President Barack Obama a Traitor to the United States...

Not to mention the quote from Obama was made in April, 2008, and over the last almost five years,not even the looniest anti-Obamaists have thought it was treasonous until IVIr came along.

If only we had and armed dictionary militia this would be a much better world!

IVIr says:


<knock on the door>
"We're from the dictionary militia. We've heard from one of your neighbors that you've misused three different words in the last week, used them in senses where they clearly did not agree with the definitions we've established and published. This is a capital crime and constitutes treason against your country and the dictionary. Do you have anything to say in your defense before we pass sentence and execute you?"

Again, he's showing empathy for the reality of the people in middle America who have a deep frustration in government writ large. Nowhere in there does he say that those people will never vote for him as Romney did regarding his 47%. Romney gave up on 47% of the population ever voting for him. Obama stated that it's understandable, based on a 25 year history, that these folks are understandably disillusioned and his challenge is to convince them otherwise.

When did A2K become such an idiot magnet? One almost longs for the days of Massagato. ALMOST.

The Internet always brings out the right wing whack jobs posting nonsense. I hope they find some peace, and a really good, patient therapist, with a prescription pad.

But as my conclusion, I started with topic by saying: I will make a logical statement try to refute it.
There have been some well meaning attempts to refute which all fell apart via dictionary, constitution, or legal precedent.
But currently all there is complaining about points that don't really matter and off topic insults.
And believe it or not I'm too busy to waste time responding to those.
So thanks for the conversation.

I've thumbed you up

Murder isn't defined in the Constitution. Treason is. Treason requires an overt act witnessed by 2 people according to the US constitution. The acts in the first part require the second part to be valid and rise to the level of treason.
What overt act of aid and comfort do you have for evidence? It seems you have none. You have some vague notion. That means you don't rise to the level of the US Constitution. According to your idiotic ideas, failure to follow the US Constitution makes you a traitor.

Yeah. It's called the first amendment. It's what allows you to make such an idiot out of yourself.

Actually, your argument is not supported by the Constitution or legal precedent.

1. Treason is not defined in the Constitution the way you claimed it is.
2. The first amendment protects everyone when they voice political opinions including opinions of the Constitution and that includes the US President.
3. Voicing an opinion about the Constitution does not violate any oath to uphold the US Constitution. (See the first amendment and the ability to amend the Constitution.)
4. There is no legal precedent to accuse a Political figure of Treason just because he voices an opinion disagreed with by others.
5. "Adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort" requires more than just words. It must be an overt act that actually provides an actual enemy with actual aid and comfort.

Your arguments would be laughed out of any courtroom in the US. So this idea that you have knowledge of legal precedent or the US Constitution and your arguments somehow withstand scrutiny just because you say so is ludicrous.

Thanks man!

Hint: he's talking about the post by blueveinedthrobber he cites (notice the blue link?). Not you.

I'm glad our laws are based on a Constitution instead of a dictionary. Most dictionaries get revised/amended annually and only a small handful of people are consulted about it.

That's nothing. Some are online dictionaries and change as soon as you turn your back on them. So do many news stories, and I have never seen one that actually noted the change, error, or omission.

hmmm, your argument that Obama wants less gun regulation than Clinton doesn't hold water today, does it? Also, if you are going to call someone an idiot, maybe you should have an understanding of what you are talking about. You obviously don't. Anyone with the ability to think for themselves can see you are just repeating the same old liberal, limp wristed, panty waisted, bleeting heart rederick you here from MSNBC and the like. I suggest you clear your mind of the garbage you've been feeding it and then objectively read our constitution...and be honest with what you comprehend.

he's not trying to take your right to arms, he's trying to control it to stop unhinged people getting hold of military grade weapons with ammunition magazines that can hold more rounds than strictly neccessary and going on shooting sprees in built up areas. how many more dead innocent children will it take for you people to get over your frankly frightening love of firearms and realise that countries with controls in place don't see this kind of thing happen anywhere near as often?

*edit: typo

Hmm... And your argument won't make any sense in 100 years when MSNBC no longer exists. Does that make your argument wrong now?

But let's look at my argument in light of the recent statements. Please tell us what Obama has proposed that is more regulation of guns than was law under Clinton.

BARE ARMS !!

That was funny.

The rest of this isn't.