CDZ Is it treasonous?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Jul 12, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,175
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    Did you actually read the OP? It contains succinct and clear remarks about at least one absolute requirement that is currently far from having been met for a charge of treason to prevail at trial. (I presume you are aware that prosecutors, like Congress, are loathe to solicit decisions on matters they believe will not succeed.)

    You have every right to think Trump and his cohorts' actions are treasonous. I respect your right to think that. I don't, however, canonize your apparent torpor toward the Constitutionally mandated probative requirements charges of treason carry.

    Well, on that point, I am of the mind that color is currently orange.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  2. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,175
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    Okay. Your opinion is noted.
     
  3. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,175
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    No. I came across some concepts that may be usable to correlate inferentially harm to certain political party actions with harm to the U.S., but correlating a political party with a the U.S., no. Not even something close to that.

    You know, that is one hell of a temerarious statement. How dare you!?!

    It may be foreign, anathema even, for you to seek information for the sake of understanding a topic. For me, however, doing so is the prime reason for researching a topic that I have no monetary purpose for understanding.

    That doesn't mean I won't use the knowledge after having obtained it. It'd be absurd not to.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  4. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    18,036
    Thanks Received:
    3,342
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +7,927
    Is it really reckless, though? A truly neutral search for information on a specific topic with regard to current events would cast the use of the knowledge in as wide a net as possible to determine if the application of the research is systemic or not. Yet, you apply the research against the current administration only.

    I equate it to research that has a specific outcome in mind and then the researcher goes out to prove the predetermined conclusion.

    The information and effort is appreciated.
     
  5. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,175
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    Well, you just keep thinking that way...

    I'm glad you found it useful.
     
  6. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    18,036
    Thanks Received:
    3,342
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +7,927
    Thanks, I will.
     
  7. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,175
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    As a bit of neutrally offered advice, you probably should refrain from relying on Dictionary.com. It's not that their definitions are wrong, because they are not. It's that they are often incomplete, which makes them less useful for individuals with a poor or mediocre command of English.

    I'll grant that I could have been less ambiguous had I written "marked by effrontery," "audacious" or "insolent" rather than "temerarious" for either more precisely depicts the rude and presumptive nature of the remarks you made. Presumptiveness, however, was the main thing what I was thinking about, not the rudeness of the remark. Were we speaking in person, I almost certainly would have gone with "insolent" or "effrontery" because I don't use the volume of my voice to convey my indignance over having had my intellectual curiosity and integrity calumniated, whereas in writing, the exclamation point, in effect, allows me to do so.

    That said, presumptiveness is also part of "temerarious," and Dictionary.com does not explicitly state so. Readers of Dictionary.com (and other dictionaries that define temerarious as "rash") must understand that rashness intrinsically incorporates the dimension of presumptiveness/audacity.
    Rashness, not recklessness, is more what I had in mind. The two terms, like the others noted above, are similar; however, "rash" (and its forms) focuses on an idea/act itself and its conception whereas "reckless" refers to a failure to consider the idea's/act's outcome(s). Obviously, here, there's no material outcome, beyond my upbraiding (and I'm sure you consider that an outcome of no great import because I do too), to your having insulted me.
     
  8. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,237
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,157
    You are not entirely correct there. It's not a "cult of personality", nor is it about some "dear leader". It is about the FACT that MILLIONS of American citizens have felt as though they are being ignored, that they have no real voice, and that their government (AKA those whom they elected) were more worried about the next election than they were about the very people who elected them. It's about the fact that many (dare I say most?) of them see our current President as the first person who has actually cared enough about them to say what they have been thinking for years. The fact that you do not already know this demonstrates that you are just as clueless as the "leadership" these millions have suffered under for so many years.

    What we need is not more of the same. We do not need focus groups. We do not need yet another meaningless government funded study. What we need are people within our government who will "sit down, shut up, and LISTEN". Then ACT on what the people have been trying to tell them for YEARS!

    Here is a partial list of what I see as what people want to have heard:
    • We need to tax cuts to put more money back in our pockets.
    • We need JOBS!!
    • We need to be able to afford our health care.
    • We do not need, nor do we want a handout.
    • We need the government to get out of the way so we can get back to business.
    • We just want to be left alone to live our lives.
    They are in no particular order and this is by no means a complete list.

    Unfortunately, the people who are saying this don't have time to march on Washington, or organise a sit-in on Wall Street, because they are WORKING. Many of them two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They just want a good paying job that lets them put food on the table clothe and educate their children and maybe even have enough left on Friday to take their kids on a trip to see Grandma. That's all. They just want to live their lives. They have no interest in "Russiagate", "E-mailgate", or any other "-gate". They simply do not have the time, nor the energy to care. They are far too busy living their lives and caring for their families.
     

Share This Page