FORUM RULES
Abuse of Honored Guest: Harassing our honored guests, altering quotes or usernames in an abusive way, impersonations, giving out personal information of others, posting Call-Out threads of members, or otherwise making them feel unwelcome is forbidden. The personal mailbox system is not to be used to harass or threaten other guests and all TOS rules apply.
Recently I was banned for following reason:
"abuse of guest
*People like you are enemies from within, traitors. Im really sick of it!*
Calling another guest a traitor."
I cant comprehend how I abused another member/s by expressing my opinion they would be traitors. My claim has to be understood in context, which was a debate about open borders and mass illegal immigration and contained more posts.
Could any of the moderators/admins elucidate that, pls? Thank you in advance
Heated political discussion is expected and it is recognized that feelings may be hurt. You agree that as a member of this board you do not have the right to not be offended
Moreover, just after the part about âabuse of guestâ the Forum rules underline that political debates might be harsh and that no one is entitled to have the claim they would be offendedâŚ
No, it isnt!
Its exactly the same as centuries ago someone inside a fortress had opened the gates, so the assaulters could get in. Imo all that judges who block the funding of the wall should be arrested and charged with treason. I know that you have defined in the Constitution what is to understand under âtreasonâ, but the term includes more than that, generally
The betrayal of allegiance toward oneâs own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.*
Advocating open borders and blocking the funding of border security, as it was proven that there is an assault on the southern border, its a hostile act against USA, no matter whats written in the Constitution or what the US law consider to be âtreasonâ
You likened migrants coming into the US as invading forces trying to swarm and capture a castle for themselves.
Thus you are begging the question when you assume someone saying they would be for open borders is being treasonous to the country because you assume the truth that migrants wanting to come here constitutes a hostile invasion whose goal is harm to the United States when that is simply not the case.
I pointed out to you that in the eyes of the law it is very specific what treason is, and what you have posted as a definition isnât adjudicated in a court of law as treason.
So to that I would say shall we just start locking people up based on what we think a law or the constitution ought to be?
Bottom line it isnât treason, and if one canât accept what is the legally defined definition of what treason is or understand that them bad old judges canât be arrested and locked up because of what you believe something is ⌠well then thats too bad.
The reasons why assaulters tried to capture a fortress are very different. Often it was because inside a fortress had been treasures, provisions, so they did it in order to benefit. Most of migrants are coming to the west for about the same reasons. But talking about the law, here is another aspect which must be taken in consideration. Passing the border is ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL. Those Americans who advocate it, commit treason because they support actually the breaking of the law. Having open borders over a longer period of time, can lead to a failed state. As well an aspect why advocating open borders can be considered treason
