| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2006 03:32:19 PM |
| Object: |
Bush says loyal opposition is disloyal. *You* figure it out. |
Last week George W. Bush "told a veterans group that voters should
punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives 'comfort to our
adversaries.'
He said 'loyal opposition' is one thing, but defeatism is another,"
according to the Associated Press.
Perhaps George could define "loyal opposition" for us.
After all, we wouldn't want to accidentally give comfort to our
adverseries by voicing our opinions on his Iraq venture.
Should the "loyal opposition" sound something like this?
You know, I'm not sure that George Bush did a very good job of
planning post-war scenarios in Iraq.
And I'm not entirely comfortable with this whole "wiretapping without
a warrant" thing.
Nah.
That's probably a bit harsh.
What about this?
Boy, I sure am glad that George W. Bush is in charge.
The world is so much safer since he became president.
Better, but it still doesn't seem quite "loyal" enough.
Wait, I got it!
Dear George, ah wish ah cud quit yew.
Perfect.
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush says loyal opposition is disloyal. *You* figure it out. |
17 Jan 2006 03:32:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Last week George W. Bush "told a veterans group that voters should
punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives 'comfort to our
adversaries.'
He said 'loyal opposition' is one thing, but defeatism is another,"
according to the Associated Press.
Perhaps your mommy or your facilitator can help you with those big words?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne H. Wilhelm" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush says loyal opposition is disloyal. *You* figure it out. |
16 Jan 2006 04:26:46 PM |
|
|
Ok Harry.
Here's in plain english so even you can understand.
In Iraq, we have the enemy. We also have our military. When our military
finds out the enemy will be located at a certain location on a certain date,
our military will plan to attack at that location on that date.
Giving aid means you publish our military's plan in all the newspapers and
TV media so the enemy knows to not be at that location on that date. When
you classify the enemy as your friends and do everything you can to assist
them in defeating our military, that is called, treason. In the old days,
you could be shot or hanged for treason.
Another way you can assist the enemy is to publicize in all the newspapers
that certain military vehicles have too little armor in the passenger door.
That if they shoot at the passenger door, that they can kill our soldiers.
If you are not giving aid to the opponents, you would use proper, non-public
venues to try to get the problem corrected. I realize you have trouble
understanding this, but when you publicize in the newspapers how the enemy
can destroy our troops, the enemy is going to read it and use the weakness
to kill our troops.
Not giving comfort to the enemy means that if you have an objection to
something, you object via the courts or other secure area such that the
objection can be investigated but without notifying everybody in the world
which includes the enemy.
--Duh...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:p64os1hh4tvdrf47362bcr5f8jsf74ld1f@4ax.com...
Last week George W. Bush "told a veterans group that voters should
punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives 'comfort to our
adversaries.'
He said 'loyal opposition' is one thing, but defeatism is another,"
according to the Associated Press.
Perhaps George could define "loyal opposition" for us.
After all, we wouldn't want to accidentally give comfort to our
adverseries by voicing our opinions on his Iraq venture.
Should the "loyal opposition" sound something like this?
You know, I'm not sure that George Bush did a very good job of
planning post-war scenarios in Iraq.
And I'm not entirely comfortable with this whole "wiretapping without
a warrant" thing.
Nah.
That's probably a bit harsh.
What about this?
Boy, I sure am glad that George W. Bush is in charge.
The world is so much safer since he became president.
Better, but it still doesn't seem quite "loyal" enough.
Wait, I got it!
Dear George, ah wish ah cud quit yew.
Perfect.
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kilgore Trout" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush says loyal opposition is disloyal. *You* figure it out. |
16 Jan 2006 05:50:15 PM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in
news:G4Vyf.18095$PY6.1348@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Another way you can assist the enemy is to publicize in all the
newspapers that certain military vehicles have too little armor in the
passenger door. That if they shoot at the passenger door, that they
can kill our soldiers. If you are not giving aid to the opponents, you
would use proper, non-public venues to try to get the problem
corrected. I realize you have trouble understanding this, but when
you publicize in the newspapers how the enemy can destroy our troops,
the enemy is going to read it and use the weakness to kill our troops.
Only in the land of Wingnuttia is sending troops into battle with
inadequate equipment OK, but criticizing the President for sending the
troops into battle with inadequate equipment "treason".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush says loyal opposition is disloyal. *You* figure it out. |
16 Jan 2006 04:56:35 PM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <doremewayne@quadracalc.com> wrote in message
news:G4Vyf.18095$PY6.1348@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Ok Harry.
Here's in plain english so even you can understand.
In Iraq, we have the enemy. We also have our military. When our military
finds out the enemy will be located at a certain location on a certain
date,
our military will plan to attack at that location on that date.
Giving aid means you publish our military's plan in all the newspapers and
TV media so the enemy knows to not be at that location on that date. When
you classify the enemy as your friends and do everything you can to assist
them in defeating our military, that is called, treason. In the old days,
you could be shot or hanged for treason.
Another way you can assist the enemy is to publicize in all the newspapers
that certain military vehicles have too little armor in the passenger
door.
That if they shoot at the passenger door, that they can kill our soldiers.
If you are not giving aid to the opponents, you would use proper,
non-public
venues to try to get the problem corrected. I realize you have trouble
understanding this, but when you publicize in the newspapers how the enemy
can destroy our troops, the enemy is going to read it and use the weakness
to kill our troops.
Not giving comfort to the enemy means that if you have an objection to
something, you object via the courts or other secure area such that the
objection can be investigated but without notifying everybody in the world
which includes the enemy.
--Duh...
Duh is about the level of your logical ability.
This is an open country. WE have a constitutional right to free speech. We
have a repsonsibility to qustion our leaders.
Hiding from the citizenry in closed court, secret meetings, secure venues is
an anathema to freedom. It is the behavior of totalitarian regimes, not
democracies, to keep information from the public,
Just look at the NSA wiretapping. COngresscritters _objected_ to the plan,
but Bush invoked "national security" so he could ignore their objections AND
keep his illegal acts from the public.
Larry
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:p64os1hh4tvdrf47362bcr5f8jsf74ld1f@4ax.com...
Last week George W. Bush "told a veterans group that voters should
punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives 'comfort to our
adversaries.'
He said 'loyal opposition' is one thing, but defeatism is another,"
according to the Associated Press.
Perhaps George could define "loyal opposition" for us.
After all, we wouldn't want to accidentally give comfort to our
adverseries by voicing our opinions on his Iraq venture.
Should the "loyal opposition" sound something like this?
You know, I'm not sure that George Bush did a very good job of
planning post-war scenarios in Iraq.
And I'm not entirely comfortable with this whole "wiretapping without
a warrant" thing.
Nah.
That's probably a bit harsh.
What about this?
Boy, I sure am glad that George W. Bush is in charge.
The world is so much safer since he became president.
Better, but it still doesn't seem quite "loyal" enough.
Wait, I got it!
Dear George, ah wish ah cud quit yew.
Perfect.
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: Bush says loyal opposition is disloyal. *You* figure it out. |
16 Jan 2006 07:38:31 PM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" wrote:
Ok Harry.
Here's in plain english so even you can understand.
In Iraq, we have the enemy. We also have our military. When our military
What enemy is that? The ones we made?
finds out the enemy will be located at a certain location on a certain date,
our military will plan to attack at that location on that date.
Giving aid means you publish our military's plan in all the newspapers and
What plan was published in allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
the newspapers?
TV media so the enemy knows to not be at that location on that date. When
you classify the enemy as your friends and do everything you can to assist
them in defeating our military, that is called, treason. In the old days,
you could be shot or hanged for treason.
Another way you can assist the enemy is to publicize in all the newspapers
that certain military vehicles have too little armor in the passenger door.
That if they shoot at the passenger door, that they can kill our soldiers.
If you are not giving aid to the opponents, you would use proper, non-public
venues to try to get the problem corrected. I realize you have trouble
understanding this, but when you publicize in the newspapers how the enemy
can destroy our troops, the enemy is going to read it and use the weakness
to kill our troops.
So, what is it when the administration ADMITS the armor deficiency? oops
Not giving comfort to the enemy means that if you have an objection to
something, you object via the courts or other secure area such that the
objection can be investigated but without notifying everybody in the world
which includes the enemy.
--Duh...
And yet, you've said nothing to support anyone giving aid to the "enemy"...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:p64os1hh4tvdrf47362bcr5f8jsf74ld1f@4ax.com...
Last week George W. Bush "told a veterans group that voters should
punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives 'comfort to our
adversaries.'
He said 'loyal opposition' is one thing, but defeatism is another,"
according to the Associated Press.
Perhaps George could define "loyal opposition" for us.
After all, we wouldn't want to accidentally give comfort to our
adverseries by voicing our opinions on his Iraq venture.
Should the "loyal opposition" sound something like this?
You know, I'm not sure that George Bush did a very good job of
planning post-war scenarios in Iraq.
And I'm not entirely comfortable with this whole "wiretapping without
a warrant" thing.
Nah.
That's probably a bit harsh.
What about this?
Boy, I sure am glad that George W. Bush is in charge.
The world is so much safer since he became president.
Better, but it still doesn't seem quite "loyal" enough.
Wait, I got it!
Dear George, ah wish ah cud quit yew.
Perfect.
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush says loyal opposition is disloyal. *You* figure it out. |
16 Jan 2006 05:25:45 PM |
|
|
Wayne H. Wilhelm wrote:
Ok Harry.
Here's in plain english so even you can understand.
In Iraq, we have the enemy. We also have our military. When our military
finds out the enemy will be located at a certain location on a certain date,
our military will plan to attack at that location on that date.
Giving aid means you publish our military's plan in all the newspapers and
TV media so the enemy knows to not be at that location on that date.
Sounds like a straw man, can you provide a specific example?
I naively suppose that the military has a responsibility
to keep that sort of information secret. If the Press can
find that information on its won, so can the enemy. It
seems clear that what you describe would only be possible
if someone within the military violated protocol.
When
you classify the enemy as your friends and do everything you can to assist
them in defeating our military, that is called, treason. In the old days,
you could be shot or hanged for treason.
The first part of that is wrong.
Treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution.
This was done, one supposes, to prevent idiots such as yourself
from redefining it.
Providing material support or intelligence to the enemy is in fact,
STILL treason. People can still be executed (the precise means
is hardly relevent) for treason, after trial and conviction. Just like
two
hundred years ago. Calling the enemy 'freind' is not treason, nor
has it been treason in the United States since the ratification of
the Constitution. Advocating change in US policy is not treason.
Another way you can assist the enemy is to publicize in all the newspapers
that certain military vehicles have too little armor in the passenger door.
That if they shoot at the passenger door, that they can kill our soldiers.
As I recall this informatin was widely publicized back in 1993,
but not considered to be a major concern as one would expect
the enemy to shoot at our vehicles regardless, and of course
also because after the experience in Mogadishu no American
President would be sending troops into combat in those vehicles
again.
If you are not giving aid to the opponents, you would use proper, non-public
venues to try to get the problem corrected.
Where you will be ignored as the persons to shom you are complaining
were fully aware of those deficiencies.
I realize you have trouble
understanding this, but when you publicize in the newspapers how the enemy
can destroy our troops, the enemy is going to read it and use the weakness
to kill our troops.
Not giving comfort to the enemy means that if you have an objection to
something, you object via the courts or other secure area such that the
objection can be investigated but without notifying everybody in the world
which includes the enemy.
The courts are not secure areas.
The courts do not consider how the military shoudl be equipped, or
when and how the military would attack.
--
FF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
