- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DJT on Slotkin/Mark Kelly video - Seditious behavior from traitors. Lock them up???
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:15 am to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:15 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
If its legal.
Based on what?
Sit down. This will hit you hard...
Answer: The law.
1
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:15 am to Saint Alfonzo
SFP and Roger are being obtuse. Anyone with a half a brain knows the intent behind that message was to sow distrust and confusion into US military soldiers.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:15 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
RogerTheShrubber
Just admit it: you know this is a blatant attempt to undermine the President and you agree with it just because you don't like him.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:16 am to Jugbow
quote:
Why are multiple democrats who dislike Trump making videos?
Are you new to politics?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:16 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Are you new to politics?
Are you finally acknowledging this group has an agenda?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:16 am to RogerTheShrubber
If only the republican leadership at the time put out a sweet YouTube video reminding service members that they didnt have to drone the frick out of Anwar Al-Awlaki, he would have gotten his due process!!
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:17 am to AlterDWI
quote:
Just admit it: you know this is a blatant attempt to undermine the President
How is obeying the law "undermining the president?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:18 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Willful ignorance is not an admirable quality.
Agreed.
But I don't actually think you're being willfully ignorant, I just think you're trolling.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:19 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
If only the republican leadership at the time put out a sweet YouTube video reminding service members that they didnt have to drone the frick out of Anwar Al-Awlaki,
They made plenty of noise over Obama's droning.
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) Senate Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday challenged the Obama administration to explicitly spell out its justification for using drones for targeted killings amid growing concerns about unchecked powers of the presidency and Americans' civil liberties.
"Even as President Obama commands a military with the most sophisticated weapons known to man, including the weaponized drones used in targeted killing operations, his authority is still grounded in words written more than 200 years ago," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at the start of a Senate hearing on the use of drones.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:19 am to RogerTheShrubber
Its not going unnoticed that you refuse to answer the question.
So the president will continue to issue what he, the DOJ, and the DOD deem as lawful orders, and the military MUST obey. Because.. you know....
So the president will continue to issue what he, the DOJ, and the DOD deem as lawful orders, and the military MUST obey. Because.. you know....
quote:
The law.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:19 am to BoomerandSooner
quote:
At some point you have to ask after 10 pages, is arguing about this worth the effort? You are not going to change each other's minds.
I'm a sucker for arguing.
Plus, I feel I've moved the needle with Roger- he's at least admitted there were fightin words involved.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:20 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
So the president will continue to issue what he, the DOJ, and the DOD deem as lawful orders, and the military MUST obey. Because.. you know....
Youre arguing something no one else is arguing, champ.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:20 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
How fricking stupid are you?
I don't think Roger is stupid, he and SFP just love to push people's buttons in the most condescending way possible.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:21 am to RogerTheShrubber
K
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:22 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
They locked Tina Peters up for this.
Update: they did not
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:23 am to BoomerandSooner
TDS first strikes the frontal and parietal lobes
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 11:23 am
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:28 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
How is obeying the law "undermining the president?
You're right. Just a friendly reminder from our Democrat civic leaders. No agenda there.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:29 am to Saint Alfonzo
quote:
Such as?
Ones that violate statutory law and/or the Constitution.
quote:
Google AI states that "sedition is overt behavior, such as speech, writing, or organizing, that aims to promote rebellion against an established government or authority."
Urging the military to disobey the Commander in Chief is seditious behavior.
Only if that behavior is illegal, which, again, leads back to my original question that you refuse to answer.
Ask Google AI if lawful behavior can be sedition. I'll do that for you:
quote:
No, lawful behavior cannot be sedition, as sedition is defined by overt acts of rebellion or violence against the government, which are inherently unlawful. While criticism and protest are protected forms of speech, sedition specifically involves actions like conspiring to use force, overthrowing government authority, or inciting immediate violence.
Legitimate, lawful activities like expressing political opinions, protesting, or holding institutions accountable are protected under the First Amendment and are not sedition.
Sedition involves unlawful acts: Sedition is defined as conduct that aims to incite rebellion or violence against the government, such as using force to oppose or delay the execution of a law.
Lawful protest is not sedition: Expressing dissent and holding institutions accountable through peaceful and constitutional means is a protected right and is not sedition.
Incitement to violence is the key: Simply advocating for force is generally protected, but speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is not.
Examples of sedition: Actions like distributing weapons, recruiting a rebel army, or attempting to physically harm government officials to overturn an election are considered seditious because they involve direct, unlawful actions.
Examples of lawful behavior: A person criticizing the government, refusing to salute the flag, or burning a flag as a form of protest are all examples of lawful behavior that are protected by the First Amendment, even if some may find them controversial.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:30 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Do you think those guardsmen should have disobeyed the orders?
That won't be necessary:
Judge Permanently Blocks National Guard Deployments to Portland for ICE Protests
By Anna Griffin
Reporting from Portland, Ore.
Nov. 7, 2025
President Trump overstepped his authority when he sought to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Ore., to protect the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office there, a federal judge ruled on Friday, issuing a permanent block on troop deployments to the city in response to anti-ICE demonstrations.
Judge Karin J. Immergut of U.S. District Court, who was nominated to the bench by Mr. Trump, had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking the president’s order federalizing National Guard soldiers in Oregon in a lawsuit that was brought by the States of Oregon and California and the City of Portland.
In her final 106-page ruling, Judge Immergut rejected arguments from government lawyers that protests at the ICE building made it impossible for federal officers to carry out immigration enforcement, represented a rebellion or raised the threat of rebellion. She also found that the attempt to use National Guard soldiers in Oregon had violated the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which gives states any powers not expressly assigned to the federal government.
LINK
...on Wednesday, [Oregon governor] Kotek stated that "all 200 Oregon citizen-soldiers are finally heading home," with Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield saying that the "federal government is finally doing the right thing and sending the Oregon Guard members home, where they belong, with their families and communities in time for the Thanksgiving holiday."
LINK
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:33 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
And everyone here complained.
Yes, we complained. But the order was legal simply because it came from the CIC. The order defied our constitution, but Obama wasn't jailed for it, and he never will be. In the military, many times the difference between legal and illegal is solely because the order came from the CIC.
What about putting Japanese people in internment camps? The constitutional rights of American citizens were denied for 4 years. Should American soldiers have decided for themselves not to follow those orders? Should FDR have been jailed?
The line between legal and illegal is at best blurred and at worst non-existent when it comes to our military and intelligence organizations. It can't be reduced to simply following legal orders only.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News