Hey kids, I know that it is fun to demonize the other side

[nadinbrzezinski]

but believe it or not, what the republican minority of the minority is doing is not sedition. It is disgusting, It is abusive of the system that is written in that document they love to preach from, and rarely actually read. (It is in the hands of congress to actually approve spending) There are many things that are now showing the real cracks in our system of government, but that is another story. Nor is it treason, again that comes from that silly Constitution.

Here, Article Three

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So can we drop that kind of talk? It is bad enough and dangerous enough and it can lead to some real fireworks. We do not need to push it along with some old fashioned demonization and creation of the other, and I know they do it all the time.

Now stepping away, since I know this will not be popular.

FYI both of these terms were written the way they were since King George the Mad (III) loved to hang his enemies for treason. This could include things like sneezing, that the King found offensive. The man was utterly mad. But the Founders decided to make it very hard for a future government to abuse it.

These threads are rather unhelpful by the way. And before you say it, most have found their way to my personal trash bin.

[Turbineguy]

1. It's only natural to look for a reasonable solution.

Personally however, I think that instead of jail, a large, splintery damage control plug pounded into their asses is just the thing!

(Edited for size. )

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Well assuming this crisis does not deepen to the point I fear it could

part of it is elections. Even if I know throwing the bums out is harder than hell, PTT finds that a wave election might be in the offing. It's early and a year is an eternity, but.

The other is that once the crisis is over, there are some things we need to consider changing in the Constitution. I know poor Jefferson must be screaming from the grave about us dolts not changing what needs to be changed. He personally was a fan of a living document. (There you go originalist Scalia)

But that is the best case. There are nightmare scenarios here, and why this talk is unhelpful. They are crazy. They are religious nuts. sure. traitors and seditious types, nope, not even close.

Now if they pick up arms against the United States, that is treason and sedition. When they do, I will gladly join others in that talk.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. Where DID you learn to write? Brilliant prose.

Well assuming this crisis does not deepen to the point I fear it could part of it is elections. Even if I know throwing the bums out is harder than hell, PTT finds that a wave election might be in the offing. It's early and a year is an eternity, but.

Stunning

[steve2470]

40. fyi, English is not her first language

I normally don't defend nadin but she is from Mexico originally.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

55. I did not know this. I knew she was an accomplished woman,

But I had no idea she had developed tremendous skill as an English language correspondent after having learned it rather than it being her native tongue.

[HangOnKids]

52. Oh yes because you are a professional writer

Mighty snarky of you PW. Keep going, this is more than amusing now.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

54. That's just the point. I am not a professional writer and bow to the pros

And their prose. She may not be writing for Salon just yet, but anything is possible. I barely have command of the English language; therefor, I would be the last to critique a journalista's stylistic choices other than to say I was wowed.

[HangOnKids]

58. Keep it coming PW

Loose lips sink ships!

[Katashi_itto]

37. Sedition

Sedition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the legal term. For other uses, see Sedition (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with sedation.

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. In the US the definition comes from the US Code

Not Wikipedia. Moreover, since they are members of Congress they are shielded, as they are doing this in the performance of their duties. Now if, I don't know, Louis Goehmert takes up arms against the Government and even just follows others in the actual armed rebellion, then they have crossed that boundary.

No, they are not committing sedition by actually enforcing a power given to them in the Constitution. Granted, I doubt any of the founders could conceived of this form of tyranny. They could very well conceive the one stemming from a King, but that was in their experience. So this power in the hand of the People's House was seen as a control on the President, like declaring war. These two, I will remind you, are the two critical powers of congress. They pretty much surrendered the power to declare war, and I think they are wrong headed in what they are currently doing with the power of the purse. It might even explode a MIRV with multiple warheads in the world economy, but sedition it is not.

Language has a definite meaning.

[Katashi_itto]

39. No they are not sheilded, if you want the code, here's the US Constitution:

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) . The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress
...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

They can be charged and arrested. I'm not saying they will be arrested. But they are in violation.

Could Also be Bii:
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

[onenote]

42. You have misread the domestic terrorism provision

Reading statutes is something that non-lawyers often fail to to properly. The provision you seem to be relying on defines domestic terrorism as acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US or any state, AND, appear to be intended to...influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, AND occur primarily with the territorial jurisdiction of the US.

The first problem you have is that the actions taken by the House republican (or more precisely the action not taken) does violate any criminal law. Indeed, if you think that the repubs are violating a criminal law by refusing to pass a CR identical to one passed by the Senate then you also have to conclude that the Senate Democrats are committing the same crime by refusing to pass a CR identical one passed by the House. And you have to conclude that the President was threatening to commit a crime when he threatened to veto a CR that contained provisions relating to the ACA even if that CR had been approved by a majority of both the House and Senate.

Since I think we can safely assume you don't think that the Senate Democrats and the President have committed or threatened to commit a crime, it follows that there isn't any basis for charging the republicans with one either.

[Katashi_itto]

53. Fine. Then that means if they succeed, Democracy is effectively nullified by a

by a minority of a minority. This will be their chosen tactic again and again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Read the definition of treason

There is a reason people are not charged often with it, let alone members of congress. They are enforcing the power of the purse. I don't like it, one bit to be exact. I find it disgusting. But it is neither sedition or treason.

[NutmegYankee]

3. If you can claim that some idiot with a pistol strapped to his waist legally is a terrorist...

Despite all legalities to the contrary - Then I can definitely state that the Republicans in the House of Representatives are engaged in sedition.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Problem is I have not said that

But do carry on, by the way, don't bother answering. If you cannot be an adult, I don't have to talk to you. Welcome to the ever growing ignore list.

[NutmegYankee]

6. Oh really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3746590

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Tell me, are these people members of congress?

Regardless. open carry is one thing that you are trying to bring to a discussion of quite possible CIVIL WAR.

Regardless you go right ahead. Thinking that open carry is fine and dandy and DOES NOT terrorize people. Especially since the fans of such actions have expressed such thoughts themselves. They do want to change society around them.

Have a fantastic day.

[NutmegYankee]

15. I was taking an approach like your OP.

I was discussing the legal concept and the overuse of emotional terms. I am no fan of open carry just as I'm sure you're no fan of the Tea Party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. And I tell you once again, that open carry is archaic

and those who do it INTEND TO CHANGE the society they live in.

But hey, whatever. You want to bring that to this discussion, please proceed.

[NutmegYankee]

32. I don't disagree that it is archaic and stupid in modern day.

I just thought the use of the term terrorism was way over the top. Many movements use non-violent protest to attemp to change society. Some of the movements suck.

As for intimidation, friendly movements have used it as well. Take the union picket line - absolutely I want the scabs to be afraid to cross that line. We wouldn't actually attack them, but we sure put up a front.

[JVS]

11. You could just both be wrong.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Likely true

I just wanted to point out that when I was making the same argument she is making now, she had an opposing position. And she is correct by statue and I was correct by statute on the previous discussion.

I intensely disliked the Republicans before the shutdown, but after losing my income to furlough - I HATE them!

[NYC_SKP]

4. Everything old is new again.

1878-1920

February 17, 1906
"Treason of the Senate"

In February 1906, readers of Cosmopolitan magazine opened its pages to this statement: “Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be.” This indictment launched a nine-part series of articles entitled “Treason of the Senate.”

The “Treason” series placed the Senate at the center of a major drive by Progressive Era reformers to weaken the influence of large corporations and other major financial interests on government policy making. Direct popular election of senators fit perfectly with their campaign to bring government closer to the people.

As originally adopted, the Constitution provided for the election of senators by individual state legislatures. In the years following the Civil War, that system became increasingly subject to bribery, fraud, and deadlock. As Congress took on a greater role in shaping an industrializing nation, those with a major business stake in that development believed they could best exert their influence on the U.S. Senate by offering financial incentives to the state legislators who selected its members.

The campaign for direct election of senators took on new force in 1906, following conviction of two senators on corruption charges. Each had taken fees for interceding with federal agencies on behalf of business clients. The resulting negative publicity inspired publisher William Randolph Hearst, then a U.S. House member and owner of Cosmopolitan magazine, to commission popular novelist David Graham Phillips to prepare a series of investigative articles.

More at: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Treason_of_the_Senate.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. But that never ended up in a courtroom, now did it?

which is my point.

There has been ONE, exactly ONE situation where it has ended fitting the actual definition, and that was the actual civil war. We might be heading that way. I actually fear we are. When they take up arms, I will join all of you in calling it treason and sedition.

[NYC_SKP]

16. The point is that the word gets tossed around from time to time.

But in reality, the charge of treason requires a far more serious set of actions than can be traced to the tea party or the any members of the current congress.

People like to be dramatic and use the term even though it doesn't apply.

There's neither treason nor sedition, but there's plenty of assholery going on in DC...

It's a shame that it all plays as well as it does to that low-information voter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Hey I agree on the assholery comment

and I must welcome David Corn to the hair on fire, crisis talk. I have been calling these idiots the know nothing for years now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807565

[Skidmore]

26. And because it is ever so much more productive

to dsparage and kneecap our own.

[Finnmccool]

7. The spending was already approved

They are going after a specific law they disagree with. Could you give us the definition on sedition?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. In US law is picking up arms, it is a close cousin

Here

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

US Code
Notes
Updates

Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

Extremely good site. By the way, they are doing that, and more. Some state legislatures are going on nullification laws. One I even agree, has to do with the NDAA. That said, that does not make it seditious activity. What should worry people is that this happened to in the 1850s

[Laelth]

10. Hear, hear!

Elected officials are protected by governmental immunity for any act they take in the ordinary scope and course of their official duties. I.e., if the House is doing what the House does (and has the legitimate power to do), they're immune from prosecution for it, no matter how much we might not like what they're doing. If you don't like it, vote them out. That's about the only option.

-Laelth

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

12. They need to be accountable.

And they are above the law.

Fuck that.

They need to answer for their hypocritical stand.

Lock these morons in the House and not let them out - not even for a pee break or food. Until they pass the CR and they remove themselves from official capacity. And finally admit using Obamacare while they go seek mental help.

[Laelth]

17. They are, in fact, within the law doing what they're doing now.

We may not like it, but voting them out is the only real solution. Personally, I have already written to one House member (in a nearby district) expressing my disdain. I may write more, but charges of treason and sedition (of all things) are misplaced and counter-productive.

-Laelth

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

18. How about RICO charges? It actually fits...

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. It does not, what they are doing is exactly within the parameters of the Constitution

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

30. Except it's not.

It's extortion, plain and simple.

I won't call it treason or sedition but the Republicans are holding up the agreed to compromise of a continuing resolution, and Boehner is afraid to put it in a vote because everyone knows it will pass, so why can't Boehner ball up and take it like a man. Obamacare is just a red herring for something, except they picked the wrong subject to flog with - they have absolutely nothing and the American people know it.

He's already in a lose-lose situation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. If they were doing it as private citizens

You would be very correct. This is a problem in the founding document. The last time these failures were this obvious we had a civil war

[Niceguy1]

24. the are

Accountable via the elections.

At this point we have the Senate and the house in disagreement....both are refusing to vote on each others bills.

[onenote]

45. Who is going to lock them in. The repubs are in the majority in the House.

If you think that they're going to lock themselves in, I have a bridge to sell you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Here is one power POTUS could use

It is within his purview to do exactly that, by calling an emergency session. Just wanted to point this out.

Yup, POTUS could do that right now. But it is still the Speaker who brings the bills to the floor, separation of powers and all that. Dems are thinking of going around the Speaker using the very rarely used Discharge Petition. It's so rare that it is usually just threatened and most Speakers have the good sense to bring whatever legislation they have been holding back for a vote.

This is rarely understood in the age of the Imperial Presidency, but the Speaker of the House is the second most powerful man in DC. During the 19th century you could even argue it was the most powerful position.

[napkinz]

22. may not be sedition, but it's becoming TRADITION

... with these guys. One crisis after another the Teapublicans manufacture to bring down our economy and destroy the president

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. That is exactly where the major cracks in the Constitution lie

When there is compromise it works like a charm. When it fails, it does so spectacularly. Why it needs extensive changes. Mind you, they cannot be brought upon to be voted on in this environment.

Here. some of my thoughts on the deepening crisis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807565

[Uncle Joe]

23. In theory I agree with you but that begs the question is the United States at war with terrorists

as no doubt the Republicans and at least some Democrats contend?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Then you have to ask the question, does wrecking the U.S. economy give aid and comfort to the terrorists?

Logic tells me it does, they must be happy as hell about it, as the U.S. economy weakens, so does its' ability to engage in war.

Thanks for the thread, nadinbrzezinski.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Control of the purse is in the Constitution

that is article Article 1, Section 7. So they are using, or abusing depending on your point of view, a power granted to them by US Law.

That is where the logic fails.

[Uncle Joe]

29. I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution in the strictest sense, they're not committing

treason, they do have the power of the purse.

But they're also giving aid and comfort to the enemy whether they wish to admit it or not.

[onenote]

47. Did you feel that way when the Democrats tried and eventually succeeded

in passing legislation to cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

People who throw around charges of "treason" around here in all likelihood were not on the receiving end of such charges like a number of us who marched and protested the Vietnam War were.

[Uncle Joe]

50. The primary difference being was in "passing legislation" and not undermining

the operations of the government.

Unless the Democrats of that era shut it down while basically holding the nation hostage, but I'm not aware of such a thing happening.

Those Democrats had the courage of their convictions in voting to cut off funding, the same can't be said for the Republican Hostage Takers of today.

The Republican House won't even take a vote, that speaks to their lack of belief in any fiduciary responsibility to the nation.

[onenote]

60. Those of who marched and participated in the moratorium

wanted the government shut down and would have enthusiastically supported such action if the Democrats in Congress had taken it. So I guess the other side was right -- we were traitors.

[pinboy3niner]

61. Another excellent point, onenote

I appreciate your posts on these issues, which have been incisive.

Criminalizing political opponents certainly is not the answer, and is very dangerous to our democracy. You've been very effective in countering those who would sweep away the political opposition on charges of sedition or treason.

Keep up the good work!

[TheKentuckian]

68. "Dangerous to democracy" is the ability to destroy the economy as a response to laws passed they

don't like.

It is a flat out hostage situation and it is sedition in all practical effect even if you can find some legal carve out to hide behind.

How are you worried about democracy and not worried that some fucking gang of hijackers can just breeze in and kill the economy and/or hobble the government unless the democratically passed law is rescinded.

What form of "democracy" is that supposed to be? It is terrorism and far more damaging than the 9/11, World Trade Center attack, and the USS Cole all together and multiplied.

Voting them out isn't a solution because it doesn't repair the damage done nary a bit.

This isn't political opposition but rather terrorism that with malice and forethought are willfully seeking to destroy the faith and credit of the United States, to overturn democratically passed law via hostage taking, and knowingly endangering the health and safety of our citizens not via the vote but by clearly ransoming our national and global economy as well as any and all potential ability of our government to positively impact the general welfare.

What you and Nadine are doing is excusing and defending acts of terror and hijacking here. Probably out of good intent and a desire to be reasoned but it is what it is.

These fuckers should be captured or killed.

[pinboy3niner]

70. "These fuckers should be captured or killed"?

We've reached a pretty pass when statements like that can be made about opposition legislators.

Nadin and I may not agree on everything, but we both recognize the limits of the law here. Please do not mistake that for excusing or defending.

[TheKentuckian]

79. Good enough for the brown terrorist, good enough for the white ones.

Hell, that is our national response for even those not directly performing acts of terror. We droned to death a man and his innocent son for supposedly inciting terror.

These fuckers are up to far worse and that is being defended and excused, it seems to me. I don't see any other actual practical effect. You guys are saying that these people can override democratically upheld law via ransom and supersede the will of the people on their whim.

I consider this an act of war, no less than cyberterror of our financial markets would be seen as such and worse because these criminals are supposed to be stewards.

STOP LEGITIMIZING THESE TACTICS!

They must be called out in the harshest ways and made utterly beyond the pale, it is not legitimate governance by any stretch. I have zero tolerance for hijacking the country and ruling by self created crisis, it is criminal and anti-democratic in the extreme.

[Uncle Joe]

69. You weren't elected and you didn't swear an oath to uphold and defend

the Constitution as a fiduciary agent for the nation.

Furthermore I don't believe everyone that protested against the war with Vietnam wanted the government to shut down, they wanted the government to change policy.

Shutting down the government even during those days would've done nothing to end the war with Vietnam, but it would've hurt many innocent Americans.

If anything the political backlash against those in Congress who shut down the government would've only helped the powers that be in favor of the war.

[MNBrewer]

71. Giving aid and comfort to WHAT enemy?

[Uncle Joe]

72. We're supposedly at war with terrorists. Now if one agrees with that point,

then sabotaging our economy, (particulary in its' weakened state) which if taken to its' extreme will in turn undermine the nation's ability to wage war.

I imagine Al Qaeda is laughing their asses off at this debacle, surely that must be "comfort" and if the U.S. doesn't increase the debt limit and we default, the economic collapse will De Facto be "aid."

[MNBrewer]

73. that is a nonsensical bunch of crap.

Is President Obama giving "comfort" to al Qaeda by proposing military strikes against the Syrian military?

One could make a similarly stupid argument that he is.

[Uncle Joe]

74. There is a major difference between the executive or legislative branches making a

conscientious decision in running the government as opposed to that of deliberately closing it while provoking a potential economic collapse.

[MNBrewer]

75. Not in terms of giving "aid and comfort" to al Qaeda there's not

[Uncle Joe]

77. In terms of undermining the U.S. Government they are.

The Republican House swore an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution as such they become fiduciary agents representing the nation.

Should they not raise the debt limit causing the U.S. to default on its' obligations, they would be in direct violation of the 14th Amendment and have broken their oath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

[grantcart]

31. Good OP, this is just venting IMHO.

[maddezmom]

33. Kids?

While a agree with a lot you have to say here, I doubt you are going to connect with those you are trying to reach.

[randome]

34. Got that right!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[cyberswede]

36. Aw - I think it's just a generic salutation...

like you sometimes see in vintage advertising. I don't think she's referring to fellow DUers as children.

[bhikkhu]

41. "Adhering to enemies" of the US is unnecessary

if they become the enemy themselves. Anyone from the outside trying to bring down the US government and the economy would be clearly named as enemies of the state. But people in power doing it from the inside - we have to tiptoe around, mind our manners and be nice about it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Well, if you prefer what they have caused is a constitutional crisis.

That is precise. It is, IMHO, as serious as the last major crisis, not Watergate, Fort Sumpter. But what they are doing is exercising the power granted to the House by the US Constitution.

I did not say I like it. Just that it is not treason or sedition. The crisis might lead very well to what meets the actual legal definition of either or both terms.

[bhikkhu]

51. I suppose if they are doing it for purely ideological reasons, that's one thing

what I would like to see is whether they are positioned to profit financially from the predictable market effects. Which would be the same sort of thing as a certain few in the last big recession, who didn't just see it coming, but caused it to come, and then made a great deal of money off the crash.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. I have major issues with those particular laws

Anywhere else it's insider trading. But it comes down to who do you call when the cop runs a red light, or worst. In this case it's worst.

[onenote]

48. They've passed resolutions to fund the government,

the problem is that those resolutions include terms that are unacceptable to the Senate and the President (and rightly so). But its impossible to argue that one side in a stalemate over the terms on which the government will be funded is trying to bring down the government.

[Whisp]

44. Don't talk down to us with this stupid 'kid' thing. n/f/t.

[Jim Warren]

59. condescension is the mask of insecurity.

[Brickbat]

64. Par for the course from that one.

[Surya Gayatri]

67. Took the words right off my keyboard!

As if she/he is the only adult in the room.
A lesson in patronizing superciliousness.

[struggle4progress]

49. But IMHO they're all such stupid poopy-heads that it really ought to be against the law!

[sendero]

62. I agree.

... talk of "treason" or "sedition" is ridiculous and only makes us look like FR. There is no legal basis for the allegation, it's just the same kind of over-the-top emotional outburst that is causing this entire problem.

[FSogol]

63. Threads that critisize Democrats and DU are even more unhelpful that someone's obvious

exaggeration due to anger over the GOP's latest anti-American actions. Most of the treason/sedition posts on DU are clearly hyperbole and are only intended to make the point of how close to treason/sedition (in idea, not in the legal sense) the Republicans really come.

When someone says, it's a jungle out there, it doesn't really mean there is a jungle outside, it has a non-literal meaning. To pretend that the literal meaning is what the author intended and create condescending posts criticizing DUers is disgusting.

[Corruption Inc]

65. It's much easier for them to demonize others rather than look at themselves

or the bigger picture, which I'm sure you already know. Looking at the big picture requires a lot more thinking and the political sycophants are incapable due to self-imposed rational thinking restrictions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. The large picture is not pretty

I know.

This is part of the big picture

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807565

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. Treason and Sedition are not the same thing..

being the bonafide "investigative journalist that you are"....you know that right Nadin?

[dionysus]

78. the flight of the popinjay. nt