Fred the Red Shirt
August 19th 04, 07:56 PM
Robert Briggs > wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >
> > > >...
> > > > One supposes that an organisation that has a reputation for
> > > > accurate research would be disinclined to include a childish
> > > > slur in the title to their article.
> > > >
> > > > One also supposes that an organisation that has a reputation for
> > > > accurate research would know that treason is defined in the
> > > > Constitution, precisely because the founding Fathers wanted
> > > > to put it beyond the power of the government to criminalise
> > > > dissent. They would also know that 'aid and comfort' are a
> > > > term of art which refers to material assistance, and that an
> > > > enemy of the US incidentally derives some benefit from political
> > > > dissent within the US does not render dissent treasonous. Would
> > > > the SEAL Authentication Team argue that LBJ comitted treason
> > > > when he halted the bombing of North Vietnam? Surely that decision
> > > > was of immense benefit to the enemy.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, selling arms to Iran while the US was fighting against Iran
> > > > in a war in the Persian Gulf, that would qualify as treason, right?
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > I can't find a Bainridge, Maryland.
> > >
> > > Your argument seems remarkably feeble if it depends on such a minor
> > > mistyping of "Bainbridge", either by Ed or by some previous author.
> >
> > The mispelling is also found elsewhere on the web so I don't think
> > Mr Rasimus is at fault.
>
> So that would be the "or by some previous author" bit, then.
Yes.
>
> Apparently you agree that your argument is remarkably feeble.
No. However your argument is as feeble as it is contemptible
inasmuch as it relies upon removing my argument from your replies.
It is precisely the sort of dishonest approach one has come to
expect from supposed Bush supporters.
--
FF
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >
> > > >...
> > > > One supposes that an organisation that has a reputation for
> > > > accurate research would be disinclined to include a childish
> > > > slur in the title to their article.
> > > >
> > > > One also supposes that an organisation that has a reputation for
> > > > accurate research would know that treason is defined in the
> > > > Constitution, precisely because the founding Fathers wanted
> > > > to put it beyond the power of the government to criminalise
> > > > dissent. They would also know that 'aid and comfort' are a
> > > > term of art which refers to material assistance, and that an
> > > > enemy of the US incidentally derives some benefit from political
> > > > dissent within the US does not render dissent treasonous. Would
> > > > the SEAL Authentication Team argue that LBJ comitted treason
> > > > when he halted the bombing of North Vietnam? Surely that decision
> > > > was of immense benefit to the enemy.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, selling arms to Iran while the US was fighting against Iran
> > > > in a war in the Persian Gulf, that would qualify as treason, right?
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > I can't find a Bainridge, Maryland.
> > >
> > > Your argument seems remarkably feeble if it depends on such a minor
> > > mistyping of "Bainbridge", either by Ed or by some previous author.
> >
> > The mispelling is also found elsewhere on the web so I don't think
> > Mr Rasimus is at fault.
>
> So that would be the "or by some previous author" bit, then.
Yes.
>
> Apparently you agree that your argument is remarkably feeble.
No. However your argument is as feeble as it is contemptible
inasmuch as it relies upon removing my argument from your replies.
It is precisely the sort of dishonest approach one has come to
expect from supposed Bush supporters.
--
FF