New Palin BK info

[North by Northwest]

That's not what I asked. Does it make her a Neo-Nazi? And what's this about treason?

If one is guilty by association, as Palin clearly believes from her statements about Obama, then she needs to own up to the NEO NAZI's associated with the AIP and the town, college she lived in in Idaho..the one where Mark Furhman moved to and where the founder of the AIP lived.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/200..._Northwest.html

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

If one is guilty by association, as Palin clearly believes from her statements about Obama, then she needs to own up to the NEO NAZI's associated with the AIP and the town, college she lived in in Idaho..the one where Mark Furhman moved to and where the founder of the AIP lived.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/200..._Northwest.html

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

You should step away from the keyboard for a while.....(and I'm not wasting time reading these links)

 

[North by Northwest]

You should step away from the keyboard for a while.....(and I'm not wasting time reading these links)

And you should step away from reading for a while if you don't like what is being posted...and not interested in reading links.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

And you should step away from reading for a while if you don't like what is being posted...and not interested in reading links.

Hey I could post a whole bunch of links too but not going to get into a p-match with you.

Watch for the unvarnished Sarah Palin on SNL soon (per CNN):

There are three more first-run "Saturday Night Live" episodes before the election. Starting Thursday, NBC is also airing three prime-time editions of the show at 9:30 p.m. EDT.

Palin told reporters on Tuesday she'd love to appear on the show with Fey.

"I love her, she's a hoot and she's so talented," Palin said. "It would be fun to meet her, imitate her and keep on giving her new material."


More enjoyable than more incessant left-wing drivel a la "Countdown" on MSNBC. Keith used to be entertaining to watch (same as Limbaugh and Stern) but their one-note song grows wearisome when that's their only tune. Too bad too because they are all some very smart people.

 

[Cosworth]

Keith used to be entertaining to watch (same as Limbaugh and Stern) but their one-note song grows wearisome when that's their only tune. Too bad too because they are all some very smart people.

They are business men selling a product to consumers. Given their increased popularity, they are selling what people seem to want.

 

[777 fixer]

If one is guilty by association, as Palin clearly believes from her statements about Obama, then she needs to own up to the NEO NAZI's associated with the AIP and the town, college she lived in in Idaho..the one where Mark Furhman moved to and where the founder of the AIP lived.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/200..._Northwest.html

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

So you want to play the guilt by association game.

< http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/t...-b_n_68575.html >

< http://wizbangpolitics.com/2007/12/21/ron-...for-picture.php >

< http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.p...mt=a&sort=A >

< http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...15-4532a7da84ca >

You might want to re-read that definition of treason again.

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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.

No where does it say making a threat against a US Senator or saying something stupid.

 

[North by Northwest]

So you want to play the guilt by association game.

< http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/t...-b_n_68575.html >

< http://wizbangpolitics.com/2007/12/21/ron-...for-picture.php >

< http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.p...mt=a&sort=A >

< http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...15-4532a7da84ca >

You might want to re-read that definition of treason again.

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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.

No where does it say making a threat against a US Senator or saying something stupid.

Actually it's pathetic DESPERATE losing Republicans that must resort to "guilt by association" as in Palin, McNasty. (PLEASE VOTE FOR US CAUSE WE ARE DESPERATE)

Do you really NEED to be educated on the law regarding making a threat against a Presidential candidate?

I don't need to re read anything...I suggest you learn the definition of " or breach of allegiance." Then follow the ranting of the Alaska Ind. Party *the one where Palin just gave a speech praising*


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode1...79----000-.html (this might help ya out)

 

[777 fixer]

Actually it's pathetic DESPERATE losing Republicans that must resort to "guilt by association" as in Palin, McNasty. (PLEASE VOTE FOR US CAUSE WE ARE DESPERATE)

Do you really NEED to be educated on the law regarding making a threat against a Presidential candidate?

I don't need to re read anything...I suggest you learn the definition of " or breach of allegiance." Then follow the ranting of the Alaska Ind. Party *the one where Palin just gave a speech praising*


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode1...79----000-.html (this might help ya out)

Don't want to talk about Ron Paul now? What's up with that? Let me guess, you realized that by your own definition Ron Paul is a Neo-Nazi.

You first mentioned treason in post #11 where you said...

I believe threatening the life of a Presidential candidate in the US amongst a crowd of people and does nothing...while as a VP candidate of the opposing party eggs them on...if a bit more than being an idiot. I suppose jfk's shooter was just an idiot too.

Her behavior coupled with what is known about her and her husbands background is cause for serious concern when she aims for a leadership position at the head of this nation. That was the same mentality that tore this nation a part once before. Hardly something to be so dismissive about. Treason, and those that attempt Treason is no laughing matter...any person who attempts or participates in undermining the authority or jurisdicton of the Federal Government of the United States certainly isn't acting in the best interest of the nation.

I'm trying to figure out who you are saying is guilty of treason. Your post seems to be a bit ambiguous about the subject. Are you referring to the person who made a threat against Obama? If you are it does fit the definition of treason. People who make threats against the president are not charged with treason. They are charged with making threats against the president. If you are saying Sara Palin is guilty of treason because of her husband that's just flat out ridiculous. Or because she supposedly made a speech praising it.

Here's a little historical fact for you. Jefferson Davis was charged with treason after the Civil War. However he was not convicted because the case was dropped. If Jefferson Davis could not be convicted of treason what chances do you think members of AIP have?

Here's another legal term for you, libel.

 

[North by Northwest]

Don't want to talk about Ron Paul now? What's up with that? Let me guess, you realized that by your own definition Ron Paul is a Neo-Nazi.

You first mentioned treason in post #11 where you said...

I believe threatening the life of a Presidential candidate in the US amongst a crowd of people and does nothing...while as a VP candidate of the opposing party eggs them on...if a bit more than being an idiot. I suppose jfk's shooter was just an idiot too.

Her behavior coupled with what is known about her and her husbands background is cause for serious concern when she aims for a leadership position at the head of this nation. That was the same mentality that tore this nation a part once before. Hardly something to be so dismissive about. Treason, and those that attempt Treason is no laughing matter...any person who attempts or participates in undermining the authority or jurisdicton of the Federal Government of the United States certainly isn't acting in the best interest of the nation.

I'm trying to figure out who you are saying is guilty of treason. Your post seems to be a bit ambiguous about the subject. Are you referring to the person who made a threat against Obama? If you are it does fit the definition of treason. People who make threats against the president are not charged with treason. They are charged with making threats against the president. If you are saying Sara Palin is guilty of treason because of her husband that's just flat out ridiculous. Or because she supposedly made a speech praising it.

Here's a little historical fact for you. Jefferson Davis was charged with treason after the Civil War. However he was not convicted because the case was dropped. If Jefferson Davis could not be convicted of treason what chances do you think members of AIP have?

Here's another legal term for you, libel.

Oh GOD..here we go. "Scotty, the DEFLECTOR SHIELDS" can't you people EVER stay on one issue.

"because she supposedly made a speech praising it". (She DID..look it up. Mr. Palin WAS a member...for a LONG time...look it up). Was Palin's "guilt by association" for Obama too ambiguous for you to grasp...thought not.

Treason was referenced to those who align themselves with those who may attempt to breach of allegiance of the United States. (for the THIRD TIME...clearly you just don't WANT to get it.) Now go look up the little boy scout club of the Alsaka I Party.

You go out into a crowd and yell KILL HIM about a Presidential candidate then let us know how the law works.

I see ...Ron Paul is guilty by association for taking money from stupid Neo Nazis and spending it for the good of people, and he's a Nazi while publicly telling people WHY he did it, yet Palin embraces Treason and the Nazi spawn that set up the Alaska Indep. party, but they are not. That about says it all for me.

You have difficulty understanding the Treason term again...re read my previous posts....I am tire of writing the same thing over and over again when you appear to be the only one that can't grasp it.


Here's a legal term for you...prove it.

 

[777 fixer]

Oh GOD..here we go. "Scotty, the DEFLECTOR SHIELDS" can't you people EVER stay on one issue.

"because she supposedly made a speech praising it". (She DID..look it up. Mr. Palin WAS a member...for a LONG time...look it up). Was Palin's "guilt by association" for Obama too ambiguous for you to grasp...thought not.

Treason was referenced to those who align themselves with those who may attempt to breach of allegiance of the United States. (for the THIRD TIME...clearly you just don't WANT to get it.) Now go look up the little boy scout club of the Alsaka I Party.

You go out into a crowd and yell KILL HIM about a Presidential candidate then let us know how the law works.

I see ...Ron Paul is guilty by association for taking money from stupid Neo Nazis and spending it for the good of people, and he's a Nazi while publicly telling people WHY he did it, yet Palin embraces Treason and the Nazi spawn that set up the Alaska Indep. party, but they are not. That about says it all for me.

You have difficulty understanding the Treason term again...re read my previous posts....I am tire of writing the same thing over and over again when you appear to be the only one that can't grasp it.


Here's a legal term for you...prove it.

Nothing to say about Jefferson Davis I see, why is that? I'm going to guess the reason for that is to acknowledge that little historical fact would be to acknowledge your argument holds no water. Answer me this, if they are guilty of treason why haven’t they been charged? Also, where does it say in the US Constitution that it is illegal for a state to secede? Remember, these people are not preaching the violent overthrow of the US Government or spying for a foreign country.

You go out into a crowd and yell KILL HIM about a Presidential candidate then let us know how the law works.

I do know this, it's not treason. Once again you obviously do not let facts get in your way. Fact: When someone threatens the President they are not charged with treason. They are charged with threatening the President. How is threatening a presidential candidate treason and threatening the actual President not treason?

Mr. Palin WAS a member...for a LONG time...look it up)

Irrelevant.

Here's a legal term for you...prove it.

Odd choice of words. Here's how it works in this country in case you did not know. If you accuse someone of something the burden of proof is on you. So if you accuse an individual of treason you have to prove it. If you make an accusation and it's not true that's called libel.

 

[777 fixer]

I see ...Ron Paul is guilty by association for taking money from stupid Neo Nazis and spending it for the good of people, and he's a Nazi while publicly telling people WHY he did it, yet Palin embraces Treason and the Nazi spawn that set up the Alaska Indep. party, but they are not. That about says it all for me.

I'm just using your definition, guilt by association. And it's more than just the money, it's the posing for pictures with Don Black. Then there's the New Republic article, doesn't make him a Nazi but makes you wonder.

 

[North by Northwest]

Nothing to say about Jefferson Davis I see, why is that? I'm going to guess the reason for that is to acknowledge that little historical fact would be to acknowledge your argument holds no water. Answer me this, if they are guilty of treason why haven’t they been charged? Also, where does it say in the US Constitution that it is illegal for a state to secede? Remember, these people are not preaching the violent overthrow of the US Government or spying for a foreign country.

You go out into a crowd and yell KILL HIM about a Presidential candidate then let us know how the law works.

I do know this, it's not treason. Once again you obviously do not let facts get in your way. Fact: When someone threatens the President they are not charged with treason. They are charged with threatening the President. How is threatening a presidential candidate treason and threatening the actual President not treason?

Mr. Palin WAS a member...for a LONG time...look it up)

Irrelevant.

Here's a legal term for you...prove it.

Odd choice of words. Here's how it works in this country in case you did not know. If you accuse someone of something the burden of proof is on you. So if you accuse an individual of treason you have to prove it. If you make an accusation and it's not true that's called libel.

Last I checked JDavis wasn't running for the VP of the US. Stop changing the subject. You worried about Libel? Sue me...be prepared for a counter punch the like that I am sure you can't afford. Otherwise stay on subject. You CAN'T defend Palin or McCain...so you jump to here and there. We are talking about NOW...you know, the people who are running NOW.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...ce_with_th.html

Moreover...until you reach the Supreme Court, I'd advise you to stop trying to give legal advice, you do know that is against the law, unless of course you can produce you license in a court of law.

 

[777 fixer]

Last I checked JDavis wasn't running for the VP of the US. Stop changing the subject. You worried about Libel? Sue me...be prepared for a counter punch the like that I am sure you can't afford. Otherwise stay on subject. You CAN'T defend Palin or McCain...so you jump to here and there. We are talking about NOW...you know, the people who are running NOW.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...ce_with_th.html

Moreover...until you reach the Supreme Court, I'd advise you to stop trying to give legal advice, you do know that is against the law, unless of course you can produce you license in a court of law.

Legal advice? You’re the one pretending to be the sea lawyer with all the answers not me.

When I was speaking about libel I was not talking about myself. I was referring to your false accusations of treason. Still dancing around the case of Jefferson Davis. This is a rather simple question. How is it that someone who was the leader of an armed attempt at secession never convicted of treason but somehow Sara Palin, her husband and some idiot in a crowd guilty of it?

 

[tech2101]

Palin addresses the 2008 AIP convention.

 

[777 fixer]

Palin addresses the 2008 AIP convention.

I've seen the video, does it mean she's guilty of treason?