Oh good gravy....Sedition??

[sirs]

Funny how all the "Bush = Hitler" & "Republicans are a bunch nazi racist fascists" rhetoric was simply citizens excercising their 1st amendment rights, and that it's patriotic to disagree with any administration.  Apparently that only applies to Republican administrations, and apparently simply trying to call those who disagree with Obama as racists isn't working well enough.  Now disagreeing with him is tantamount to illegal

Time's Klein: Beck, Palin Potentially Committing Sedition against U.S. Government; Heilemann Adds Limbaugh
By Jeff Poor
Sun, 04/18/2010

Liberals are all too often eager to charge conservative personalities of using hyperbole to gain a political advantage, especially when it contradicts their world view - whether it's suggesting the Obama administration is taking the country down the path of socialism, fascism or any other -ism.

However, it could be argued there's a different set of standards for those same people when they want to make strong charges. On NBC's April 18 "The Chris Matthews Show," Time columnist Joe Klein all but accused former GOP vice-presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, along with Fox News host Glenn Beck of sedition.

"I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious."

As Klein pointed out, the legal definition of sedition is "a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority." And, sedition has been declared a felony in Supreme Court opinions, thus making Klein's national television accusation a fairly serious one, one of which New York magazine's John Heilemann agreed with. However, Heilemann added conservative talker Rush Limbaugh to that list.

"And Joe's right and I'll name another person, I'll name Rush Limbaugh who uses this phrase constantly and talks about the Obama administration as a regime," Heilemann said. "That phrase which has connotations of tyranny. And what's so interesting about it to me, to get to Norah's point - what is the focus, what is the cause of this? You think back to 1994, there was Ruby Ridge. There was Waco. There were triggering incidents. There's been nothing like that. The only thing that's changed in the last 15 months is the election of Barack Obama. And as far as I can see, in terms of the policies that Obama has implemented, there's nothing."

Heilemann also suggested that the alleged up tick in militia activity is a result of the Obama presidency. Klein said it was not only the Obama presidency, but that he was "African-American," and had "Hussein" as a middle name, along with the "scary" economic crisis.

"Two are two things going on here and one thing is certainly that," Klein said. "One thing is he is African-American, but that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The other we've had a very scary economic crisis. And when people get scared, they get defensive and they get a little crazy."


There is not a single founding father who would agree with the policies of Obama and Democrats

[sirs]

Former President Bill Clinton says he worries that the world perceives an America too immersed in its own internal political squabbles.

Clinton tells NBC that's one reason he likes the image of working with former President George W. Bush to lead fundraising efforts for earthquake-stricken Haiti.

In an interview with Bush's daughter Jenna, broadcast on Monday's "Today" show, Clinton said high-decibel political fights at home are a turnoff for many in the world. He says, "People are just sick of all of us fighting all the time. It's a reminder that there are some things that are just beyond politics."



Unless of course it's a Republican President & Administration

[sirs]

And the idiocy continues, now on display in Mass

Patrick says Obama critics are 'almost at the level of sedition'

Governor Deval Patrick, even as he decried partisanship in Washington, said today that Republican opposition to President Obama?s agenda has become so obstinate that it ?is almost at the level of sedition.?

The Democratic governor, who is close to the president, made the comments at a forum at Suffolk Law School's Rappaport Center, where he was asked by an audience member about partisan battling in Congress.

Patrick said that even "on my worst day, when I?m most frustrated about folks who seem to rooting for failure," he doesn't face anything like the opposition faced by the president.

"It seems like child?s play compared to what is going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels to like me,? Patrick said.

Merriam-Webster.com, the dictionary site, defines sedition as "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.''

After the forum, Patrick explained his remarks.

?I think that the number of people in the Grand Old Party who seem to be absolutely committed to saying ?no,' whenever he says ?yes,? no matter what it is, even if it?s an idea that they came up with, is just extraordinary,? the governor told reporters after the forum.

But did the opposition really border on sedition?

?That was a rhetorical flourish,? Patrick said.

In a statement released a few hours after his comments were posted on Boston.com and other websites, the chairwoman of the state Republican Party criticized Patrick.

"Apparently our First Amendment rights are only guaranteed if we agree with the tax-and-spend policies of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama,'' Jennifer Nassour, chairwoman of the state GOP, said.

She added, "the governor should focus on the critical issues at hand, like (lowering) property taxes and controlling rampant spending, instead of defending his buddy President Obama."


How dare anyone oppose "the Chosen"

[Universe Prince]

Watching people who argue that rights are privileges granted by government complain about this sort of thing would be funny if it were not so sad.

[sirs]

Even funnier would be in demonstrating what right is being argued as a privilege & vice-versa.  No one has a right to enter another person's home, without permission.  No one has a right to enter another person's country, again without "permission"

[Universe Prince]

Even funnier would be in demonstrating what right is being argued as a privilege

This is simple. Do you think rights are granted by the Constitution or not?

[sirs]

No, by God.  Constitution merely helps provide a written record of them.  Now, your turn, what right is being argued as a privilege & vice-versa?

I can't demand to come into your home, without your permission, right?  Why not?

[Universe Prince]

No, by God.  Constitution merely helps provide a written record of them.

So you agree then that non-U.S. citizens have equal protection with U.S. citizens from right infringement by the U.S. government?

Now, your turn, what right is being argued as a privilege & vice-versa?

I can't demand to come into your home, without your permission, right?  Why not?

Sirs, I have already wasted time with you on the immigration debate and the fallacy of the U.S. as privately owned house argument. If you want to rehash it, feel free to go back and read what I wrote previously on the matter. I have no motivation to waste more time on it.

[sirs]

No, by God.  Constitution merely helps provide a written record of them.

So you agree then that non-U.S. citizens have equal protection with U.S. citizens from right infringement by the U.S. government?

Nope.  American Citizens are what's provided Constitutional protections.  Non U.S. citizens have no rights that would impose over any one else's rights, especially that of U.S. citizens

Nice try though

Now, your turn, what right is being argued as a privilege & vice-versa?  I can't demand to come into your home, without your permission, right?  Why not? 

Sirs, I have already wasted time with you on the immigration debate and the fallacy of the U.S. as privately owned house argument. If you want to rehash it, feel free to go back and read what I wrote previously on the matter. I have no motivation to waste more time on it.

Oh I see how this works.  You ask a question, expecting a reponse.  I provide one, civil, and specific.  I do the same, and get the above frak.  Fine, you're done.  Best not respond to any more of my posts, regarding this topic.  Wouldn't want to cause you undo stress and hypertension

[Universe Prince]

Nope.  American Citizens are what's provided Constitutional protections.

Ah, so everyone has rights, but only U.S. citizens deserve to have their rights protected. Okay. (That's me using your debate tactic.)

Non U.S. citizens have no rights that would impose over any one else's rights, especially that of U.S. citizens

No one said anything about non-U.S. citizens having rights that "impose over" someone else's rights. So I don't know why you're talking about that.

Oh I see how this works.  You ask a question, expecting a reponse.  I provide one, civil, and specific.  I do the same, and get the above frak.  Fine, you're done.  Best not respond to any more of my posts, regarding this topic.  Wouldn't want to cause you undo stress and hypertension

Sirs, I am not shamed by refusing to rehash an argument you and I already had, and had quite recently. I have no desire to do it all over again. I don't even know why you want to bring immigration into this discussion.

[sirs]

No one said anything about "deserving" anything, but you were on the right path.  And the rights non-americans would be imposing, that you frequently advocate, one way or another, is to enter this country, without our permission.  Validated by your concession you made back when you referenced justification for their actions.  

Yes, we know that's not completely what you said, (nothing ever is), you want SOME form of governed entrance, though it's largely tantamount to asking them if they're having a good day, then stand aside and wave as they pass by.

There is no justification or right of a non-american to ignore our law and our soveignty as a nation.  (now stand back....sirs is about to capitalize another word.....drum roll) NONE.  I don't care how "bad" they have it in their country, or how better they wish to make their lives, they either respect our laws, or they get no respect from me.  

------------------------------------------------------

Now getting back to the title in question, dare I ask, is it reasonable to conclude how moronic & asainine it is for some liberal Democrats in trying to accuse others of some form of sedition for daring to not roll with Obama's agenda??

[Universe Prince]

Yes, we know that's not completely what you said, (nothing ever is), you want SOME form of governed entrance, though it's largely tantamount to asking them if they're having a good day, then stand aside and wave as they pass by.

Checking for known criminals and illnesses is not the same as doing nothing. But if you want to lie about my position, go ahead. No reason for honest debate to start now.

[sirs]

Why am I not surprised you'd ignore the question posed, or the issue of respecting our laws and sovereignty.  You did already go on record as intending to.  Not sure what I was thinking, to have thought otherwise     

[Universe Prince]

Sirs, I don't see why I should answer your questions when you're only going to lie about my answers.

[sirs]

Your version of lie Prince, as it relates to me and the topic of immigration, is when you opine 2+2 = 4, and I infer you said 1+2+1 = 4 

You have a few options here
- to demonstrate how I said one thing but knew it to mean something else, thus making it a "lie"
- while I have consistently been answering your questions, ignore my sarcasm & hyperbole that I HAVE used, to answer the question(s) I've posed
- ignore my posts all together.  Save yourself the high heartrate


Knowing you and the person I do respect, I'd hope you'd go with 1 of the 1st 2.