(December 19, 2011 at 5:35 pm)aleialoura Wrote: He definitely needs to be watched.

Pretty sure he's going to get more attention than he wants. The Secret Service takes these sorts of things very seriously. He should expect a visit.

Thanks for pointing that out, Min. I am bookmarking that site. Could come in handy.

"Treason" has a specific definition under the constitution, Alei.

Quote:Section 3 - Treason

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.

Of course, for republibertarianeo-conazis "treason" apparently means voting to either tax the rich or help the poor/middle classes.

Republicans are the scourge of humanity. Selfish, greedy, bigoted, mini-minded scumbags.

---

And they think pride is a virtue.

(December 19, 2011 at 6:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: "Treason" has a specific definition under the constitution, Alei.

Quote:Section 3 - Treason

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.

Of course, for republibertarianeo-conazis "treason" apparently means voting to either tax the rich or help the poor/middle classes.

Bingo. The founding fathers wanted to make Treason a very serious & difficult charge to prove because the British handed charges of Treason against the Crown out like candy.

Now we have morons like Rick Perry who throw it around just as loosely.

Why assasinate him when he will go on his own in the next election?

That's not necessarily true, kilic. Have you taken a gander at his competition?

(December 20, 2011 at 1:04 pm)Shell B Wrote: That's not necessarily true, kilic. Have you taken a gander at his competition?

I have not yet, however I think he's playing his last hand, which is the "end of the war" in Iraq. I'm suspecting that secterial violence will "force" the American army to take control once more.
And there is still the Syrian problem to tackle.
I'm not sure the Obama can do any better than any other politician that you'll put in his place.
The only distinction there is between him and the others is that he is on the left of the political spectrum, and that he's black.

(December 20, 2011 at 3:40 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I'm suspecting that secterial violence will "force" the American army to take control once more.

That is highly unlikely. I don't think you really understand how this works from our end.