Political Funny Pictures Thread, pt. 2

[Kutnupe14]

So, since you made the obvious correlation would you say either yes it is, or no it isn't?

In a discussion of treason (which you broached) the question IS relevant.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I did no such thing. Ghitch is the guy who wants to compare Reagan to Obama, not me.

 

[ghitch75]

Actually we were not at war with Iran during the time of Reagan so, no treason.

Which means that since we were not at war with Iran during Obama, no treason.

so the war on terror over????

 

[Birds Away]

so the war on terror over????

How else would you legally define enemy?

 

[IndianaSoloMcfly]

These pictures are HILARIOUS

 

[2A_Tom]

I call it Treason. Selling arms to a nation that you consider an enemy, and trying to keep it a secret, typically seems to satisfy the definition of. But, that's back when words actually meant things.

so 2 billion to a terrorist state isn't treason?

Obama is listed as the only "not you" in the pic great presidents. I challenged the other pics. Your post isn't relevant.

You showed that you knew that Glitck was talking about Obama.





cor·re·la·tion

ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/

noun
noun: correlation; plural noun: correlations; noun: corelation; plural noun: corelations
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

"research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime"

 

[ghitch75]

How else would you legally define enemy?

if they are terrorist then they are the enemy if we are at war with terrorist...

 

[Birds Away]

if they are terrorist then they are the enemy if we are at war with terrorist...

To legally charge someone with treason there has to be an enemy. The "War on Terror" is a policy not a legal distinction such as a declaration of war by congress.

 

[AngryRooster]

These pictures are HILARIOUS

No kidding. About to break out the nastiest Hillary pics I can find.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You showed that you knew that Glitck was talking about Obama.





cor·re·la·tion

ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/

noun
noun: correlation; plural noun: correlations; noun: corelation; plural noun: corelations
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

"research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime"

Ok. Still not gonna drag me into nonsense... mainly because I don't have the confidence in my ability to explain it to you in a way you'd understand.

 

[ghitch75]

To legally charge someone with treason there has to be an enemy. The "War on Terror" is a policy not a legal distinction such as a declaration of war by congress.

didn't know that....i thought congress made it a declaration on 9/11

it was a act of congress.....

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

 

[2A_Tom]

Five myths about treason


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.fc1557c2d522

Good article

 

[snowdrifter]

 

[OakRiver]

I call it Treason. Selling arms to a nation that you consider an enemy, and trying to keep it a secret, typically seems to satisfy the definition of. But, that's back when words actually meant things.

Words still have meanings. In fact you were given the proper meaning of the word you used incorrectly. Just man up, admit you were wrong, and move along.

 

[KittySlayer]

Presidential Sibling Day...

 

[BugI02]

Actually we were not at war with Iran during the time of Reagan so, no treason.

Which means that since we were not at war with Iran during Obama, no treason.

Respectfully, BA; Artricle III Section 3 does not appear to require a state of war exist, only that entities be enemies of the United States

 

[BugI02]

How else would you legally define enemy?

How about putting them on the state sponsor of terror short list

 

[KittySlayer]

...and another Presidential Sibling Day photo...

 

[KittySlayer]

...and the Siblings keep on coming...

 

[ghitch75]

 

[HoughMade]

What a simple, simple world some people live in.

Where you don't have to think about the fact that ISRAEL was the one who actually funneled the weapons to Iran...and why would it ever do that? Because they want Iran better armed? Or maybe because there was upheaval in Iran and even the then-present Iranian government with its significant faults were better than the alternative of having Iran become cozy with the Soviets and gain access to weapons far beyond what was done in the Iran-Contra deal or having a new government take over that was completely unpredictable...and certainly even more dangerous to Israel and the U.S.

You also don't have to think about the fact that Iraq was overwhelming Iran in the war and maybe it was in the best interests of the U.S. for that war to go on and on....and weaken both countries.

No need to think about the fact that there was thought to, at least, be the potential of strengthening a more moderate faction within the Iranian government which wanted better relations with the U.S. and only approving it after assurances were given that this more moderate faction was opposed to terrorism and was actively combating it.

It's fine to question the wisdom of the plan...I've done that...but treason? That conclusion smacks of a position taken because of the identity of the president involved rather than what the reasons for the operation were.