Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Sedition [View all]

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
35. The author mispelled "stupid" as "impertinent"
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 12:26 PM
Nov 2013

(1) When did shrinking government automatically become sedition? Near as I can tell national defense is an obligation of the federal government but patriots can petition for the shrinking of the national defense budget.

(2) intimidation and bribery? Sounds like so much hyperbolic nonsense. But assuming such things occurred by their legal definition there are already laws against intimidation and bribery -- which aren't sedition, they're intimidation and bribery.

(3) "taking over state governments" Is this how the author describes it when Democrats win state legislative majorities and they get to redistrict? Try doing an image search for "Democratic gerrymandered districts." We aren't exactly entitled to cast the first stone here.

(4) "running a vast PR campaign" Apparently the author doesn't like the 1st Amendment and wants criminalize speech he doesn't agree with. That strikes me as fairly seditious. The remedy for bad speech is more speech.

(5) "buying up the media" These are publically traded companies. Anybody can buy stakes and there are plenty of deep pockets on the Democrat side of the aisle. If we want a better voice we need to compete by offering products the consumer wants. It takes just as many button pushes to get to MSNBC as it does to get to Fox. People are choosing for a reason, we need to tap into those reasons. We also have Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, salon.com, Slate, The New Republic, etc. etc. etc. All of these are just a hyperlink away from whoever wants them.

Really, you do yourself a disfavor reading such manifestly ridiculous tripe.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Sedition [View all] Cryptoad Nov 2013 OP
yup, I've been saying that also gopiscrap Nov 2013 #1
Question? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #2
Refusing to pay the bills. n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #3
Can you show me the law concerning that? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #4
Are you playing gotcha? I'm sure you can figure it out. n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #6
No, but if you can't cite the law, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #7
There is no specific law. Avalux Nov 2013 #10
So they're not committing sedition? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #13
I never said they were committing sedition. Avalux Nov 2013 #16
Be careful what you wish for, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #20
Seems that there is no longer Cryptoad Nov 2013 #23
The corporations are not currently happy with the GOP. randome Nov 2013 #26
As I said, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #28
Very true. Avalux Nov 2013 #34
"Congress is required to fund the government" Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #32
It's almost entirely inaccurate. dairydog91 Nov 2013 #40
I concur but you would be amazed at how persistent this idea has been. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #43
Okay, you want to know the law . . . brush Nov 2013 #37
Apparently, the legal authorities disagree with you. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #38
I see you didn't re-read the graphic with the OP. brush Nov 2013 #39
If they tried that, the only people committing sedition would be the DOJ and the President. dairydog91 Nov 2013 #41
So should Barack Obama have been arrested in 2006 for voting not to raise the debt ceiling? Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #9
It's not the President's job to fund the government. n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #11
He was a Senator at the time. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #12
I stand corrected. Maybe I should go back to bed! n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #17
He wasn't President Obama in 2006, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #14
Its called Sedition,,,,,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #5
No, it's not. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #8
Tell you what, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #15
So you are saying ,,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #18
Once again, who in any authority is calling for sedition charges to be brought against Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #19
Who said anything about ,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #21
How about, instead of calling for something that's never going to happen, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #22
Are you a Seer Cryptoad Nov 2013 #29
You seem to confuse the 1st Amendment with sedition. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #30
This is more than stupid and irresponislbe shit they are talking,,,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #31
In all that gobbeldygoop, there was only one crime, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #33
The author mispelled "stupid" as "impertinent" Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #35
Yes! Let's set the legal precedent that can be used against Democrats the next time Lurks Often Nov 2013 #24
No, a good case for that cannot be made. cthulu2016 Nov 2013 #25
this is just silly - let's drop it DrDan Nov 2013 #27
I'd like to hear this "good case" for the arrest and trial of members of Congress. Dr. Strange Nov 2013 #36
ANd you know who have been spreading rumors about being locked up in camps for years malaise Nov 2013 #42
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sedition»Reply #35