Lindsey Graham: how the GOP fails to understand the nuances of the constitution, exh. #209

[dismal]

I understand the difference between a true threat and a false, bombastic one.

The fact that people like him are cowards who are nothing but talk is why I don't go out and buy a gun.

But the reason he says things like that is because he thinks it will get him votes. And the fact that people would vote for someone who says things like that shows that there are people, lots of them, who want to overthrow our democracy. We'd be fools to ignore that.

So you are walking back the treason charge?

 

[Sarpedon]

Not a bit of it. Threatening the congress with the military would be treason if he were in command of the military. I never said that Graham should be charged with treason. That was your infantile overreaction.

 

[Bronzeage]

Is treason protected by the Constitution?

Speaking an opinion that is different than the dear leader's is not treason.

That's not an answer to the question, but I didn't expect one.

 

[ideologyhunter]

....and Lindsey and Maverick John are supposed to be the moderate, sane wing of the G.O.P..........where's George Orwell when you need him?

 

[arkirk]

....and Lindsey and Maverick John are supposed to be the moderate, sane wing of the G.O.P..........where's George Orwell when you need him?

That's the problem when you have army of hired trained people whose purpose is to obey the Commander in Chief or any other authorized clique within government. They are essentially there to do "whatever" the people's propaganda boss wants. "The People" in this case however are the military industrial sponsors of the politicians in question. These men (McCain and Graham) do not belong in a democratic government. They are both staunch defenders of military and security controlled society and regularly use the necessity of secrecy in our government to justify outlays of public money for the purpose of controlling the public...not only of this country but indeed EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Unfortunately, this is not solely the province of Republican legislators.

Somewhere we went all wrong with our idea of what democracy should be. What we have today is a set of adversarial relationships between parties and corporations for control of parties with these clowns attempting to determine the outcomes. These politicians have short term goals for themselves to yield unto them power and wealth. If anything threatens that...say environmental considerations, the needs of retired people, the needs of society at large, etc...they resort to this type of snorting, pawing the ground and advocating military action. McCain thought nothing of bombing and napalming primitive people in Vietnam. Graham is a staunch supporter of the police state. True, this particular case is hyperbole, but then that is his specialty.

 

[fromderinside]

All the Republicans are waiting for is Queen Elisabeth to die so they can install a King for America!

Jeb Bush.

gotcha.

 

[dismal]

Not a bit of it. Threatening the congress with the military would be treason if he were in command of the military. I never said that Graham should be charged with treason. That was your infantile overreaction.

Oh, I'm sorry I thought when you said threatening the Congress with the Military is treason in a thread about Lindsey Graham making a comment about sending the military to congress you were suggesting Lindsey Graham had committed treason.

I didn't realize it was just an unrelated Tourette's Typing Syndrome sort of thing.

 

[dismal]

Speaking an opinion that is different than the dear leader's is not treason.

That's not an answer to the question, but I didn't expect one.

Well, good. Something weird about this Tourette's Typing syndrome that keeps causing you guys to bring up "treason" when you don't mean to apply it to what is being discussed.

 

[fromderinside]

That's not an answer to the question, but I didn't expect one.

Well, good. Something weird about this Tourette's Typing syndrome that keeps causing you guys to bring up "treason" when you don't mean to apply it to what is being discussed.

Missed something. Isn't it republicans who are calling president's actions and statements treasonous?

 

[arkirk]

That's not an answer to the question, but I didn't expect one.

Well, good. Something weird about this Tourette's Typing syndrome that keeps causing you guys to bring up "treason" when you don't mean to apply it to what is being discussed.

When a Graham cracker opens his big mouth...you get this! It was HIS IDEA, NOT OURS! If he did as he said he would do, that WOULD BE TREASON.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, I'm sorry I thought when you said threatening the Congress with the Military is treason in a thread about Lindsey Graham making a comment about sending the military to congress you were suggesting Lindsey Graham had committed treason.

And I find it amusing that someone who would chide someone about not knowing the difference between a true and hypothetical threat would show he doesn't know the difference between a true and hypothetical charge of treason.

Suggest you google the term "true threat".

And more from my unrelated Tourettes syndrome of typing:

Colonel Mustard: Are you trying to make me look stupid in front of the other guests?
Wadsworth: You don't need any help from me.
Mustard: That is right!

 

[dismal]

And I find it amusing that someone who would chide someone about not knowing the difference between a true and hypothetical threat would show he doesn't know the difference between a true and hypothetical charge of treason.

Suggest you google the term "true threat".

And more from my unrelated Tourettes syndrome of typing:

Colonel Mustard: Are you trying to make me look stupid in front of the other guests?
Wadsworth: You don't need any help from me.
Mustard: That is right!

So, you brought up treason in the context of something Lindsey Graham said in a thread about what Lindsey Graham said but I'm stupid for thinking you meant it to apply to what Lindsey Graham said?

Duly noted.

 

[Sarpedon]

Double standards make you look stupid.

You absolve graham of blame for threatening congress, because he hasn't the power to actually threaten congress. Yet you hold me to my supposed accusation of treason, even though I knew the same thing, that it wasn't REALLY treason, because it wasn't credible. Therefore he isn't REALLY guilty of treason. Knowing that, I didn't REALLY accuse him of treason.

If you would apply the same standards to me as well as Graham, you wouldn't look so stupid.

Another example of you imagining things: (emphasis added)

I'm stupid

Colonel Mustard: Are you trying to make me look stupid in front of the other guests?

You see, you transform a hypothetical charge of treason based on a hypothetical threat, into an actual charge of treason. And you transform looking stupid into actually being stupid.

I usually hate these semantic games, but there's a very real error of thinking here: You are so ready to transform criticism of outrageous statements into an attack on someone's liberty, that you are committing the same crime you accuse others of: that is, punishing people for speech. Graham has not been arrested, just as he hasn't actually threatened congress. His freedom of speech is uninfringed on, just like congress is unthreatened. Yet criticising him is somehow a real oppression of him.

That is my point.

 

[arkirk]

Is there only ONE TYPE OR INTERVENTION? What is wrong with Lindsay Graham is that he thinks every problem is a nail that needs his military hammer. At some point in situations where there has been excessive violence (examples: Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) would not a dollar spent on humanitarian aid buy more peace than another bomb or striker unit or drone? We are so locked into violence we cannot see past our own fears. There seems on the part of our leaders an perpetual reliance on failed policies of international violence and intrigue and we are AS GUILTY AS ISIS of only considering violence in response to violence, we are failing to see the ratio of success to failure of our present operations. We are building a world increasingly opposed to our country with our incipient assassinations and bombings. Even counting the World Trade Center, we have exported far more terror than any other country in the world.

Our way ahead should include efforts to defuse this continuing futile contest with enemies that are freshly made every day we continue military engagements. This is made all the worse because of our remote control wars. It is a long established fact that no war can ever be won with air power alone. Hasn't Obama looked into the history of air wars? Both sides in all these conflicts have done terrible things to each other and indeed the land and air and water where these conflicts are occurring. This cannot end without some form of forgiveness of very terrible acts indeed. Graham is just another voice in favor of continuing futility.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here is a photo of Lindsay in the White House.:

Show

 

[dismal]

Double standards make you look stupid.

You absolve graham of blame for threatening congress, because he hasn't the power to actually threaten congress. Yet you hold me to my supposed accusation of treason, even though I knew the same thing, that it wasn't REALLY treason, because it wasn't credible. Therefore he isn't REALLY guilty of treason. Knowing that, I didn't REALLY accuse him of treason.

If you would apply the same standards to me as well as Graham, you wouldn't look so stupid.

Another example of you imagining things: (emphasis added)

Colonel Mustard: Are you trying to make me look stupid in front of the other guests?

You see, you transform a hypothetical charge of treason based on a hypothetical threat, into an actual charge of treason. And you transform looking stupid into actually being stupid.

I usually hate these semantic games, but there's a very real error of thinking here: You are so ready to transform criticism of outrageous statements into an attack on someone's liberty, that you are committing the same crime you accuse others of: that is, punishing people for speech. Graham has not been arrested, just as he hasn't actually threatened congress. His freedom of speech is uninfringed on, just like congress is unthreatened. Yet criticising him is somehow a real oppression of him.

That is my point.

I absolve Lindsey Graham of treason because his actions do not meet any even slightly reasonable definition of treason.

I don't have great interest in absolving you of suggesting Lindsey Graham committed treason because it certainly appears to me that you did, barring some sort of Typing Tourette's or other unknown force that made a sentence about treason appear next to your name in this thread.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why don't you read this parable:

the stolen smell

 

[untermensche]

This isn't funny one bit.

He is a person with real power in this nation.

How does a system get so fucked up?

We are so past the need for violent Revolution without a hope of achieving one.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Lindsey Graham as president? Yeah right. Lindsey Graham: handsome moon shuttle pilot is more likely.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fact that they have freedom of speech doesn't immunize them from the consequences of what they say. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Actually it does immunize them from being arrested for speaking.

That's weird. It's usually the 2nd Amendment that the Right wants to read with the widest possible interpretation, not the First.