MoveOn.org Petition Calls For Arrest Of Republican Leaders For Sedition

reply to post by xuenchen


That's the point. It didn't happen. It simply could have. Hence why I feel that sedition is a little overboard because he didn't use that power available to him to force a default. He had it. He could've. He didn't.

However, I do not think that the House should allow for that kind of strict control by the Speaker. Historically, a Speaker who exuded that sort of control got the boot. For the preservation of the checks and balances alone, Boehner should probably get the boot.

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So you believe that Congress should be able to pass a law that requires you to buy a specific commercial product?

The specifics of ACA or any other law aside...that type of thinking is antithetical to our founding principles and our democracy. What you describe is tyranny.

You better go to the founding fathers with your complaint. Everything that happened was done within the rules of the Legislative branch. (kicking the can down the road has been the solution in the past, and that was the solution again)

edit on 18-10-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-10-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Or levy taxes for the welfare of the general populace? Yes I believe in socialized healthcare...healthcare has no place in the capitalistic system, since health is not an optional purchase and thus providing healthcare has been a rigged market from the getgo with fixed demand allowing low to zero price elasticity aka insane healthcare costs and low service quality...usa #1 in expense...#38 in quality...other than that economic reality, I am a fierce capitalist and..also for small gov, only where it needs to be.

But more to the point Butch...want to re-litigate that debate? Aren't there about 1000 other threads on that?

This thread is about a minority extremist faction of the House Of Representatives demanding all other branches of government and the American people bend to their will lest they destroy the economy.

WhiteAlice
reply to post by xuenchen

 

That's the point.

It didn't happen. It simply could have. Hence why I feel that sedition is a little overboard because he didn't use that power available to him to force a default. He had it. He could've. He didn't.

However, I do not think that the House should allow for that kind of strict control by the Speaker. Historically, a Speaker who exuded that sort of control got the boot. For the preservation of the checks and balances alone, Boehner should probably get the boot.

I would normally agree with the general philosophy.

But we are not in a philosophical 'reality'

Boehner was/is under ordazz from the IMF.

you might want to read some of this thread over here;www.abovetopsecret.com...

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So you believe that Congress should be able to pass a law that requires you to buy a specific commercial product?

The specifics of ACA or any other law aside...that type of thinking is antithetical to our founding principles and our democracy. What you describe is tyranny.

You better go to the founding fathers with your complaint. Everything that happened was done within the rules of the Legislative branch. (kicking the can down the road has been the solution in the past, and that was the solution again)

edit on 18-10-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-10-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Everything that was done was done by the rules that Majority Speaker Boehner instituted...specifically the "Hastert Rule" where the GOP Leader/Boehner declared nothing shall go to a vote in the House unless it has the "Majority of the Majority"...which of course is the minority of the house at large as evidenced in this vote.

And Ironically Hastert himself pointing out during this debate that Boehner was engaging in fiction...
Denny Hastert Disses the ‘Hastert Rule’: It ‘Never Really Existed’
www.thedailybeast.com...

So no...the founding fathers are not Boehner...

AnIntellectualRedneck
Source

Per the source, specifically:

The petition argues that "the House GOP leadership's use of the Hastert Rule and H. Res 368 to shut down the government and threaten the US economy with default is an attempt to extort the United States government into altering or abolishing the Affordable Care Act, and thus, is self-evidently a seditious conspiracy."

I saw the petition myself and it looks like it has right around 35k signatures at this point. I think this is very, very dangerous myself, as my understanding is that sedition is in line with treason. If my understanding is wrong, forgive me, but this, all the way around, has the look of bad news about it and is a very scary thing to witness happening in the United States.

It's not that far between this and petitions for silencing of political dissidents, at least not in my opinion. I'm just hoping that this doesn't become a big thing.

Well there should be strong consequences, do they not realize what they could have done to the whole world. I mean sooner or later there really does have to be consequences.

I think there has to be a recall that could be done. Is this not possible, like Colorado did. That would solve the problem completely. If they are not serving our interest we institute immediate recall election procedures. That would stop them in their tracks.

We also need term limits, no more career politicians. And no more political pacs where corporate yahoo can give millions to both sides. Ridiculous, thank supreme Court for that. Lol.

Lastly the popular vote should elect the president. No more electorate, was on the intended for fifty states and so many people and especially the way they try and manipulate it.

We can change it, independent third party that only mandate is to make the two parties compromise. Means we must gain enough seats in Congress to do it.

The Bot

reply to post by xuenchen


I'm actually fully aware of the IMF's clout. How much the IMF had to do with Boehner's eventual decision to allow the vote on the floor is hard to say but there were also numerous other factors that he'd have to consider. Like I said previously, if the government had gone into default, if the shutdown had continued, then it could've ultimately led to disastrous levels of civil unrest and the person with the power to block votes would've been one of the primary targets. Boehner's remarks on allowing the vote really are smart ones. "They fought the good fight and lost" makes him look capable of diplomacy. He needed that politically speaking.

reply to post by Indigo5

But more to the point Butch...want to re-litigate that debate? Aren't there about 1000 other threads on that?

Yes, just as there are plenty of threads about the government shutdown that occurred.

This thread is about a minority extremist faction of the House Of Representatives demanding all other branches of government and the American people bend to their will lest they destroy the economy.

Funny that you ignored the part of my post that is on topic, according to you.

This part:

Everything that happened was done within the rules of the Legislative branch. (kicking the can down the road has been the solution in the past, and that was the solution again)

butcherguy

Funny that you ignored the part of my post that is on topic, according to you.

This part:

Everything that happened was done within the rules of the Legislative branch. (kicking the can down the road has been the solution in the past, and that was the solution again)

Not at all Butch...answered in detail, specifics, plus links just a few posts before this one.

reply to post by Indigo5

Yet you went on as if I was totally off topic.
You get that... right?

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Yet you went on as if I was totally off topic.
You get that... right?

I broke your post into two responses for two different topics..and addressed both, one being off topic, the other being on topic. Your first was a question and I answered it...and pointed out it was an "obamacare" debate rehash and that there were better threads for it. The second was where you claimed the "Hastert" rule which Leader Boehner put into effect when the GOP took majority was some sentiment of the Founding Fathers...which it wasn't.

Each answer deserved it's own space, more so since one threatened to derail. Separated for clarity and to prevent derail...nothing duplicitous intended.