They should be tried for treason along with sedition.
A great post was here that showed how these tea baggers were guilty of sedition. I stuck it on Boner's Face Book page and also Ted Cruz's Face Book page. Some guy on Ted Cruz's page jumped on me but he seemed upset and there was back and forth and a couple of people chimed in and took my side. I realized then that treason seemed more appropriate, or at least I think so. Anyway here is the definition. I would love it if some people used it when they called some of our Democratic leaders in case they think it is a good idea to bring charges against the stupid idiots. That would certainly stop them in their tracks and they would not dare go over the ceiling cliff if charges of treason were looming against them. And I think they fit the definition. I also told Cruz that we know about how they planned this from the time of Obama's second inauguration and that it was funded by the Koch brothers. The fact that at his first inauguration their big plan was to ruin the president is attempting to overthrow the government right there.
Treason-the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government, treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness, sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion; high treason,lèse-majesté;apostasy;
literaryperfidy
= new reply since forum marked as read
it really is starting to get out of control and I fear for the consequences to our nation.
It's always an option to NOT hurt the US economy by negotiating with the opposition. By definition if you hold out against ending the stalemate for political considerations ("If we cave they'll keep doing this!"
then you become party to crashing the economy over political reasons. Then there is no sedition/hostage taking/whatever (not that there ever was) just political he-said/she-said to be sorted out during the next election cycle.
In practical terms we're going to have to balance the budget some day. If we keep borrowing and debt service exceeds tax receipts then we will default. Refusing to raise the debt limit doesn't cause a default, we can still service our debt from actual receipts per the 14A, we just find ourselves in a de facto balanced budget situation because we cannot conduct additional deficit spending for the remainder of government functions. THAT would be catastrophic because it pulls too much money too fast from the economy. I say head them off at the pass and demand a return to the Clinton era budgets adjusted for inflation (HINT -- it would also pave the way for a certain candidate to succeed Obama).
But it's all cool. I get less of that since I changed my Avatar, from the Aquateen Hunger Force, characters. 
Still new here and still learning. 
It is oddly disorienting. You think you have it pegged and dayum, they gotcha. Sometimes even in profiles people choose to leave it out, so you don't know. And sometimes the user name is ambiguous. Like mine, I suppose. You just can't tell. Maybe someday it will no longer matter.
Until then, I still wonder about, Pat. 
He is the one who allowed the Paula Jones civil case to go forward, claiming that it wouldn't take the president any more time to handle that it took him to play a round of golf. Five years and many millions of dollars later, Clinton was almost thrown out of office by assholes like Scalia.
He doesn't like ladies cursing?
Hey Scalia, you old bastard, why don't you go FUCK yourself????
Ahhhhhhh, that felt good.
