on election day).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No problem

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

And then others can read someone's opinion without having an emotional response. Something that is a healthy trait of an adult living in a free society where all opinions can be voiced.

Consistently bragging about how fair-minded one is isn't a good look. A lot of people did the same as the Nazis came to power. Sometimes you have to stand against injustice and tyranny, or at least get out of the way.

I haven't resorted to hyperbole, so I feel like I'm looking alright.

Injustice and tyranny would be suppressing free speech. Or punishing someone for speaking against the leader.

No one is wanting to punish the person for speaking, or for free speech, but for the things they admitted to in hthe Op-Ed. There is a vast difference and it makes no sense conflating these two issues.

a reply to: JBurns

Sorry, but the left doesn't get to quote Godwin's law or anything of the sort. Ever again.

I'm not part of the left, the poster used Godwin's law earlier.... Because they did. Ad hominem doesn't change the content of the argument.