CDZ Sedition, or Protest - where do we draw the line?

[MarathonMike]

It is not sedition to show disrespect for Obama when he has disrespected the office he was given and the responsibilities of Commander-In-Chief. With nearly every action or inaction he has methodically attempted to weaken America, divide America, demean America and in his own ominous words "Transform America". He claims to be a Constitutional lawyer but routinely uses it as a floor mat. His obscene misuse of taxpayer money to fund his family's lavish multi-million dollar vacations are a slap in the face to hard working Americans and to poor Americans. He has disgraced the office and damaged the country with his feckless and misguided foreign policy decisions. He is a Racist and a fraud. Trump's popularity reflects the depth of disdain America has for Obama. Trump is the anti-Obama.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.

I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.


If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.

Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.

You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.

'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.

To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.

I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"

It's "Sir" or "Mr. Catcher" to you.

Our nation defended itself after declaring Independence from a tyrannical king. We did not invade and occupy Great Britain; in fact until G.W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq our nation never invaded and occupied another sovereign nation until Bush, Cheney and Company invaded and occupied Iraq. We came close under Reagan (Grenada and Panama) but not to the degree and not with the consequences we observed during the Iraq Fiasco.

LOL you don't much about our history do you? We outright took land from Spain, England, France, and Portugal during our expansion, not to mention the native Americans. .


I guess you don't consider it to be an occupation if we ended up incorporating the territory into our own country?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.

I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.


If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.

Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.

You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.

'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.

To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.

I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"

It's "Sir" or "Mr. Catcher" to you.

Our nation defended itself after declaring Independence from a tyrannical king. We did not invade and occupy Great Britain; in fact until G.W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq our nation never invaded and occupied another sovereign nation until Bush, Cheney and Company invaded and occupied Iraq. We came close under Reagan (Grenada and Panama) but not to the degree and not with the consequences we observed during the Iraq Fiasco.

LOL you don't much about our history do you? We outright took land from Spain, England, France, and Portugal during our expansion, not to mention the native Americans. .


I guess you don't consider it to be an occupation if we ended up incorporating the territory into our own country?

I consider an occupation when when we invade a sovereign nation, causing the deaths of tens of thousand or more civilians and leaving 4,500 of our troops to come home in body bags during five years of occupation. What other event in our nation's history was so damaging to our nation and others? You forgot, Mexico and Canada, but most of the annexations were resolved via treaties, and none with the exception of the Indian Wars have had the far reaching consequences of the fiasco in Iraq.

 

[Katzndogz]

I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.

I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.


If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.

Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.

You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.

'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.

To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.

I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"

It's "Sir" or "Mr. Catcher" to you.

Our nation defended itself after declaring Independence from a tyrannical king. We did not invade and occupy Great Britain; in fact until G.W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq our nation never invaded and occupied another sovereign nation until Bush, Cheney and Company invaded and occupied Iraq. We came close under Reagan (Grenada and Panama) but not to the degree and not with the consequences we observed during the Iraq Fiasco.

LOL you don't much about our history do you? We outright took land from Spain, England, France, and Portugal during our expansion, not to mention the native Americans. .


I guess you don't consider it to be an occupation if we ended up incorporating the territory into our own country?

No it is not occupation of another country once it becomes your country.

Of course we never occupied any land belonging to the Native American. They never owned it. The native tribes had no concept of land ownership indeed no word for it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now, let's get back to the essence of the thread, Sedition or Protest, and where should the line be drawn?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.

I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.


If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.

Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.

You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.

'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.

To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.

I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"

It's "Sir" or "Mr. Catcher" to you.

Our nation defended itself after declaring Independence from a tyrannical king. We did not invade and occupy Great Britain; in fact until G.W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq our nation never invaded and occupied another sovereign nation until Bush, Cheney and Company invaded and occupied Iraq. We came close under Reagan (Grenada and Panama) but not to the degree and not with the consequences we observed during the Iraq Fiasco.

LOL you don't much about our history do you? We outright took land from Spain, England, France, and Portugal during our expansion, not to mention the native Americans. .


I guess you don't consider it to be an occupation if we ended up incorporating the territory into our own country?

No it is not occupation of another country once it becomes your country.

Of course we never occupied any land belonging to the Native American. They never owned it. The native tribes had no concept of land ownership indeed no word for it.

You can make things up and be credible, see:

occupancy

 

[PredFan]

Meh, the Democrats do it constantly. They said every manner of foul garbage about George Bush and then called for civility while 0bama is there. Trump isn't even the GOP nominee yet and they are already winding up the disgusting rhetoric.

Full blown hypocritical hack, every single one of them. No left winger has any real moral ground to complain about 0bama's treatment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Meh, the Democrats do it constantly. They said every manner of foul garbage about George Bush and then called for civility while 0bama is there. Trump isn't even the GOP nominee yet and they are already winding up the disgusting rhetoric.

Full blown hypocritical hack, every single one of them. No left winger has any real moral ground to complain about 0bama's treatment.

Not surprisingly, you've missed the point entirely.

• Sedition is defined as conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
• Protesting is to petition the government or to inform the population of a government action or policy to which one disagrees.

 

[PredFan]

Meh, the Democrats do it constantly. They said every manner of foul garbage about George Bush and then called for civility while 0bama is there. Trump isn't even the GOP nominee yet and they are already winding up the disgusting rhetoric.

Full blown hypocritical hack, every single one of them. No left winger has any real moral ground to complain about 0bama's treatment.

Not surprisingly, you've missed the point entirely.

• Sedition is defined as conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
• Protesting is to petition the government or to inform the population of a government action or policy to which one disagrees.

Not surprisingly, you cannot remember that you opened your OP with that nonsense.